Slashdot Mirror
Google Video Runs Ads & Shares the Profits
god4twenty writes "Google announced yesterday that they are testing ads on videos on the Google Video service, matching capabilities that other video services have had for a while. Up to now, Google Video uploaders could make their video available either for a fee or for free. The new ad-laced videos are available on Google Video's "free today" section. The new ads appear as banners above the video.
When the test concludes, Google plans to run auctions where advertisers bid to have their ads displayed on each video. The ad revenue will be split with the video owner. " Time for me to start collecting phat bank from the videos I have up there.
When the test concludes, Google plans to run auctions where advertisers bid to have their ads displayed on each video. The ad revenue will be split with the video owner. " Time for me to start collecting phat bank from the videos I have up there.
Hamster Havoc will not make you "phat bank."
Can you make revenue by posting other's copyrighted work? Most of the videos I see on youtube or google video are ripped. No I did not read the article. Yet.
Who'd want ads in a video? Annoying crap, TV ads are bad enough, overlayed ads are obnoxious.
will this be a step closer to us getting free episodes of CSI/Lost etc. If they are going to have adverts why not put on stuff like that?
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
That sex tape of you and Hemos is not going to make any money. Now you and CowboyNeal... that's some phat bank.
You should take the proceeds from your phat bank, buy yourself a booktionary.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Phase 1: Upload video of roommate lighting a fart. ...
Phase 2:
Phase 3: ROFLMAO !
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Youtube under pressure to come up with a revenue model.
Why does yahoo do this
You can double-click the video to view it fullscreen which hides the ads entirely. If you hit F11 most browsers switch to minimal mode which is a great way to watch episodes.
- days to wait for you can share your video (seriously, can anyone wait that long) - difficult to directly get to the video site (click "more" you noob ?) - less search options - less videos in the long tail (geee, anyone surprised) and now ADS.. Youtube is on steriod investments and heavenly ad-less, but Google is making a hard bet on competition now. With a web 2.0 culture you can't be that restrictive, full stop. Curious what google would do if net neutrality did get the go ahead....
This is a Microsoft-worthy move. (and I mean the smart Microsoft of the early 90's, not the lumbering triceratops of the present).
Integrating ads into their videos immediately takes Google's core structural advantage (the network-effects-rich matching of many small/medium-size advertisers with the millions of web searchers and content seekers) and applies it to a market that isn't, shall we say, a hand-over-fist moneymaker.
Consider some of the other video sites out there. YouTube is spending millions on bandwidth, and increasing exponentially. Yet they make their money on flat text ads served by....Google. Just like every other tiny content site on the web. Yet from launch, Google Video hasn't had any ads (unlike GMail, for example, or the main Google search site). They were clearly biding their time until they had a good idea for monetizing the traffic, and they knew from their own internal economic analyses that text ads weren't the answer. People go to YouTube for quick hits (just to watch a single video), sometimes for browsing the coolest video of the day, but not because they're in the ad-clicking mindset that they're in after an open-ended web search. And as a content provider with Google ads, YouTube gets paid for click-throughs, not just impressions.
But if you take the broadcast television model and force the viewer to subsidize the stream, then those quick hits suddenly become self-supporting. Sure, Google will get paid less per video impression than it would for a click-through (from either a text or video ad), but it will have hundreds/thousands time as many video ad impressions as it would text ad click-throughs. And here's the major barrier to entry--YouTube and the other video sites don't have a stable of advertisers who can place these ads. Those other sites can't just create those ad networks from scratch, either.
Before this move, video serving was a commodity without any real network effects. Google and YouTube were essentially equivalent, strategically, with perhaps an edge to YouTube (for the weaker copyright protections, and consequently superior selection of pirated stuff). After this move, why would you post a video on YouTube when you can get paid to post it on Google? It's the difference between running a free web site with no revenues and running a free web site with Google ads in the corner. Once you get fees, you never go back.
-AC
...and how many small-time uploaders will have their videos pulled and their revenue frozen for people clicking their adverts too many times?
There is more and more phony videos now.
When something gets big and then you throw in some money you see alot garbage like email.
I think the ones that DIRECTED or obviously phony should be tagged and seperated/categorized.
I saw one video that was silly about mentos and cola where the girl drinks both and explodes. It was funny and then you see the big ad for the director/producer of it. That kind of ruins it. Wasn't even worth my time. I like reality without the special digital effects.
Seems like this could lead to some trouble. Copyright violation is for the most part overlooked on Google and YouTube right now because the videos are amateur, or the clips are uploaded by fans, and anyway who cares because no one is making money anyway. But if uploaders start making a profit you can certainly bet the copyright holders will start to pay attention.
It's not just the RIAA typoes we have to worry about, either-- how many of the subjects of these videos signed releases? If I put up a video on a free site of a frat guy lighting farts on fire he'll probably just laugh it off. If I am making a profit from that video without an agreement with the star he's going to have the right to demand a cut (or even damages for posting his image without permission.)
Also, if there is a violation of copyrights (or use of a person's likeness without permission) under the free model Google can pretty much wash their hands of it and say they don't take responsibility for what is uploaded to their site. If Google is taking a cut of the ad profits, however, aren't they making themselves complicit too?
Adding
http://video.google.com/sv*
to my addblock filter kills the logos, but does anyone have a rule that kills the text and box too?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I'm in advertising, I like seeing new and interesting ads, and while the first time through those ads were cool, now they are fucking annoying, especially when I tend to watch the video clips one right after another like with The Daily Show. Worst move ever, I sure hope Google learns from others mistakes.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
screw google and these ads.
thios is only gettin worse. the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads. if i wanted commercials i would go watch tv.
i hope more people realize that this is just headed to having all internet videos with commercials on them, without the user knowing what they are even getting.
this shit has to be left in the dust by everyone, or you wont recognize the internet in 15 years; it will be like digital cable, only with commercials.
hopefully people will keep writing software to prevent this from happening. i know google does have something in the pipe about searching images and even video, so its not too far fetched to have a program that searches and destroys unwanted ads.
as far as people being paid to post shit on the net? i dont care if it dries up. i like free video, with no ads, if you cant do that then you can find another line of work or fuck off and die. i didt tell you to be in this business, and i dont want what you are selling. if you dont provide ad free video i can get it from tons of other places
i already dont like google video because it doesnt let you right click and save their stuff. now there is going to be more drm and commercials? i think my response is clear: and the horse you rode in on.
And the worst part is that somebody probably thought these were a Good Idea.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I watched one of the "free today" boxing videos, and the ad was for burger king. Why wouldn't they try to get a relevant ad to the video? I thought that's exactly what made google such an internet ad-giant. I suppose for many of the dumb videos that get posted there wont be many good ads, but surly if it is a good subject (like sports in my case) they can find a good ad that's going to do much better than some generic one.
I know that there would be other issues too, since for the ads they would have to rely solely on the description and title which could make abuse a problem, but I'm a little surprised that google is not even trying to get them contextual.
Revver has been doing this for some time already - just with much less intrusive ads. That diet coke and mentos experiment linked on Slashdot was using Revver and made over $20,000 for the creators in two weeks (according to various news reports).
Revver splits the ad revenue 50-50 with creators - or if there is a syndicator involved 20%(syndicator) - 40% (creator) - 40% (Revver).
if you don't like it, don't watch it
the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads.
whose whole point? Not mine, certainly. I user a computer to create my own media (fwiw ...); I don't expect to forever to be able to manipulate others' media as I wish and free-of-charge.
i hope more people realize that this is just headed to having all internet videos with commercials on them, without the user knowing what they are even getting.
Unlike television, cable and satelite where you're given a rundown of every advertiser beforehand?
this shit has to be left in the dust by everyone, or you wont recognize the internet in 15 years; it will be like digital cable, only with commercials.
George Carlin's as right as ever: use the knobs to change the station or just turn it off completely. Don't try to take away my ability to chose just because you don't like it.
the online advertising ecosystem - should it take hold for video, as well - will provide a lot of incentive for some creative people to do creative things and perhaps even profit by it. (There must be *some* entertainer you don't begrudge a profit?)
It also creates opportunities for ...
hopefully people will keep writing software to prevent this from happening.
bingo - that, too -
Google makes money placing advertising on services people like using. To this point, I still don't mind their advertising. If you do, you should stop using Google.
Pax; Lux -
S
Go ahead and try to "download" a movie from Google video. It simply grabs a .gvp file and forces you to watch it with their crappy "hang my system" player. What's worse is that it doesn't actually download the video, only the pointer whereas the video still is only accessible if you have a connection to the Internet. That ain't downloading, that's just bookmarking.
The thing which made Google ads acceptable led to the enormous success of Google was that the web page ads were unobtrusive, i.e. didn't distract the site visitor from the content the visitor was trying to digest. If you recall, at the time of Google ad launch, all contemporary and competing advertisers were in a race for creating the most obnoxious adds with the seeming goal of distracting the visitor as much as possible (blinking, bleeping, animating etc.).
As long as Google can provide ads which doesn't distract me or interfere with my goal of accessing a certain web resource, then I'm fine with it. I really hope they've looked at some "anti patterns" for video advertising, which would include any ad which breaks the video stream by inserting a, to the context unrelated video of advertising, a video having nothing to do with the content the viewer wants to see. Some examples are the damn FBI-warnings in the beginning of most DVDs, commercial "breaks" (or artistic terrorism) imposed by those TV channels which are paid for by advertising (most US channels are good examples of this anti-pattern) or attempts by online content providers to mimic the horrid intrusive advertising scheme from broadcast TV, such as Gamespot (beginning each clip with a totally unrelated and forced upon video clip).
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié