YouTube Ads

This is an excellent video. But it is also the first of these YouTube videos I have looked at with Google Ads embedded. It may not come up that way for you but it is a Google ads link appearing at the bottom of the clip (over the clip itself). It is pure annoyance coupled with ineffectiveness. What the ads need to be for videos is videos themselves — say, 15 seconds prior to the video’s start. Yes it will be annoying but it will also be effective and we need that for YouTube to continue as a viable operation.

7 thoughts on “YouTube Ads”

  1. Further to what you’re saying, because I run Firefox with AdBlocker Plus, I don’t even see the ad!  In fact, I don’t see ads at all online (not even Google text ads)–my browser plug-in is a real danger to the ad revenue model.

    I had to disable the plug-in it to see what you were talking about–and yes, I could imagine it being very annoying.  Whereas at WSJ and other sites which use the 10-15sec ad at the beginning I can’t skip it.

    Like

  2. I get exactly the same result with AdBlocker+.  With it enabled, there is no banner, and with it disabled, there is a banner.  How remarkable.  It must be said though, that it is possible to merely mimimise the ad banner in the YouTube clip, so I’m not sure how annoying it really is in practice. 

    I guess somehow the relevant firms need to find a way to transcend the usual compromise between trying not to annoy people on one end, and maintaining a viable advertising stream on the other (eg. the TV companies got around this issue by making ads entertaining).  If it’s possible to find an implementation of advertising that both avoids irritation, and maintains product awareness/exposure, then everything would be OK (the clearest example of this I can think of is product placement – the intro. to Top Gear Live was certainly entertaining, even though it was merely 20 minutes of paid advertsing).  Perhaps the only way to trenscend such a compromise in the Internet space is to accept the death of the advertising-as-the-primary-source-of-revenue concept that we’ve come to accept .

    Interestingly though, I was thinking just the other day about my AdBlocker+.  I was wondering what the implication might be of me never seeing another internet-based advertisement ever again (which is the natural result of installing the AdBlocker+).  There have been numerous times when I have derived significant value from information conveyed to me via Internet-based adevertisements (airline sales, etc.), so I wonder if blocking the ads might in fact make me worse off.  Indeed, other than cleaning up the ad clutter on the page and eliminating the minimal amount of annoyance caused by ads, I’m not really certain of the benefits I’m receiving through my use of the AdBlocker+.  On balance, it is certainly feasible that I’m actually worse off.

    I might also note, ironically, that the AdBlocker+ blocks the ads on this site – both the Amazon ones on the left and the Google ones on the right.  Facebook has gotten around this by mixing ads in with friend suggestions, so the AdBlocker+ has difficulty distinguishing between them, and hence cannot block the ads.

    Like

  3. “Yes it will be annoying but it will also be effective and we need that for YouTube to continue as a viable operation”,

    The internet started off as a thing where everyone shared things for nothing.  Then, with the dot com boom, business saw a way to extract money. (In most cases, this view was over hyped).  Until this development, Youtube was an exception. I find it interesting that the author thinks that what YouTube is doing is inevitable, rather than their being a reversion to the original model.

    I also use Firefox, and didn’t see the adds. This will give Firefox a competitive advantage for YouTube users. Will google respond by not letting You Tube be viewable in firefox as have some web pages. It is then possible for Firefox to disguise itself as IE. etc etc. The battle will go on

    Like

  4. The days of “advertising as an interruption” are over, and anyone, including online advertisers, who persist with this model will fail. Instead, ads need to be relevant, they need to connect with the audience, and they need to add value to the lives of viewers.

    As previous commenters have noted, technology now allows us to remove the interruptive commercial messages. If only marketers could learn to give us something of value, rather than continuing to annoy us, they would be more successful.

    Like

  5. Google bought YouTube in October 2006 in a $1.65 billion stock swap so we can expect that it will try to find ways to make money from it.  I think the placement and nature of the ads is crappy but Google will be monitoring their effectiveness, as it does with all its advertising. If this method is not working for its advertisers it will surely keep trying things until it has something that does work.

    Like

  6. Google is a wonderful company but there is one thing that is really stupid about what they’ve done. They should have extended the screen and had the ads running at the bottom of the screen but not over the thing you’re trying to watch.  

    Like

  7. If I’m not mistaken, Google has the technologies, and the users elect which ones to use based on their appetite for profit.  In this instance, the Youtube user has chosen to display this type of ad on their video–hence why it only appears on this video and not so many other videos also online.

    On another topic, I wonder if Google recognizes revenue  for ads which are displayed to users, but are filtered by software such that the end-user never sees it…

    Like

Comments are closed.