Google Mulling Video Ads In Search Results

Bombula writes to let us know that Google is "finally succumbing to the power of the almighty dollar" and getting ready to implement image and video ads in sponsored searches.

Comments

Not "evil"

[gbulmash]

Finally "succumbing to the power of the almighty dollar"??? They gave in to Mammon quite a while ago.

Google displays video ads within a few different AdSense units. I've regularly seen video ads filling 336x280 ad spaces. Putting video ads in search results requires no technical advances. It's more a matter of laying out the search results to achieve the best balance of ad screenspace and content screenspace. So far, Google has done that pretty well with text ads in their search results.

If there's any news in this, it's watching the semantic argument that should result. People love to quote Google's tenet of "do no evil" and accuse Google of violating it wheneverGoogle opens up a new avenue for earning money. But it's not necessarily evil. It's just something they disagree with. And it's interesting, from a sociological perspective, to see how people can regard the opposing party viewpoint, in what are essentially minor disagreements, as "evil".

- Greg

Re:Not "evil"

[CastrTroy]

The difference between "Evil" and "Not Evil" is only a matter of opinion. Some people would say all ads are evil. Others, text ads are acceptable. Others, would say images with no video. Some would say video is fine, as long as they don't display it overlayed on the content. Other people would have no problem with any ads.

Re:Not "evil"

[gbulmash]

Intent can be as important to determining the degree or label for a crime as the act. Think about it, most American state penal codes have 6-8 different crimes you can be charged with when you kill someone... First through third degree murder, first and second degree manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, etc., etc.

In fact, if you're defending yourself, you can kill someone and not be charged with a crime. But the action is always the same... you killed someone.
Furthermore, "evil" is a moral judgement, so, even if you're not buying into a societal definition, such as exists in a penal code, you're basing it on a religious definition. And the fun part is that the religious definition isn't based on a holy book, it's based on how your particular sect interprets that holy book. There are Muslims who think strapping a bomb to yourself and setting it off inside a school full of children is "evil", but there are others who think that this is what God wants. And, according to most moral codes, what God wants is inherently good.

So, actions are not good or evil in and of themselves. We interpret them as good or evil based on our value sets. Quite often we ascribe those value sets to God, because "God says this is right and this is wrong" carries a lot more power than "I think this is right and this is wrong, but it's just my opinion." Much as it is with beauty, Good and Evil can be in the eye of the beholder too.

- G

Re:Not "evil"

[NickCatal]

If they are anything like the adsense ones they won't be too intrusive at all...

Google isn't filled with idiots who think that they can just put an ad box on the side of their results and not loose respect (and market share)

Personally, I like the sponsored results... I find that a lot of the time the sponsored results are more what I am looking for than the search results. I probably cost those advertisers a fortune by checking out every single one of the ads until I find one I like, but still...

I found my latest printer cartridge via adsense... the store I bought it from had a listing on the top and they were also the most competitive in the way of price... so they got my money thanks to an adsense ad. Of course, now I get emails every week from the store about printer cartridges... bah... stupid "opt-in-by-default" system

Re:Not "evil"

[bmo]

"The difference between "Evil" and "Not Evil" is only a matter of opinion."

No, the difference between "evil" and "not evil" is the bubble on the output of the gate.

--
BMO

Re:Not "evil"

[heinousjay]

Anyone who says ads are evil has a whacky moral compass, and they're diluting the term.

Re:Not "evil"

[sanyasi]

Furthermore, "evil" is a moral judgement, so, even if you're not buying into a societal definition, such as exists in a penal code, you're basing it on a religious definition. I have to disagree. Morality can exist independent of religion. Many religious people make this mistake of assuming that only religious people have morals.

Cool for them...

[ect5150]

Cool for them, now can someone recommend me my new search engine?

Re:Cool for them...

[langelgjm]

Google recommends AltaVista: Do "I'm feeling lucky" for "search engine".

Re:Awesome!

[gbulmash]

Now we can be notified about special offers and promotions that are disturbingly close to what we actually want!

This may be tongue-in-cheek, but it's disturbingly accurate too. Part of their AdWords algorithm is to start incrementally raising the price on cost-per-click ads that aren't performing well. And they break this down by keyword. So if your ad is getting a really poor clickthrough from a certain keyword, they'll make you pay more and more for the keyword until you either drop it or improve your ad's clickthrough rate.

While that business method optimizes/maximizes CPM for Google, it also means that people who just bid on 500 loosely related keywords are going to gradually whittle that down to just those keywords that are are actually performing in terms of CPC and conversion. It stands to reason that if an ad is generating more clicks and more conversions for a specific keyword, that ad is more appropriate for it. In a way, it's almost Darwinian. Ads die off in keywords where they don't succeed and flourish in ones where they do.

- Greg

Re:Linux users might be doomed...!

[elyk]

If they do implement video ads in their search results, they will probably do it in the same way as the adsense units do, where it doesn't play until you click on it. So its unlikely that you will be forced to watch a video. However, this is still a huge step for google, because it would be the first time that they have had any sort of graphical ads in their search result. This was hinted at as a possibility when they bought 5% of aol, and they denied it then, but I wonder if that influence has finally broken through. Of course, this could all be hype and nothing come of it. All I have to say is that if google does do this, they had better move really carefully, or risk alienating a lot of users.

Can't be as bad as Slashdot

[QuantumG]

who take money from Microsoft and play anti-Linux FUD on the front page.

Thing is, most Slashdot users don't even see it.. thanks Adblock.

Re:Google sends tiananmen square down a memory hol

[Thorrablot]

That's evil. The rest is icing on the cake.
It's OK to be importing an unprecedented amount of Chinese goods and exploit the cheap labor for every other aspect of the western economy, but Google is evil because they set up a satellite search service that institutes the required Chinese national policies?

Since the suppression of information is happening regardless of Google's presence, that should clarify that the root of the suppression is not due to U.S. companies agreeing to Chinese government demands, but is the Chinese government itself.

Frankly, it's also better for U.S. interests to have a "bubble" of Google servers that have a set of blacklisted/censored material for the time being, instead of watching Google lose out entirely in the fastest growing economy to the Chinese domestic engines (e.g. Baidu)

These politicians who (while it was a popular subject) wanted to crucify Google don't have any qualms about continuing to support China by importing their cheap goods and exploiting the cheap labor costs.

Hypocrits.

you will not be distracted by ads on Google

[dulitz]

I'm the product manager responsible for the way ads look on Google. You will not be distracted by image ads or video ads on Google search results pages. Period.

Just because other companies use image ads and video ads with the _purpose_ of distracting users doesn't mean Google will do that. Images and videos can be useful and entertaining, if you see them when you want to see them. It's taken us a long time to figure out how to do it right.

BTW, how many _years_ do we have to be in business before people learn Google isn't motivated by short-term greed? Yes, we want to make money. We want to make money 10 years from now. The only way to do that is to build great products that people want. I think we've done a pretty good job of that so far, and we're not planning to stop.

Re:you will not be distracted by ads on Google

[5pp000]

Don't forget the story about the early days of Google when the developers would occasionally receive a mysterious email message containing only a number. I've forgotten the exact number, alas, but it was always the same -- 31, let's suppose. Eventually they figured out that whenever they put more than 31 words on the Google home page, they would get a message with this number 31. I don't know if the sender was ever identified, but at least at the time, Google evidently took the message to heart.

I hope this story is still part of the company culture.

All that said, your post is reassuring. I hope you really mean the part about "if you see them when you want to see them".