Slashdot Mirror
Google to Distribute Online Video Ads
sufijazz writes to mention an AP story about Google's plan to start distributing online video ads. From the article: "The video expansion, announced late Monday, will affect thousands of Web sites that rely on Google to post ads related to the surrounding material on a page. For instance, a news story about housing might prompt Google to display an ad for real estate agents. Google isn't allowing the video ads to appear on its own Web site -- a heavily trafficked destination that produced 58 percent of its $2.25 billion in revenue during the first three months of this year."
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
Nearly every site will blast annoying sounds out the instant I visit the page? We'll have to surf porn with the sound turned down?
Task Mangler
FTA: "The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button."
The appeal to me is precisely that I don't have to watch the ads if I don't want to. Thank goodness.
Of course, advertisers are probably less enthused -- but I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't think they'll mind to much - from tfa:
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If the Eolas patent "Click To Activate" crap ever makes it to Firefox, I'll have to click on the ad to have it rammed down my throat? Sure, of course I will. If I didn't, it'd be like stealing the Internet.
Not only is this a waste of bandwidth, but Google became so popular because of their clear, textual interface. And that included their ads which were usually easily visible and not obnoxious to look at. I will actually click on relevant text links, but I don't click on banner ads or video ads, ever.
Hopefully this won't turn out as bad as it sounds.
Presently here, but not there.
>> The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
Its close, but still - what if I dont want any video ad appearing on my website through adsense? Do people have choice of "only text"/"text and video"/"video only"?
There is really not much to bitch about here. It is a still ad with the ability to become a video ad.
Slashdot already has those fancy Microsoft video ads, and thiers are set to autoplay! Although, thank FSM, they are muted from the start and the user gets to activate the sound.
Slashdot has ads?
;-)
/. crowd can accept video ads (from MS no less), then the rest of the internet will lap up video ads that aren't forced on you.
*fires up IE*
Damnit you're right!
and yes, your point was completely valid, if the
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I'm puzzled, there has been some speculation of Google working on Flash ads support, but I didn't expect videos to make it before Flash.
Of course, the video player of Google (the online one) is working inside Flash, and uses Flash video, but why not allow *any* Flash content as an ad?
For once, what would be a 1MB video could easily fit into less than 100k vector and procedural (scripting enhanced) animation using the full toolset of Flash.
---
Of course, last but not least, I wonder where is the promise of Google to always deliver light non-intrusive ads. Text-only ads were so great, but soon polluted by big image banner ads (not on the Google's site yet, but on google ad enhanced sites), and now... videos.
Google is walking on a thin line right now.
Sorry, I completely forget about Ad-Block and similar features within user setups that are available. I am at work, I have to get the slow served, full featured internet. God forbid I try and save my office some bandwidth by editing my System32 "hosts" file.
The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button.
The activation feature could discourage many advertisers from signing up for the new video service, said Jupiter Research analyst David Card. "This isn't going to be a game changer for Google, but it gives them a much richer palette."
</FTA>
It really isn't that bad, although I don't know how many people are going to click the ads. I'm sure some will to start, just for the novalty, but over time, I doubt this will be a big revenue generator for Google (wasn't that an original opinion considering the quote from Mr. Card!).
I wonder if the video will work on *nix anyway, and if it doesn't, whose going to bother installing the codec and plugin to make it work?
Google could get themselves into trouble though, if they let those pictures be animated, but I'm sure they know not to do that, otherwise they would just have the video start automatically.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seus
Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.
This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.
As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
While your point is valid, I would add one caveat - that the bit about having to click on the ad to see the video is the way it will work right now. As the article notes, advertisers aren't too happy about that. This could just be the camel's nose in the tent ...
Video based ads really get your attention, they are usually more entertaining that just a flashy logo and the companys latest deal that we see in flash ads.
Why is this a good thing? Everyone who visits a site will actually see the ad rather than ignore it, so webmasters can demand more money and stop producing websites that try and trick you into clicking an ads and stuff.
Video is a proven model or advertizing, ask someone what was the last web ad they seen? now ask someone what was the last tv commerical?
Maybe advertizers will start demanding better content?
Maybe we will see a whole new industry built on creating video ads for the web?
Video ads usually get your attention with something entertaining... Some nice eye candy...
This will really put a push on building better networks and pushing broadband, maybe advertizers will start putting pressure on broadband providers... Demand for bandwidth with money behind it, unlike bittorrent which is a demand for bandwidth without any money behind it.
Ofcourse there is the bad side, it dose suck if your on dialup or slow broadband, or have a slower computer, but all you have to do is uninstall flash or not install it in the first place, hell this might be the push we need to have average joe buy a new computer and broadband...
God, root, what is the difference?
I often "Shoot the duck" or "Stomp on the spider" or "Kill the ninja" or whatever while I'm waiting for a page to load (as pages that tend to have these adds tend to load slow). I use Firefox so when I "win" the popup doesn't appear. I just get to have a little bit of guilty pleasure. This is an interesting more. It seems to be on the face or it a poor one from what I can see, similar to what people have already states, advertisers aren't going to be happy. Then again, Google ads are very popular because they are non-intrusive. If you have non-intrusive video adds you will still be reaching the large audience Google Ads already reaches. And don't forget, if they don't click on it, its still a picture add (presumably). I guess Google are banking on advertisers realising this. See annoying add. Block it/Ignore it. See picture of something interesting. Click to play, go to website. Which would get more? Time will tell I guess.
i use Firefox+adblock.
But i do not block the text only adSens.
Sometimes the have relevant info and i use them.
I DO however block all flash/image ads.
And the second google adds images or video i add them to my blocklist.
And i don't think im alone.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Potential broadband customer: "Why should I get broadband?"
Salesman: "Then you can watch video ads!"
PBC: "..."
I'm currently using. . .
NukeAnything Enhanced
Flashblock 1.5
on top of Firefox/1.5.0.1
I have no trouble Nuking flash banners. Maybe you can get some use out of that. . .
Cheers!
-FL
A reminder to people who use the AdSense service (and not those of you who like to spout without knowing what you are talking about) - you can set your prefs so that only text ads will be displayed.
Brielle
There is a happy medium and Google has found it.
Naw... I'll argue you'll find most people not playing the ads, and Google will have to adjust their strategy accordingly.
IMO, it's not a good move at all, advertisers won't go for it...
If you were watching a TV show, and it said "turn to channel 35 for great info on adult diapers", would you be as inclined to turn to channel 35? Perhaps if you were truly interested, but advertising isn't about that.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I suspect that it works much like the Google Video previews.
;)
Go to Google Video, and search for something. Note the play buttons to see a short preview of the clip.
Click the button. It uses JavaScript to load the preview in Flash.
I don't know if you've tried the Filterset.g updater extension, but I've found it to be a real time saver. It updates Adblock with a list of ad servers so you don't have to. The only ads I've seen since installing it have been quirky ones that are actually served by the domain I'm visiting.
Having worked on the video playback component in Flash and Flex (I'm an engineer at Adobe), I feel obligated to enlighten you on the bandwidth implications for users visiting web sites containing Flash-based video ads.
There are three ways to play video in Flash:
Of these, the first one is recommended only for extremely small video clips (5 seconds or less), because embedding the video into the SWF, aside from providing poor quality playback, also bloats the size of the SWF file.
The other two have their pros and cons each, but they have one thing in common: video is downloaded only when requested. Streaming (option 3) has the additional advantage of requesting video frame-by-frame, whereas in the case of HTTP download, the entire file is requested at once (though the download can be aborted at any point during playback).
So, take a chill pill. The world is not coming to an end. If you don't want to see the ads, don't click on the play button.