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.

21 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry Taco. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hamster Havoc will not make you "phat bank."

  2. 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. Re:Phat Bank by carl0ski · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.


      Since it clearly states the split the revenue with the Video owner they will fetch permission

        from the video ownerwhether it be ABC NBC or your home video.

      If you grant permission they will stick an ad in your video and you get a profit,

      else it gets no ad and you get no revenue.

      The person who uploaded a Copyright protected video and claims revenue will easily be prosecuted since the money trail leads to them

      and Google would have a non liability disclosure on their policy.
  3. so... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.''
    1. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I already get free episodes of those shows with advertising. All I have to do is turn on my TV and tune to the local CBS or ABC station.

    2. Re:so... by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      Yeah, I really think this might mean we get most of our content free. Why? Well, because the distrubution cost is very low. Much lower than the cable companies distrubution costs (i.e. maintaining their networks). Also, imagine if you instantly had your content available accross the world (as opposed to just one country at a time). Shows could instantly be a hit world wide. Also, you have a single partner to deliver this content (Google). In fact, Google makes it so easy to upload anyone can do it. You don't have to be a big shot tv producer. If American Idol had 40 million viewers in the US, how many people around the world would have tuned in if it was easily accessible? Also, I believe Google has the capability to make much more ad revenue off of these shows than traditional tv ads. This is because they allow the allow a more direct marketing approach by giving click-thrus. On tv, it's mostly just image advertising. So, why charge for content when you can make so much with ad revenue. Pay-per-view content will still be around, but it will be highly specialized content that doesn't get a lot of viewers.

      --
      No Sigs!
    3. Re:so... by Antemeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only problem with that, is a lot of companies aren't looking for worldwide ads for everything . . . then you end up with stuff like ads in English only, campaigns not always being global, etc.

      Now, for some stuff it could work, like massive advertising for the World Cup (sponsors' ads along with highlights?), or if the technology expands out, with the big multinationals, being able to purchase the rights to a video, and run regional campaigns throughout their various markets.

    4. 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
    5. Re:so... by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't possibly be serious. Broadband on-demand video cheaper than traditional broadcasting!?

      Not in terms of total cost, but remember, you pay a bill each month to your broadband provider for your service. This is a sunk cost and Google doesn't have to consider this in their costs (as long as we have net neutrality). Also, Google has to pay for their bandwidth usage. I'm sure they have this cost in their equations already though, so it has been factored in. If it's profitable for one user, it's profitable for 40 million.

      When that day comes, Google's video servers will burn up faster than an un-recalled PowerBook 5300 running Apache that just got slashdotted.

      If Google is doing the ad sponsored video, I'm sure they've crunched the numbers. They're not doing something that loses them money. If they can make money with a couple thousand users, they'll make more money if they have millions. All they have to do is scale. So far they've been great at scaling. They're currently building a 20 acre supercomputer with it's own power plant for cooling (I'm too lazy to post the link but the story was slashdotted earlier). I think they can handle the file serving side of it for sure. File serving is not super compute intensive.

      It's already seen overseas. Don't ask me how, but when I was in Japan, girls there could name just about every contestant.

      Sure it's seen oversees because it was syndicated oversees to many many countries. But the beauty of this is that you don't need to negotiate a separate contract for each country, you don't need to hire lawyers to setup corporations in each country, etc. Google just hosts it. Anyone in the world can see the same video. Yes, American Idol can afford to syndicate globally, but can your average Joe who's uploading his vlog? I don't think so. Now he doesn't have to do all that stuff, it's just available everywhere.

      --
      No Sigs!
  4. CmdrTaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That sex tape of you and Hemos is not going to make any money. Now you and CowboyNeal... that's some phat bank.

  5. Re:I'll pass by gasmonso · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you actually watched a video you would have seen that they are not overlayed. They appear above the video and at the end of the video.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
  6. "Phat bank"? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 5, Funny
    Time for me to start collecting phat bank from the videos I have up there.

    You should take the proceeds from your phat bank, buy yourself a booktionary.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  7. Let the College pranks begin ! by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Let the College pranks begin ! by LoonyMike · · Score: 3, Funny

      That L stands for lighting, right?

    2. Re:Let the College pranks begin ! by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if you put an F on the end.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  8. Ads only in windowed mode by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. 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

  10. 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?

  11. Great... how do I Adblock it? by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  12. Revver.com by seaotter02 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).