Posted by
samzenpus
on from the this-bread-brought-to-you-by dept.
_14k4 writes "Video website YouTube is to feature advertising for the first time, after Google revealed it is offering companies the chance to run ads on some of the site's most popular content." I can't wait to sit through a dozen commercials while I try to waste some free time.
How will Google try to prevent users from circumventing the ads? I don't think the "if" is even a question. And does this represent a move towards Evil(tm)?
-- "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Excellent opportunity to test multiple choices
by
dada21
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think YouTube is fantastic -- I can grab snippets of information that I'm interested in, plus also have the option to search for proam video from events that normally don't get broadcast in the MSM. I think YouTube should offer some sort of "revenue sharing" options, though. This would quickly destroy the MSM as pro-am or pro videographers and filmographers could find income for their ventures.
I'd prefer to see YouTube offer a "subscriber" option -- pay $x/month or $x/GB transferred to skip ads of all sorts. Sure, you can block some ads, but the video inserts you can't. Flash Video is capable of skipping segments based on server-data, such as seeing if a person has a subscription and if they have free gigs left. I'd happily pay for my video snippets -- even moreso if part of my subscription went to the video author or "owner."
One-way TV is too limiting -- either you get all a channel's offerings, or you don't get it at all. Some channels are starting to allow PPV on-demand, which is excellent, but I still have to get the full buffet of channels (Digital ones) to get PPV. I'd rather do an a la carte selection, honestly. In 2 years, the amount I'd save over having to maintain a decent media center PC would be worth it for me (considering my media center PC is probably worth $1500 and has to be upgraded every so often) for the limited TV we watch.
YouTube has a huge opportunity here to offer snippets, full shows, and amateur content, while offering the viewer the option to pay up front, or watch ads rather than paying. Bandwidth and hosting ain't free, not even for Google, who can also handle fee distribution between their hosting office and the content "owner." This is a big step to also reduce the need for companies to monitor for copyright infringement, as it gives them the option to host their own stuff and make the pennies per hit.
Spend Free Time... aka TV
by
xtracto
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't wait to sit through a dozen commercials while I try to waste some free time.
You already did that. That is what TV is all about isn't it? killing some time while watching soups, "news" or cartoons. The only difference is that... mmm... well, I guess there is no difference at all form the viewer point of view. The only difference from the "content provider" point of view is that I guess the guys showing the "my neighbour falling LOLZ!" video won't get a penny for the ads embeded in their video...
I remeber signing in in YouTube like page which actually payed you for each click a page with your video or picture generated... something similar would be fair in the case of video advertisment dont you think?
-- Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Revenue vs. increased liability
by
jhRisk
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't get it. Youtube is somewhat held harmless (TBD) by claiming they simply have a repository of videos controlled by the masses for which they're happy to take down content that violates DMCA once "alerted" by the copyright holder. Their position, I thought, was that they don't deal with the content granularly and its too vast to hold them responsible.
To date Youtube has provided somewhat simple features such as ranking and searching however if they're now doing work above and beyond that by inserting ads on popular videos, measuring impressions and then being compensated does that not imply a more intimate relationship with the content? Does that not then increase their liability with respect to not hosting content that violates DMCA?
Also, am I the only one who thinks the only truly "good" Youtube content includes some degree of DMCA violation? Unless you make your own movie (which 99.9% of the time will completely suck) some portion such as the music will belong to someone else.
God forbid someone make a profit. I suppose Google should just survive off of funds from the People's Republic of America while promoting peace and love along with open source software. If you'd crane your head out of the bong smoke once in a while, you might actually consider a world in which people have a right to invest and produce capitol. Furthermore, people with ideas like yours kill open source- "Oh hey Google supports open source that means they have to adhere to these strict anarcho-communist guidelines or I call them evil", why don't you call out someonewhodeserves it for once?
-- +5, Truth
Re:God Dammit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Really? More annoying than popups? More annoying than interstitials? Yay for hyperbole!
Just keep them small
by
ohmypolarbear
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This sounds like the ads that appear on the screen during a TV program. Hopefully they will stay small and unobtrusive, unlike what has happened with the TV version. A quick history of those, starting sometime in the 90's:
Small, often transparent network logo in the bottom corner of the screen
Static or scrolling single line of text with either a "this portion sponsored by:" message or a reminder of upcoming shows
Same text, but encased in prettier graphics that take up a little more screen real estate. Transitions smoothing the entrance of the graphics allow the eye to adjust and continue watching the show without being disturbed too much.
More lines of text added, perhaps with the rest of the evening's schedule. Also animations appear, but they're not very distracting.
LARGE graphics take up a significant portion of a corner of the screen, making it impossible to "squeeze" the tv show itself and preserve the whole scene. Visual information is lost and the show is negatively impacted.
More complex animations and graphics that aren't immediately recognizable as text boxes intrude farther into the picture and/or require significant viewer attention to determine whether the object that just appeared is part of the show or not.
Large, intricate animations with sound effects cause the loss of both visual and auditory information and cause the viewer to change the channel and/or shoot the tv. Sound effects? Seriously? What's the point of watching the show anymore when you can't see or hear what's going on?
As long as the YouTube ads stay reasonably close to the top of this list, we'll be ok. It won't require too much effort to disregard the ads if we're not interested in them, and they probably won't obscure the videos themselves. If they creep towards the bottom, then people will stop using YouTube, at least for content from the "partners" that allow ads to be put in.
I agree. It's not the ad that is annoying on some video sites, but the duration. NFL.com now runs 30 second ads, which is way too long to watch a 90 second video. If it were a 10 second ad, it could get most of the point across without being nearly as intrusive. One newspaper I used had the cool feature of running a ~10 second ad AFTER the video. That was not intrusive at all, yet they still get a lot of ad impressions from me, just because you usually aren't always *immediately *clicking to the next video. As for Google, their ads have tended to be pretty innocuous, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Then again, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't disable non-animated banner ads, since I want to give the site a fair chance at paying for itself.
They are more obstrusive
by
xtracto
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually those kind of advertisements that appear on top of the real content are more obstrusive than the full commercials. I started to see those ads in Football matches some years ago. As it is not possible to break for 30 seconds ads during a football(soccer) match TV companies started adding those ads strips at the bottom of the image. They really suck because they prevent you from watching some part of the the content. They blatantly interfere with the actual content of the video.
I find those ads similarly disguisting to the times when a radio presenter would turn the volume of a song down to say some kind of crap... moreover, imagine listening to Queen's "Dont Lose your head" in Last.FM and suddenly starting to listen "buy viagra! buy viagra! buy cheap viagra!" on top of it.
-- Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Google you've done well. I can still watch your videos unlike ifilm where it takes 2 minutes to watch a 1 minute video. I can respect your choice to advertise since I can get rid of the add which means I can watch that kid fall off his skateboard and see him hit the ground. I'll be interested to see how this works in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
How will Google try to prevent users from circumventing the ads? I don't think the "if" is even a question. And does this represent a move towards Evil(tm)?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I think YouTube is fantastic -- I can grab snippets of information that I'm interested in, plus also have the option to search for proam video from events that normally don't get broadcast in the MSM. I think YouTube should offer some sort of "revenue sharing" options, though. This would quickly destroy the MSM as pro-am or pro videographers and filmographers could find income for their ventures.
I'd prefer to see YouTube offer a "subscriber" option -- pay $x/month or $x/GB transferred to skip ads of all sorts. Sure, you can block some ads, but the video inserts you can't. Flash Video is capable of skipping segments based on server-data, such as seeing if a person has a subscription and if they have free gigs left. I'd happily pay for my video snippets -- even moreso if part of my subscription went to the video author or "owner."
One-way TV is too limiting -- either you get all a channel's offerings, or you don't get it at all. Some channels are starting to allow PPV on-demand, which is excellent, but I still have to get the full buffet of channels (Digital ones) to get PPV. I'd rather do an a la carte selection, honestly. In 2 years, the amount I'd save over having to maintain a decent media center PC would be worth it for me (considering my media center PC is probably worth $1500 and has to be upgraded every so often) for the limited TV we watch.
YouTube has a huge opportunity here to offer snippets, full shows, and amateur content, while offering the viewer the option to pay up front, or watch ads rather than paying. Bandwidth and hosting ain't free, not even for Google, who can also handle fee distribution between their hosting office and the content "owner." This is a big step to also reduce the need for companies to monitor for copyright infringement, as it gives them the option to host their own stuff and make the pennies per hit.
I can't wait to sit through a dozen commercials while I try to waste some free time.
... mmm ... well, I guess there is no difference at all form the viewer point of view. The only difference from the "content provider" point of view is that I guess the guys showing the "my neighbour falling LOLZ!" video won't get a penny for the ads embeded in their video...
You already did that. That is what TV is all about isn't it? killing some time while watching soups, "news" or cartoons. The only difference is that
I remeber signing in in YouTube like page which actually payed you for each click a page with your video or picture generated... something similar would be fair in the case of video advertisment dont you think?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Maybe not google, but others have been that stupid.
MABASPLOOM!
I don't get it. Youtube is somewhat held harmless (TBD) by claiming they simply have a repository of videos controlled by the masses for which they're happy to take down content that violates DMCA once "alerted" by the copyright holder. Their position, I thought, was that they don't deal with the content granularly and its too vast to hold them responsible.
To date Youtube has provided somewhat simple features such as ranking and searching however if they're now doing work above and beyond that by inserting ads on popular videos, measuring impressions and then being compensated does that not imply a more intimate relationship with the content? Does that not then increase their liability with respect to not hosting content that violates DMCA?
Also, am I the only one who thinks the only truly "good" Youtube content includes some degree of DMCA violation? Unless you make your own movie (which 99.9% of the time will completely suck) some portion such as the music will belong to someone else.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
God forbid someone make a profit. I suppose Google should just survive off of funds from the People's Republic of America while promoting peace and love along with open source software.
If you'd crane your head out of the bong smoke once in a while, you might actually consider a world in which people have a right to invest and produce capitol. Furthermore, people with ideas like yours kill open source- "Oh hey Google supports open source that means they have to adhere to these strict anarcho-communist guidelines or I call them evil", why don't you call out someone who deserves it for once?
+5, Truth
Really? More annoying than popups? More annoying than interstitials? Yay for hyperbole!
This sounds like the ads that appear on the screen during a TV program. Hopefully they will stay small and unobtrusive, unlike what has happened with the TV version. A quick history of those, starting sometime in the 90's:
As long as the YouTube ads stay reasonably close to the top of this list, we'll be ok. It won't require too much effort to disregard the ads if we're not interested in them, and they probably won't obscure the videos themselves. If they creep towards the bottom, then people will stop using YouTube, at least for content from the "partners" that allow ads to be put in.
I agree. It's not the ad that is annoying on some video sites, but the duration. NFL.com now runs 30 second ads, which is way too long to watch a 90 second video. If it were a 10 second ad, it could get most of the point across without being nearly as intrusive. One newspaper I used had the cool feature of running a ~10 second ad AFTER the video. That was not intrusive at all, yet they still get a lot of ad impressions from me, just because you usually aren't always *immediately *clicking to the next video. As for Google, their ads have tended to be pretty innocuous, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Then again, I'm one of those crazy people who doesn't disable non-animated banner ads, since I want to give the site a fair chance at paying for itself.
Actually those kind of advertisements that appear on top of the real content are more obstrusive than the full commercials. I started to see those ads in Football matches some years ago. As it is not possible to break for 30 seconds ads during a football(soccer) match TV companies started adding those ads strips at the bottom of the image. They really suck because they prevent you from watching some part of the the content. They blatantly interfere with the actual content of the video.
I find those ads similarly disguisting to the times when a radio presenter would turn the volume of a song down to say some kind of crap... moreover, imagine listening to Queen's "Dont Lose your head" in Last.FM and suddenly starting to listen "buy viagra! buy viagra! buy cheap viagra!" on top of it.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Google you've done well. I can still watch your videos unlike ifilm where it takes 2 minutes to watch a 1 minute video. I can respect your choice to advertise since I can get rid of the add which means I can watch that kid fall off his skateboard and see him hit the ground. I'll be interested to see how this works in the long run.