Drive + Youtube channel?

[Rob S]

I'm not sure if this has been covered on here, but wondered what peoples views were regards the Drive + channel on YT.
For those that don't know, Drive was a collection of shows ranging from new top of the range sports cars tested on road and track (often sideways) by Chris Harris, to old school and left field stuff tuned by people and then road tested by Matt Farah. There was a period of "Americanisation" even for Chris Harris's stuff, but all the episodes were free to view, even in HD.
The people behind Drive now say it's too expensive to keep running as they were, so have now started putting the full content behind a subscription only service. It's only £2.99 a month, BUT this brings me to the discussion point.
EVO and several other brands have not done this with their channels. It might be they can adsorb the costs where Drive can't, but what irked me recently was an episode where Harris explained the finance on HIS new Ferrari FF cost him £1500 a month. Could nt help but think personal choices and lifestyle decisions were being paid for by the viewer, hence the sudden need for additional income (Over simplifying it massively but I hope you take my point)
So there you go, for me I won't be paying as while I enjoyed the videos, I don't feel inclined to pay for someone who already has a dream job, to have a dream motor on his own driveway.
Where are other people on this?

[pablo]

I just think it's more about greed. Once something becomes popular the price goes up. When sky bought the rights to the countrys national sport 'Football' just so they could make more money off the working man, i was disgusted. Even though I don't watch football. Now they have done the same with F1. For this reason alone I will never have sky.

They aren't interested in or care what we think or feel it's simple economics and greed. As real world prices go up and working patterns are so varied people seem to have less time to endulge in hobbies, so they turn to the next best thing. Watching it on telly. If you haven't got the time or can't afford the costs of going to watch your local team it's cheaper and easier to pay sky and sit at home and watch it.

Take track days. When I first started they were fairly cheap but as they got popular circuits realised, ching ching, and the prices sored. Resession hit petrol increased and people stayed at home, now prices are dropping.

It use to be the more people that wanted something the cheaper it was. Now it's more a case of the more people want something the more it's going to costs. Everyone wants to be a millionaire in 3 years.

[maff]

Its a bit of a strange one, I used to watch some of the videos, and certainly wont now its subscription.

But the premise of Youtube is "Get lots of views and you get a cut of the Ad revenue" that's why pop stars don't mind their music on there 'free'. I'm sure they've done the maths but shoving it behind a pay wall will surely cut the viewership massively, so less Ad revenue.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Guess they think have a product worth paying for, is it better value for money than copy of Evo?

[RX7]

Funnily enough my youtube recommendations included this channel so I had a look and was shocked about the £2.99 a month.

Sadly seems to be the way of the world these days to pay subscription costs for things.

I agree and won't be paying that to watch a vid that will most likely be hosted for free on other sites !

[maff]

Just found this, very much to his credit Chris Harris discusses the actual figures involved:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=30564

Short version is Youtube (Google) paid for the first two years now its up to them, and the Ad revenue wasn't cutting it.