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.
Re:cue the whiners...
by
Mr.+Capris
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Great, now when I get rickrolled, I'll have to sit through a related commercial.
Uh...what exactly is related to Rick Astley? Anyone?
-- Have you seen the arrow?
Re:cue the whiners...
by
Lumpy
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What about all the paid shills?
"not watching youtube ad's is stealing internet" "Thousands of google employees will starve if you dont watch the ad's" "You help the terrorists win if you dont view the ad's" and my favorite.... "you are breaking your contract if you dont watch the ad's"
-- Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:cue the whiners...
by
utopianfiat
·
· Score: 4, Funny
We're no strangers to ads you use youtube and so do I large-scale advertising's what I'm thinking of you wouldn't get this service from any other guy I just want to tell you about expedia gotta make you understand
-- +5, Truth
Re:cue the whiners...
by
SirTicksAlot
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You forgot:
"You are violating the DMCA by not watching the ads."
By closing my eyes I am circumventing the ad delivery mechanism.
Re:cue the whiners...
by
Reverend528
·
· Score: 5, Funny
They're already started redirecting my browser to whylynxisblocked.com.
Thank goodness! I was starting to miss commercials when I watched shows on YouTube. Maybe Google can talk to all those BitTorrent guys about getting ads in those shows too. Hopefully it'll be very well targetted too, like luxury cars and tampons!
-Chris
Did anyone really expect
by
ironwill96
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
them to spend 1.65 BILLION dollars on something if they didn't have a revenue source in mind? The existing business model of YouTube was...oh wait, there wasn't actually a business model unless selling to some bigger company counts.
-- "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
Actually YouTube did have a business model. It was based on advertising, which is why Google bought it. In the beginning, the creators of YouTube ran up their credit card bills and did not have any advertising until they created a big user base. Then they advertised only with one company on the main page with special content to click on, this one advertiser found its way to other pages as well. Because they held out from selling ads for so long, they were able to create one advertising space that was highly desirable. Think supply not meeting demand. Although it was a strange business model for a startup, they did have one that started to pay their bills. Either they sucked at advertising, or they were so good you did not notice.
-- Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
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.
Re:Excellent opportunity to test multiple choices
by
kebes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think YouTube should offer some sort of "revenue sharing" options, though.
YouTube already does this. It's called being a "YouTube partner." Most of the highly-subscribed channels are partners and get a bit of money from the views (Wikipedia info here and official blog here).
I'd prefer to see YouTube offer a "subscriber" option -- pay $x/month or $x/GB transferred to skip ads of all sorts.
I'm sure some users would take advantage of such an option. However my guess would be that most users (who frequent YouTube quite casually) wouldn't consider spending money on a YouTube subscription. So, ultimately, most of YouTube's revenue is not going to come from subscription programs. Similar to Slashdot: the subscriber option exists but it seems to be a minority who use it.
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 agree that there is a huge opportunity here. Both amateurs and the big networks have the chance here to make serious money by posting content on YouTube. I don't think anyone has a big problem with ads, as long as they are reasonable (not too annoying, not too long, etc.). I'm hoping that YouTube understands how to implement ads (hint: reasonably unobtrusive, like Google ads, and not consistently bothersome, like TV ads).
Re:Excellent opportunity to test multiple choices
by
CODiNE
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Similar to Slashdot: the subscriber option exists but it seems to be a minority who use it.
Yeah, one day Taco said to Hemos "Man if I had a nickel every time someone said 'FIRST POST' I'd... . I'd.. heeeeeey..."
It's the greatest troll of all time, running for years on end and the secret didn't get out til NOW. The trolls are PAYING for their first posts!! HAAAAH!!
I suggest Google run a similar scam and charge $0.50 per first post. It's like a handicapped parking spot for trolls.
You should try RTFA. You don't need to sit through commercials before viewing the video you went to view. In fact, the overlayed 1/5th of the lower portion, commercial can be dismissed with one click.
Sitting through commercials
by
reset_button
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I can't wait to sit through a dozen commercials while I try to waste some free time.
Did you RTFA before posting? (I know, I know, it's Slashdot...)
From the article:
The featured adverts are animated semi-transparent banners, or "overlays", that run along the bottom of the screen about 15 seconds into the video. They stay there for 10 seconds, allowing viewers to click on the overlay, which launches a deeper interactive video advert, while the main video is temporarily paused. Or viewers can ignore the overlay, and it will disappear.
Seems to me like a pretty effective, yet not very obtrusive method for advertising.
Re:Sitting through commercials
by
_14k4
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Actually, I did rtfa... that line "I can't wait to sit..." was not from my submission and added by the person who approved the article for the front page. But, you knew that already anyway.
I agree with you - it is pretty effective and not very obtrusive... however, with the addition of "ipod/etc" download options on google video, and I would assume youtube, does this mean that if you dload a video for your ipod that it will have an advert in it?
It is all flash based, so one could assume/hope not...
Sounds good to me.
by
SocialEngineer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No waiting to watch the video, and has some nice features to it. While I'm sure most people would say "BOO!" to advertising, Google has made itself known as someone who cares about targeted advertising. I myself have found a number of retailers through Google's contextual advertising which I have patronized.
I guess most people have become disenfranchised with the dubious nature of national adverts for weight loss pills and whatnot, which is understandable. Publishing companies that allow such advertising into their products are doing their customers a disservice, as well as the industry. Look at what it has brought us - the necessity for ad blocking on the web, TiVO, etc.. Who knows if those of us in the publishing industry will ever be able to regain the trust of our consumers (I work in the newspaper industry).
-- "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
Re:Wait for it....
by
veganboyjosh
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Maybe I should just spend this time inciting violence form the grammar nazis?
I don't know how to tell you this, but if you're complaining about using the mouse while browsing the web, you're fighting a losing battle. Yes, there are ways to navigate through websites without the mouse, but most of the time using the mouse is easier. With modern web design techniques, the mouse is becoming more essential to web browsing, not less so. Maybe you should invest in a nice mouse pad with a wrist rest, or perhaps a trackball.
Maybe someone should link an article with some real information about the ads:
The ads, which appear 15 seconds after a user begins watching a video clip, take the form of an overlay on the bottom fifth of the screen, not unlike the tickers that display headlines during television news programs.
This is a different kind of ad, just like Google changed ads on the internet they are changing commercials in video.
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.
If I don't see advertisments...
by
shoolz
·
· Score: 4, Funny
If I don't see advertisements, how will I know what I'm supposed to buy?
Slashdot Mirror
"I'll never view YouTube again"
"Google isn't supposed to be evil!"
"Way to ruin YouTube!"
ad nauseum
"Not like YouTube ever owed you anything"
"Google's business is advertising"
"Sure, numa-like videos made YouTube sooooo... myspace?"
Thank goodness! I was starting to miss commercials when I watched shows on YouTube. Maybe Google can talk to all those BitTorrent guys about getting ads in those shows too. Hopefully it'll be very well targetted too, like luxury cars and tampons!
-Chris
them to spend 1.65 BILLION dollars on something if they didn't have a revenue source in mind? The existing business model of YouTube was...oh wait, there wasn't actually a business model unless selling to some bigger company counts.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
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.
You should try RTFA. You don't need to sit through commercials before viewing the video you went to view. In fact, the overlayed 1/5th of the lower portion, commercial can be dismissed with one click.
No waiting to watch the video, and has some nice features to it. While I'm sure most people would say "BOO!" to advertising, Google has made itself known as someone who cares about targeted advertising. I myself have found a number of retailers through Google's contextual advertising which I have patronized.
I guess most people have become disenfranchised with the dubious nature of national adverts for weight loss pills and whatnot, which is understandable. Publishing companies that allow such advertising into their products are doing their customers a disservice, as well as the industry. Look at what it has brought us - the necessity for ad blocking on the web, TiVO, etc.. Who knows if those of us in the publishing industry will ever be able to regain the trust of our consumers (I work in the newspaper industry).
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
Maybe I should just spend this time inciting violence form the grammar nazis?
You're on the right track...
I don't know how to tell you this, but if you're complaining about using the mouse while browsing the web, you're fighting a losing battle. Yes, there are ways to navigate through websites without the mouse, but most of the time using the mouse is easier. With modern web design techniques, the mouse is becoming more essential to web browsing, not less so. Maybe you should invest in a nice mouse pad with a wrist rest, or perhaps a trackball.
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.
If I don't see advertisements, how will I know what I'm supposed to buy?
And there I thought Google made all its money from advertising all along... silly me.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
But why do you have your hand off the mouse at all when you're browsing around video - ...
Oh.
Gross dude.