You told us: You'd skip YouTube Premium in favor of paying for an ad-blocker

YouTube stepped up its fight against ad-blockers in 2023, launching a three-strikes policy as well as intentionally delaying video playback for those with ad-blockers enabled.

It’s clear that many people feel aggrieved by the company’s anti-ad-blocking offensive. But would you go so far as to forego YouTube Premium in favor of paying for an effective ad-blocker that works on the platform? We posed this question a few days ago, and here’s how you responded.

Would you rather pay for an adblocker for YouTube than YouTube Premium?

Results

This was an extremely popular poll, with almost 4,400 votes counted. It turns out that a massive 75.5% of polled readers would rather pay for an ad-blocker that works with YouTube Premium.

Oddly enough, there weren’t many comments directly justifying this choice. But there were readers who lamented the sheer number of ads in the first place.

I’m guessing that some of these respondents who voted this way are assuming that this theoretical, paid YouTube ad-blocker would be a once-off purchase at a nominal fee rather than a subscription or a hefty once-off price. I’m also betting that some of these voters are simply sending a message to Google with their vote rather than actually having any plans to buy an effective ad-blocker.

Otherwise, just 24.5% of polled readers said they wouldn’t opt for a paid ad-blocker over YouTube Premium. There’s some logic to this approach, as coughing up for Premium is an effective, reliable way of removing YouTube’s ads.

Comments

• Domjan: The problem with YouTube ads is that they keep interupting actual content you watching every 3 minutes or so. If Google wants to run ads then do it before actual vlog you watching and at end of the vlog without SKIP button because you loose interest if you interupted every 3 minutes.
• Charlie: I’ve had premium for a while now, because I really wanted YouTube Music Premium and you got YouTube Premium (maybe they used to call it RED) with it. Honestly, I can’t go back. I don’t know how people do it. Plus, YouTube Music is great.
• OldNetizen: As a creator of short form videos that don’t get viral levels of views, I can tell you this new policy is death for me. How many people are going to sit through 30 seconds of commercials before being allowed to watch a two minute video? And to add insult to injury, I apparently get enough views to attract ads but not enough to actually get paid. So my views are through the floor, and I don’t see a penny of benefit. But Google gets to add another 0.000001% to their revenue on each quarterly report. Thanks, Google.
• Radiohedgefund: Even if the amount paid doesn’t amount to that much compared to sponsorships, by blocking adverts with a 3rd party you are taking revenue away from creators which is not cool. Should YouTube have a smaller cut? Probably. Should there be less ads on mobile and proper commercial breaks on TV? Yes, absolutely. But completely blocking adverts doesn’t help smaller channels grow.
• masamunecyrus: I am actually)y a subscriber to YouTube Premium, but I use adblock at work, because I do not want to (nor am I technically allowed) login to my personal account at work. The adblock crackdown has been a headache for that use case. Additionally, I NEVER use YouTube Music, nor background downloads, and it is frustrating that YouTube does not offer a simple ad-free option. I suspect they know that most people are in that boat, and $12/month is way too expensive to simply remove ads, and if they offered a cheaper simple ad-free option (like they briefly did in Europe) then they’d lose money.
• mtn mosin: I have premium, there’s so many ads now with every 3 minutes of a video going to sponsors. I thought I needed a ad blocker until my subscription lapsed for a day and I saw what YouTube was like without premium. I made it all of 8 minutes before turning it off. Id pay more money to get rid of the sponsor crap too.