You're viewing a single thread.
I honestly think that YouTube has to embrace something similar to what Twitch does with subscriptions to specific content creators where they get around 50% of the subscription cost. I personally don't value YouTube Premium because I know nothing goes to content creators except for the fact that it covers ad revenue income without showing ads.
It sounds like you might be misinformed - a YouTube Premium subscriber watching your YouTube videos is worth, IIRC, 5 to 10 times more than an ad supported view for the content creator. I know a number of content creators have indicated as much for years - I wish I could cite a specific WAN Show episode from Linus Tech Tips who I'm certain has talked about it many times.
I found this clip of Linus talking about it, but no concrete numbers: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MDsJJRNXjYI&t=420
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=MDsJJRNXjYI&t=420
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I personally don't value YouTube Premium because I know nothing goes to content creators except for the fact that it covers ad revenue income without showing ads.
Uh. Half of the cost of premium gets distributed to the creators you watch, and it's a non-insignificant amount of money.
That's actually awesome then. Sad it's still not transparent with this. And I believe many people consider this strictly beneficial to google.
The problem with the twitch model is as soon as you are watching more than one person regularly, Twitch Turbo is cheaper to get rid of ads from everyone.
Plus if you just want to add extra support for someone, YouTube does already have the members feature which generally adds more value than twitch subscriptions