Comments on: New ads jar some YouTube fans

Overlays that appear briefly at the bottom of videos annoy some viewers, but overall response to the experiment is mixed.

[sismoc]

All Advertising Is Inherently Annoying

All Advertising Is Inherently Annoying...

Some is just LESS annoying.

Sticking anything in my face is the best way to get me to dislike the product being advertised.

"TV viewers have grown accustomed to watching a show and seeing the image of David Letterman or some other star walk across the bottom of the screen as part of a promotion" Note the use of the phrase "grown accustomed". No one likes it. People just put up with it because they have little choice.

I am tired of the useless and irritating junk that constantly swirls around on commercial TV.

Thank goodness for pop-up blockers, ad blockers, and other tools that allow me to control my web surfing experience.

Google is NOT a web search company. They are now an advertising company that just happens to use a search page as one of their ways of getting ads in front of people. Their motto "Don't be evil" is becoming a joke.

[vagarob]

Run! It's Advertising!

Yeah, because advertising is so *evil*

Unlike Google spending millions (both from the company and the founders personally) into renewable energy and electric cars - so you know... you can breath better?

Oh, and also the millions of dollars that Google pours into their community projects and charities.

Then, there is again, the millions poured into free speech organizations to help protect your already eroding freedoms.

Last but not least, that Google went to bat to protect your searches from the Bush administration, UNLIKE AOL.

Go back reading ADbusters because the only joke here is you.

Disclaimer: I don't own Google stock, I don't even use their search site anymore - I use Ask.

[puma202]

Fire the Google uppity, petty manager...

..by the name "Eileen". She concocted this witchcraft and will slowly sink the Google ship!
("Women on a ship bring bad luck"....16 century mariners' credo).

Larry, Sergey, Chad Hurley:

Tommorow, take Eileen to one of the finest Google cafeterias. Feed her, and then...FIRE HER!

[kieranmullen]

Hey complainers.. Have better ideas?

Have better ideas to host all of those movies for no cost? Comon get real.

[qwerty75]

So in your one dimensional world

This is the only solution?

Intrusive ads? There is no reason to put them in the videos.

Are they going to share in the profits?

I can see this as Googles first big mistake. They just might have killed YouTube. Right not there is a huge opportunity for some upstart to displace it.

[smilin:)]

Yep - MS Soapbox!

Use MS Soapbox. Keep the ads in the banners.

[Dialexio]

WTF?

No one wants ads on THEIR video (unless they get paid for it...). The least Google could do is put annoying, flashing "YOU'VE WON $10,000!" ads NEXT TO the video. Or make it the video owner's choice.

[sirtwist]

Amazing...

It still amazes me how we've become such a society of entitlement. Everyone expects limitless features and functionality from web companies for free and then complains when the company providing those services tries to monetize them by selling advertising or "pro" versions of their service.

Remember the bubble, folks? The reason it happened is that a ton of internet startups came up with ideas to provide services over the web without bothering to figure out how to generate revenue. Where are most of them now? Gone!

You can't have your cake and eat it too... either be prepared to pony up cash to pay for the storage, bandwidth, developers, support personnel, etc. or get used to seeing some (IMHO) fairly unobtrusive advertising.

[shoffmueller]

Right you are

Also amazing is the freedom-of-speach arguement. If you want your videos protected from advertizement, post them on your own web site, where no one will see them.

[Jim Harmon]

I never understood this phrase

What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?

[flickrz]

Amazing....

So, Google is not only allowing piracy but also making money by selling ads.....Good going Google.

[vagarob]

hmmm

omg... terrorist....child predators....piracy.....


if you could just fit in the drug lords i swear you were a PR agent
with the MPAA.

[bamabrad]

Nothing is free-

SOMEBODY pays-if you want to receive it at your current cost (free to you!) ,then you'll have to put up with the payer's crud-or pay for it yourself with no ads.

[Dr. Smoke]

C|Net could take a cue from YouTube

C|Net could take a cue from YouTube. The pre-rolls on all C|Net
videos are most annoying.

[Hardrada]

Simple

Don't spend a BILLION dollars on a lame video hosting site.

duh.

[Tombo60]

Stupid

This is just utterly stupid!
Pretty soon, a lot of members will start looking for other video sites.

[Geek091]

Unacceptable

Any form of advertising that overlays content is unacceptable to me.

I use YouTube as a simple way to share videos with friends and family and I don't object to banner or text ads at all. But if this "experiment" becomes permanent, I'll close my account and put up my own site for that purpose. It's really not that hard. I've built video sites before.

Maybe I'll do it in a big way and sell subscriptions. I, for one, would rather pay for the service than have to put up with intrusive advertising. It seems that the advertising industry in America won't be satisfied until our lives are one non-stop commercial.

[theconqror]

Good idea....

In building your other sites, did you build them sans popups / popunders / banners / Links or any other revenue tool to defray the cost of the site?
First and formost, I agree with you. I dislike an overlay as a form of advertisement. I don't care for it in TV nor will I really care for it on the internet. Frankly most adverts on the internet are horrid hucksterisms.
Overlays intrude on the entertainment product we purchase. BUT that's the rub. We aren't purchasing entertainment off of YouTube or TV. To get "free" entertainment, we are going to have to put up with some advertisement. There is no "free" in business. Google is trying to strike a balance between what they have to do to keep a site funded and what they have to do to keep clients from leaving.
I think its a great idea for you to create a for profit site, but in that simple statement, you aren't creating a "free" exchange site like YouTube. Another options would be to counter offer Google some monitary value for running your video "free" to friends and family. Google might look at that as a real revenue port. That way your "free" video gets to your target audience.

[Geek091]

Actually, yes.

When I said "video sites," I was actually referring to portions of sites; though there's no reason that the video portions couldn't have been complete sites. In other words, the technology was there, even though the video portion was a small part of the total site.

These were built for hire for businesses who needed a simple way for field service people to make videos of inspections (along with other files) available to others in the company who needed access to them. They were not "public" sites in that authentication was needed to access them (which is also why I can't link to them, and you'd be unable to authenticate anyway).

My point is that the technology to create a video site isn't all that complex. In fact, you can even purchase it if you don't care to code it yourself. The only complex part is the transcoder, and even that can be licensed if you like.

If I were to create an advertising-supported video site, it would work exactly like my existing advertising-supported sites: There would be affiliate banners and text ads, but no pop-ups, pop-unders, slide-in DHTML ads, links to full-page Flash ads in between parent and child pages, or other intrusive advertising.

If I were to create a video site solely for my own use and that of my family and friends, it would, of course, be ad-free.

But it's not advertising I object to. I derive a significant portion of my income from ads. It's intrusive advertising that I object to. When the ad obstructs the content, then something is wrong with the Webmaster's priorities, in my opinion.

I do think that a subscription-monetized video side a'la Smugmug would do well, and that Google should explore that option. Photobucket also offers an ad-free "Pro" account that I'm told is very popular. A lot of people, including myself, are willing to pay for ad-free content if the content itself is decent and the site works well.

[Macajuel]

It might be similar to the ads in Joost and Tivo

I'd be open to ads in youtube if they were implemented in a manner similar to that of Joost and Tivo. The Joost service is ad supported but these tiny interactive ads appear in the corner of feeds and can be clicked away easily. The joost ads are so unobstrusive to the point that I never feel compelled to click them away, even though I know they're there.

With Tivo, if you happen to be watching an actual ad, Tivo has started (not very often) hitting you with: "if you like the product you've just seen, hit the "Thumbs Up" for more info."

[RandyHale]

You Tube ads.

I think that if Google is going to earn money with these Ads then
those who create the video should also have a share in the profits.
That should be a negotiated percentage based on popularity.

[JohnSP]

They are getting part of the profit

Did you even read it? Better go back and read a 2nd time because obviously you didn't understand it. They are putting ads with "selective partners" and paying them part of the profit. Why is that hard for you to understand?

[Kenny Yeung]

They shouldn't get a cent

I really don't think youtube desire to put up those ads

While they didn't pay anything upfront to those content provider...

5:5......
No way! I think those people desire at least 8:2 ot 9:1 5:5 just don't make sense

Quick... Move away!
there is sooo many different websites better than youtube, just missing you who upload videos!

I would suggest users move to
MSN Soapbox,Revver or iFilm

[Kenny Yeung]

They shouldn't get a cent

I really don't think youtube desire to put up those ads

While they didn't pay anything upfront to those content provider...

5:5......
No way! I think those people desire at least 8:2 ot 9:1 5:5 just don't make sense

Quick... Move away!
there is sooo many different websites better than youtube, just missing you who upload videos!

I would suggest users move to
MSN Soapbox,Revver or iFilm

[JohnSP]

The Ads Dont Bother Me

I'm glad they aren't putting them at the front of videos where you have to wait to watch the actual clip, like other news sites have done. These ads don't bother me at all, youtube is a great site and no one is even close, I understand they have to make money somewhere to pay for all the bandwidth, so these ads don't bother me at all.

[WJeansonne]

Stupid liberal minded audience doesn't understand capitalism

Who's supposed to pay for the delivery of the videos, Santa Claus? Duhh!

[The_Decider]

YouTube was doing fine before Google ruined it

DUHHHH!

[aSiriusTHoTH]

Not really....

YouTube was living off massive loans and grants it could not last long on the path it was taking. Google purchasing them was YouTube's dreams come true.

But the "Liberal" comment... get a life. Why do you morons have to bring your agenda into everything?

Most people understand you have to make a profit, and most would rather see adsense ads on the sides of the clips not in it. That is the problem? Can you understand that? I doubt it...

[Steph0314]

Just Another Type Of Pop-Ups!

Didn't like the Pop-Ups back when they started ... still don't like them today. There has been several styles or method ... this will be just another method.