YouTube To Roll Out 6-Second Ads That You Can't Skip (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: YouTube announced on Tuesday that it will be introducing an unskippable, 6-second bumper ads before certain videos. The video juggernaut says that these ads are largely aimed at mobile users. "We like to think of Bumper ads as little haikus of video ads -- and we're excited to see what the creative community will do with them," YouTube's Zach Lupei wrote in a blog post. The Verge reports, "The company justifies the short ads (which cannot be skipped, unlike longer spots) by pointing to research showing that 50 percent of 18 to 49-year-olds turn to mobile as their first option for consuming video -- and keep in mind a ton of that is music."

Comments

"cannot be skipped"

[Anonymous Coward]

*challenge accepted*

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[93 Escort Wagon]

We are inexorably marching towards Blipverts.

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[Rob Y.]

Since they're already making you watch the first 6 seconds before the 'skip' button appears, it's more like they're accepting the fact that everyone hits the skip button at the first opportunity. At least this makes the advertisers attempt to be clever within the 6 second limit, and maybe could make for an interesting twitter-like ad experience. But if, once the skip button is gone, they start letting the ad length creep upward, that'll be the beginning of the end.

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[infolation]

Oh I'll skip it alright... I'll close the damn youtube window.

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[c]

it's more like they're accepting the fact that everyone hits the skip button at the first opportunity.

People might be a lot less inclined to hit 'skip' right away if they cracked down on the loudness of ads. I'm finding with a lot of them (video game ads primarily) that I'm ignoring the ad content entirely because I'm hunting for the volume control, then immediately going for the skip button. Youtube audio levels are already variable enough without allowing the television loudness tricks to take hold, too.

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[MitchDev]

6 seconds is long enough to add a product or service to my family's "Do not buy/do not do business with" list...

Re:"cannot be skipped"

[GrumpySteen]

There Goes Honey Boo Boom

Well yes duh

[suso]

How else did you think they were going to pay for all that bandwidth you consume watching 15 minute 4K videos of someone unboxing toys?

Re:Well yes duh

[mythosaz]

Peering doesn't pay for hard drives and racks.

I mean, selling your user data probably does, but....

Re:Well yes duh

[inode_buddha]

Why should their business model (or lack thereof) be my problem?

Re:Well yes duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if their business model isn't sustanable they do crap like this to fix that?

Re:Well yes duh

[wonkey_monkey]

It's not. No-one's forcing you go to YouTube.

Re:Well yes duh

[fafalone]

Of course by "proves" you mean "claims with no evidence and simply has to say 'yes we own that' again with no evidence if you appeal, even if you prove they don't even own the copyright to what they're saying they do" right? Then if you attract enough attention through the media to get their PR department to notice, or hire a lawyer and start fighting just on principle, they might finally relent, but the false claimant gets to keep the revenue they've made in the first few weeks/months, which accounts for most of what will be made.
And they're still not doing enough to stop infringement according to "rightsholders", who have access to the system to monetize/takedown videos under their control with no oversight or repercussions for false and even outright fraudulent claims.

Marketing lingo

[NoZart]

i just love how they're "excited to see what the creative community will do with them" and all i hear is "yay, mo' money"

What if you have YouTube Red?

[LWATCDR]

I have Google Music so I get YouTube red for free so I don't think I am seeing ads. Even so a short ad instead of paying is not a bad deal. Now Hulu where I pay had have way too many ads sucks.

Not new?

[thevirtualcat]

In my experience, mobile ads can't generally be skipped anyway.

Sure, the "Skip" button is there, but the ad is usually mostly over by the time the YouTube app actually responds to the tap anyway. Especially when you get a Chromecast involved.

Haikus of video ads?

[olsmeister]

I've got a Haiku for you.

greedy company
intrusive advertisements
I'll watch somewhere else

Re:Caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube is already bandwidth hogging. Don't use the service if you're unwilling to pay for it.

Do we need to post Ars and Verge stories?

[halivar]

I go to Slashdot for first-source news; the same reason I go to Ars Technica and the Verge. The problem with linking stories on other news aggregation sites is you've increased the chances that I've already seen the story (and perhaps already commented on it) to just about 90%. Let's link the original source and skip the middle man (i.e. the competition).

The cycle continues...

[CAIMLAS]

This same cycle has happened with many a lowly tech company; it's a fine line that google has been treading, but it's bound to happen with some of their services:

Step 1: Create a product which has massive social appeal, operate in the red and make up for it in volume
Step 2: IPO
Step 3: Get massive speculative investment
Step 4: Never turn a profit off your actual vehicle, merely use it as an avenue for...
Step 5: Ad impression generation
Step 6: Slow exodus of viewers
Step 7: Increase ads to make up for exodus
Step 8: Competitors step in to fill vacuum
Step 9: Viable competitor presents itself, starts consuming market share
Step 10: Eventual collapse of initial product, go to Step 1 for new competitor's product.

Not long enough

[npslider]

Darn! That's not long enough to make the trip to the bathroom, fridge, and back. Come on Google! Give me at least 30 seconds!

So you advocate the opposite of net neutrality?

[raymorris]

> If YouTube wants money they can get it from the ISPs.

So under your proposal, YouTube would charge ISPs for access to their site. As would Slashdot and all of the other free (advertising-supported) sites, I suppose. If your ISP doesn't pay up, you can;t access YouTube, correct?

So you only get access to those sites that your ISP pays for. Obviously your ISP isn't going to jack around making contracts for $10/year to access HowToFixAppliances.com, or any of the other 99.99% of web sites that aren't in the top 500 most popular. So you get access to whichever portion of the Alexa top 500 that your ISP negotiates a satisfactory deal with, and nothing else.

I don't care for that plan. What I prefer is that I buy access to the INTERNET as a whole, Slashdot, YouTube, and VeggieRecipes.com get access to the internet, and I can access any site. Time Warner and Comcast aren't involved with paying the bills for third-party web sites, and don't control what I can access.

Re:So you advocate the opposite of net neutrality?

[FatdogHaiku]

I have a related problem with my carrier. I get internet access from a cable TV company. I don't subscribe to cable TV because I don't like paying all that money for what they offer. Now they (ISP/cable co) have refused a deal for cable TV channels controlled by Viacom. If I go to a site controlled by Viacom, like Comedy Central, Viacom gives me a message saying video playback is blocked by my ISP (a half truth at best) and I should contact the ISP to get it fixed. I got it fixed with a VPN, but as more people cut the cord I'm seeing various TV providers declining to allow playback without a proof of cable TV subscription... I hope web only content providers just kick ass on all these bone heads.

Re: So...

[slazzy]

You'll get a small electric shock if you try that

Re:Caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, jackass, it's not free. Someone has to pay for it. Either you're the customer and you pay for it with cash, or you're the product and the advertisers pay the cash. Fuckoff with your "I deserve" bullshit.

"largely aimed at mobile users"

[wardrich86]

"largely aimed at mobile users"

Yes thanks, because I have so much fucking mobile data to begin with, and it's soooooooo cheap.

fucking asswipes. Glad my phone's out of warranty soon so I can root it and install AdAway again.

Re: So...

[CCarrot]

You'll get a small electric shock if you try that

More like the ad conveniently auto-pauses for you whenever the face recognition detects that you are looking elsewhere...so helpful! Also mandatory, so yay!

AKA YouTube to forcibly market Youtube Red

[maugle]

"Hey, there's still not enough people signing up for YouTube Red"
"OK, hit the button marked 'Make Regular YouTube Slightly Shittier' once or twice"

Criminal enterprise needs more money

[shanen]

Yeah, that thing with bumping the volume on the ads is especially annoying and especially abused by a couple of scam companies that use loud sirens or screeches to insure they have my attention. And hatred.

What I can't understand is the financial model driving their insane rudeness. I am not aware of ANY ad on YouTube that represented ANY product or service that I would ever consider buying--and if I did remember their ad, it would insure I would try much harder NOT to buy it even if I thought I had a use for it. Whatever it is.

There must be some aliens among us who respond to the ads?

Anyway, the real problem is that YouTube itself is a criminal enterprise. Every week for the last few years I do an obvious search to see scam results. There are two to five legitimate results buried in several pages of scam results. How is it benefiting YouTube or the google to assist the scammers in pwning YOUR computer? I still can't figure it, but it obviously isn't going away any time soon. (There are several obvious countermeasures, but YouTube only took one baby step in the last few years.)