Blog Post Rolling Out Pay-Per-View Next Month

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

Be prepared to pay up for watching live-casters like Chris Pirillo any day now, as is preparing to launch a pay-per-view service. The live streaming startup is rolling out its premium offering with a few of its broadcasters next month, according to a report, with plans to open up the offering to everyone in the second quarter of 2010. is modeling its revenue split after the iTunes Store, and the company’s VP of marketing told that the new offering will finally make it possible to make “digital dollars” instead of just dimes online.

Pay-per-view for live streaming isn’t exactly a new idea. Stickam launched a similar service almost 18 months ago, and Ustream has been talking about charging viewers for live video in the past as well. In fact,’s own CEO Michael Seibel toyed with the idea almost two years ago. Back then, he told the Silicon Alley Insider that the company was working on a combination of “pay-per-view, Craigslist and eBay.” You know, minus the hookers and ridiculous shipping fees.

Actually, it sounds like is now taking a more traditional pay-per-view approach. Broadcasters will be able to set their own fees, with single live shows starting at $1 each. There will also be an option to do subscription services, which could be especially interesting for regular broadcasters with an audience willing to pay. will handle all the billing and charge a flat 30 percent fee on any pay-per-view or subscription sales.

That’s slightly different than the pricing structure of Stickam’s Payperlive program, which it rolled out gradually beginning in July 2008. Stickam offers broadcasters a number of different service plans with scaling bandwidth allocations, revenue splits and monthly fees. The cheapest plan, which includes 100 GB of bandwidth, costs $19 per month, on top of which Stickam charges 25 percent per ticket sold. The so-called platinum plan costs $79 per month, but broadcasters keep 85 percent of their pay-per-view revenue. has lately been in the headlines for its attempts to appease rights holders with copyright filters. Pay-per-view could actually help the company strike deals with sports leagues that don’t want to see their video transmitted for free, but we’ll have to wait and see whether’s audience will bite.

18 Responses to “ Rolling Out Pay-Per-View Next Month”

  1. Well it sounded like a good idea until they started changing the site completely. Since this was written most of the community features are gone and they never did make this happen as far as I know. I broadcast Final Fantasy Radio on there 24/7 and I have to disagree with the “illegal content” stuff. There is very little that gets passed the people there who keep it a lot more in line with the corporate owners of things, much like YouTube.

  2. jtv_famous

    Does this mean the site is trying to be legitimate? Maybe they will finally do something about all the pedos and mega pervs aside from the frauds and creep trolls. I doubt anybody will want pay to see all the lag the site has to offer. Every “update” the site makes the broadcasters already complain about how they mess things up even worse.

  3. bobobobobob

    this is going to backfire im all ready paying out the a** for internet i found a free broadcasting site i like. i would like to stay here but if jtv is going to be a pay per view then not only i will leave but 9/10 of the ppl here will leave to and then ether the site will go back to be free or the site will get shutdown

  4. “You know, minus the hookers and ridiculous shipping fees.” Last I checked JTV is CHOCKED FULL of hookers. Also PPV would encourage MORE of said hookers to make the JTV migration. Aside from this +1.

  5. As we all know this will result a big fail

    i agree with the comment stating NEW users should pay to sign up but leave alone whoever already is a part of the site and view…don’t already penalize anyone with jtv already…

    my personal thoughts…jtv-fail

  6. Dannyphantomsgf

    knowing jtv, this sounds like something they’d do. first they released beta (yeah and what a fiasco THAT was.) chats rarely work, streams rarely work, almost nothing works now thanks to ‘beta’ and now, they plan on making us pay, without a known fact of whether the stream/chat will even WORK?! thats low even for them. i’m with many of my friends on this one. moving to Ustream, UFrag os Livestream because this is just plain BS.

  7. Hmm lets see, but I suspect the end result will be fail. I Understand what they are trying to do here but in the end, the herd will simply move. I am talking about those like me that have ditched cable and gone to watching content online. We will continue to move around to each free site until no free site is left then switch to a different medium. You can best bet close attention is being paid to similar plans by Hulu and others. The big question is in the end why am I going to pay for content when I can go get it for free from the major networks own websites.

  8. Bad idea, I know of many broadcasters on that are planning on going to the other free broadcasting channel if jtv does this and charges the viewers and dosen’t at least give the option for current broadcasters and signed up viewers on jtv already the option to choose if they want to pay or not. The new viewers that dont have a account should have to pay to sign up the same for new broadcasters. No point in penalizing people that are already on there and have been for years by forcing them to pay for what most broadcasters would rather have be free for the viewers anyway!
    The only thing that will happen is, It would fail just like there option for people to be a paying pro member did.