Slashdot Mirror
Google To Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers
sufijazz writes "Google has announced its intention to allow advertisers to monetize the contents of YouTube videos. 'The ads accompanying the outbound YouTube clips won't be in a video format. Instead, they will appear as a graphic straddling the video or as a link along the bottom. Google won't be pulling clips from YouTube's entire library ... The material sent to other Web sites will be confined to video from providers who sign consent forms. With the new twist, Web sites participating in AdSense now can sign up to specify the kinds of YouTube videos they want shown on their pages.' Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently. Both the creator of the video as well as anyone that embeds it on their website will receive a share of the profits. The company has yet to specify the percent each party gets."
Interesting that the AdSense medium (along with its counterpart, AdWords) now supports diverse charging models CPM/CPC/CPA as well as all these different media. I'm a bit of a YouTube skeptic, but maybe G will make it a little more grown-up and useful with things like this!
Glossary: http://www.publisher-world.com/read.php?12,10879,10879#msg-10879
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Submitter using his thesaurus without really understanding the word? 'Commercialize' perhaps, but not 'monetize'
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Emebedded videos from YouTube will now be accompanied by ads, as long as the original video creator/poster agrees to having said ads? The summary sounds like it was written by Mike Tyson.
Ads straddling the videos? Just what I needed... even more stimulation for my brain. How long will it be before the ads are videos themselves?
To
I wrote about this a year ago in terms of YouTube being a great monetizing (that's AdSense-speak) product for all involved: Google, the publisher (website), and the advertiser. Flash-based videos are hard to "ad-block" plus people are more likely to actually notice an ad if it is discretely placed and doesn't interfere with the video. I think this is a great idea.
I like AdSense, it provides a reasonable enough income (although nowhere near 30%) for the sites I edit and host, but I think it is time that Google moves into a more targeted direction.
The amount of information that AdSense ads sends to Google is astonishing -- which is one reason most geeks probably block ads. I'm a fan of blocking ads if you don't have any desire in the advertisers, and I openly support it on my sites (some of them even provide a link to ad-blocking software). For me, interested parties who click ads make me more money than uninterested parties that accidentally click ads. Win, win, win.
Yet since Google has such a vast supply of information on people who don't MIND ads, why not start putting up ads that might be of interest to the user? If "John" goes from a site about gambling to a site about sports, Google knows it -- why not start displaying ads for "John" that combine all of his possible interests? The YouTube ads can be the same -- they know where you've been, so why not combine those keywords into ads that MIGHT be more interesting to you?
Sure, it's a privacy breach already, but that's what pays the bills for the sites you're visiting freely. Not many of us are going to pay for a subscription to a site (although I pay for many), so advertising has to be what it is -- it can just get better.
I'd also like to see a user-configurable plug-in that lets a user "vote" on ads. I'm sick of seeing certain ads on certain sites, so we should have the ability to tell Google "Don't show me these anymore." The content publisher (website) may prefer those ads because they pay CPM (pays per visit, not per click), but if the visitor doesn't want to see them, isn't it in the advertiser's and the visitor's best interest to turn them off for that user?
OMG! Go0gle is teh ev1L!!!11!
"Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently." Except for the viewer that doesn't want to watch any advertisements.
Perhaps the submitter of the story was distracted by the bird perched on his manhood.
It's almost like English! But, no.
I am concerned whether someone is allowed to see what ads do I get. Sure, if google will publish my search terms or any other private information, it will be illegal. But is it legal for google to tell e.g. government agencies about the ads I get? Not a tinfoil hat fan, just curios.
A certain percent is split with the video's creator(s). What percentage? Zero!
We are talking about flash based video players right? First block, don't install flash. Second block, do NOT allow the url that server the player to load. Third block, do not allow the video to be loaded.
I am not familiar with browser based blocking, but the last two are trivial with proxy software. My current favorite is privoxy but you might find bfilter to your tastes as well. Hell, if you are really ambitious you can use squid to send all web traffic through several filters. The only effective way to put an ad on the web that cannot be blocked BUY COCA COLA is to make it part of the very page, even then it can be filtered out.
If you are talking about an ad that is part of the video you want to watch. Well even that is not impossible. It would require someone with a knowledge of flash but this might work.
Create a player similar to the google player, but make it just get the video and NOT overlay the ad. Could that work? I very much doubt that at the moment google is doing anything too complex with their player and just passed the required information to get the video straight to the plugin. Filter the required part out, disregard the ad part and voila.
They could offcourse re-encode the video with the ad, but that would take tons of storage for all the different versions and the ad would scale badly if you play it fullscreen.
But I like the bit about being able to vote on ads. Just a small link beside the ad "This ad is so offensive that not only will I never buy from you, I will kill the first I see who buys from you and laugh all the way to the electric chair".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Most likely the flash player send two requests to the server, one for the video and one for the flash ad. Just have the proxy return an empty ad, and voila, no ad.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ah, now there's an interesting way to get around AdBlock: push your advertising inside a proprietary runtime (Flash) which is also required to view the content. There's no alternative Flash runtimes and no plugin mechanism, so unless/until someone reverse engineers it you have to watch the ad.
>Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers
That sounds like it ought to be illegal under local anti-pimping ordinances or some such.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"Verbing weirds language"
I post a cam'ed movie of rocky 16, it's popular, gets flagged and advertisers gain revenues from illegal stuff...
Safest route would be to include known sound tracks.
In my experience, Google just makes up any old numbers for their AdSense sheets. It's little wonder they didn't release solid percentage values... they could give them in 2d4 style notation.
There are already ads on YouTube along with promo videos for certian companies (i.e. deodorant companies, whatever crap movie is coming out). This will just further "Google-ize" YouTube into an Adsense, commercialized machine it was going to turn out to be anyway.
I used to really enjoy youtube, but the day I see ads on the videos I can't block is the day I never go back there.
He gets to watch the video. What's not cut-y about that? Not only that, he gets to choose which videos he wishes to watch, and can therefore choose not to watch any ads at all. So yes, everyone sees a cut in this plan. It's just that before now, Google was missing out somewhat.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
...because I was just thinking the other day, if there's anything that'll improve Leave Britney Alone, it's Leave Britney Alone with an ad for vaginal hygiene products scrolling across the bottom.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It seems to me that ad supported content is now the way to go. Of course, I'm now waiting for myspace to ban youtube again the moment they start displaying ads in their embedded player, I don't think myspace ever unbanned revver or imeem - despite changes to their players and business models (imeem is too much of a threat to myspace's music fan market, revver is just a small fish and easy to intimidate)
Once we marvelled at 320x240 MPEG downloads. Then Lucasfilm revolutionized the web with its groundbreaking 640x360 trailers. Then Goo Tube shrunk it back down to 320x240. Now with crawlers, we're down to 320x200. Soon 160x120 will be the new breakthrough. At least the Goo videos will have something readable on top of all those shaky, blurry, camera angles.
YouTube has use the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA to protect them from liability under the DMCA. However, I believe that if you make money from copyrighted content you lose this protection. Since much of the content uses copyrighted material will this increase Google exposure to lawsuits? One supposes that they will argue it is all "fair use", but a lot of the use on YouTube is clearly outside a reasonable definition of fair use. Google, of course has a history of deciding to ignore copyright laws that it find inconvenient to obey and is happy to spend the legal $$ in court for years to wear out the other side. It will be itneresting to see if this brings on more suits.