I don't see how this is a game changer. So google bought some content to tag onto the back of an ad. Is this really a sustainable model, while it may not have been expensive for a company like google, is it going to be within the reach of tens of thousands of small companies that currently can leverage AdWords? Maybe I'm not understanding the implementation but couldn't the same effect be achieved by targeting videos that are going viral? They already have youtube, splap a few an ad in front of Chocolate Rain, it's probably the same demographic anyway. Even if the content producers on youtube started bitching about having their content monetized they certainly come cheaper than whatever Seth McFarlane is getting paid, and he is probably getting revenue guarantees which the small guys can't demand. If anything this isn't revolutionizing the video ad market, except for the fact that it happens to be internet video, traditional consumer brands were contracting creation of, not just indirectly subsidizing, content creation via daytime Soap Operas, and that was 50 years ago.
Steven
· 1 year ago
Steven what the hell are you talking about. This is not a game changer at all. This is just what a lot of other video companies are already doing. The only difference is that google did it, so you can buy the advertising in their marketplace (Adwords).
Paul Baranda
· 1 year ago
Honestly... I don't think I'd like to show clips of the Family Guy on my site or any site which has no relation to the clip being used.
Mike
· 1 year ago
The difference here is that these videos will be playing across their ad network, on other sites. It is not content that a publisher has chosen to embed which may or may not come with pre/post roll ad.
My questions is whether this "content" will enhance or compete with the sites that it is showing on.
All Comments
My questions is whether this "content" will enhance or compete with the sites that it is showing on.