You’ve seen it a thousand times. You’re watching a video from one of your favorite creators, and just below the title, nestled next to the subscribe button, is another, often more colorful option: “Join.”
It’s YouTube’s gateway to a deeper level of fandom. For a few dollars a month, you get access to exclusive emojis, special badges, and the holy grail: members-only content. On the surface, it’s a perfect win-win. Creators get a stable, recurring income stream to support their work, and the most dedicated fans get a VIP pass to bonus content and a closer connection.
But what if that “Join” button, designed to build a core community, is actually pushing a much larger audience away?
Recently, a major creator made a surprising move: they shut down their members-only content entirely. The reason? They felt it was creating a divide and actively discouraging viewers from engaging with their main, free content. And it’s a decision that has sent ripples through the creator community, forcing many to ask a tough question: are we building a club or a wall?
The Two-Tier Audience Problem
Let’s talk about how this feels from a viewer’s perspective. You love a channel. You watch every video, you like, you comment. Then, at the end of a video, the creator teases an exclusive, members-only follow-up. Maybe it’s a behind-the-scenes look, a longer, uncut version, or the final results of a project.
Suddenly, you’re on the outside looking in.
You’re no longer just a fan; you’re a non-paying fan. The community now feels like it has two tiers: the “haves” who get the full story, and the “have-nots” who get the public-facing version. This can create a subtle feeling of resentment. The main content can start to feel like an advertisement for the paid content, leaving casual viewers feeling like their loyalty isn’t enough.
It’s like being invited to a party, only to find out the best conversations and coolest activities are happening in a VIP room you can’t enter. You might stick around for a bit, but eventually, you’ll probably just leave.
The Creator’s Dilemma: The Dream vs. The Reality
From the creator’s side, the logic behind memberships is completely sound. The YouTube ad market is notoriously volatile. One month can be great, the next can be a financial disaster. Memberships offer a predictable lifeline. It’s a way to thank the superfans who want to offer more support and give them something special in return. The intention is almost always positive.
But the execution is a tightrope walk. To make the membership feel valuable, the exclusive content has to be genuinely good. But if it’s too good, it risks cannibalizing the main channel. Viewers might start thinking, “Why watch the free video when the real video is behind the paywall?”
This can lead to a slow erosion of the main channel’s engagement. Comments might fill up with complaints about the paywall instead of discussions about the video’s content. Overall views might stagnate because the non-paying majority feels disconnected. The creator, who started the feature to strengthen their community, might find they’ve accidentally fractured it.
Choosing Community Over Exclusivity
The decision to pull back from members-only content is a bold one. It means turning down a guaranteed source of income in favor of a less tangible, long-term investment: goodwill.
By removing the paywall, a creator is essentially saying, “Everyone is welcome here. All of you are the core community, not just those who pay.” It reunites the audience, making the free content feel whole and complete again. It’s a strategic choice to prioritize broad audience growth and a unified community over a smaller, monetized one.
It’s a sign that for some, the true value isn’t in the monthly subscription fee, but in the undivided attention and loyalty of their entire audience. The “Join” button remains a powerful tool, but it’s becoming clear that the cost of exclusivity can sometimes be higher than the price of admission.
