Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Video Runs Ads & Shares the Profits

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the well-isn't-that-sweet-of-them dept.

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.

5 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Phat Bank by caleb_is_a_dharmabum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Phat Bank by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had the same concern. The purpose of this program seems to be to encourage copywrite owners to put their works online and be able to make money off of it.

      Maybe we'll find the networks posting their tv shows on there. I mean, make money from ads by showing commercials or with google's ads...

  2. A strategic leap ahead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Re:so... by caluml · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I don't want to watch American-targetted adverts (that are on every 5 minutes, from what I'm told).
    How will they handle international distribution?

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  4. Can O' Worms by apflwr3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?