The YouTube ads certainly can be annoying; but money has to be made one way or another ... ads or pay-per-view ... which would be perferred.
Richard Sakai
· 8 months ago
I really think YouTube missed the boat. They had a large audience, and were unparalleled to any other site. About 2 years ago they should have started monetizing the site - but they failed to do so allowing people to get used to the relatively ad-free site.
Now they're left with an audience that will not be happy to see ads, and will not like how obtrusive the ads are. But all is not gone, they could take it another way..
They could remove all ads except for a box of adsense ads on the right side pane. Then charge big publishers to have video ads displayed after videos play on video embeds. Followed by charging companies like Stride, Dr. Pepper, to runs video ads on their network - that would bring in some cash as a lot of big companies like to run contests on youtube.
They could also charge money to video creators who create promotional / ad type videos on their site. Basically a pay us a small fee and we'll allow your ads on our site, plus give them a bit of promotion based on what you pay. There's a lot of affiliate marketers that create videos advertising some product that upload the video to youtube, and I'm sure google could take a small cut from them to give some more traffic to their videos - the marketers would be happy and youtube could get a slice of the pie.
jmath
· 8 months ago
YouTube should split their website into specialized sub-sections!
Everything they currently do is under one, large banner and it's way too cluttered and the advertising feels like a hash-mash of various ill-fated approaches. For example they should separate their premium content (HD, TV shows etc.), their short-clips (ninja cat) and music videos into distinct-looking sections that utilize advertising techniques that make sense for the respective medium.
For premium content, which would be longer than 30 minutes, pre- and post-ads work very well (see Hulu). For short-clips, try offering premium services to the content publishers (white labeling, advanced analytics tools, etc.) to upsell various tools that make their lives easier. And I like what they've done with the music videos, in that there's now a 'Download this song' button, but they should make the site more appealing to the music crowd.
I believe such a strategy, while still under the banner of YouTube, would make the website a lot more usable and provide users with a clear distinction between the various video types and the monetizing strategy they should expect.
pinecone licker
· 8 months ago
Good idea, I like this.
deathwalk60
· 8 months ago
I disagree with you that YouTube will change or resemble hulu. They make its money by charging the people who makes videos, if filmmakers want to promote their videos. They run many contests with sponsors, who run those ads on YouTube. These ads are not free they cost money, the advertisers pick up that fee. Now if I want to make money off my videos, I could team up with YouTube and AdSense, but that wouldn't happen because I don't have enough viewers. But if I allow ads on my website through an YouTude feed, I could make little money. All it takes is creating an account with AdSense. My videos are about poetry and mental illness. My favorites are about mental illness and poetry.
sergi_bosch
· 8 months ago
Seesmic video reply from Disqus/BucktownDigital
Chris Clayton
· 8 months ago
i never use hulu because every time i go and watch a video on it, it comes up saying i cant watch it because im not in the US.
If they do switch to premium shows, they need to take advantage of Hulu's flaws! one of their biggest flaws, is licencing. If youtube can borrow enough money from Daddy Google to purchase world wide licensing rights to tv shows... they will win the international user audience!
bradleyf81
· 8 months ago
I'm not too keen on the idea of ads being inserted into YouTube clips, but I can see the necessity of it. 470 million in losses is ... huge.
What I do disagree with is the way they're going about it. Who in their right mind puts 1 minute of ads around a 2 minute clip? That's insane! Even given the fact that most people won't watch the second set of ads, 30 seconds is still too long for such a short clip. The ratio of ad to clip needs to be a lot better than that.
This article said no one wants to advertise on a cat video. Why not? What would be wrong with a 3 second image plug for Whiskas or Friskies preceding a "funniest cats!" video? I think that's the method YouTube needs to look into. Short, single digit second plugs for related products. In fact, they could work out a deal with Amazon for shared revenue by adding "Buy Advertised Item From Amazon!" or "Search for Cat Products from Amazon!" links below the video on the YouTube pages.
I think there are plenty of viable ways for YouTube to make money that haven't been explored yet.
istara
· 8 months ago
The problem is partly that advertisers have been so slow/resistant to come up with shorter, web-friendly versions of their TVCs. No way should anyone have to sit through an ad that is quantum longer than the content they're trying to see.
bradleyf81
· 8 months ago
Huh. That's kinda strange. You'd think the companies would do some research into the viewing habits of their intended audience and then fashion their ads appropriately. That's why they do for TV right? Online video clips are an enitrely different form of media consumption from TV.
istara
· 8 months ago
Yes, you would. But a lot of companies have been surprisingly backwards when it comes to online, trying to force offline models to fit. I reckon anything long than five seconds is too long. Three seconds is about right. If creatives can't get a memorable, relevant, accurate message into three seconds - having audio/video/animation at their disposal - then frankly they're not doing their job properly.
There are two really obvious existing ad products that companies could use for online video/YouTube ad versions, without even having to product (or edit down) their existing TVCs:
1. Flash ads (even a Flash logo, or the Flash intro that some websites have, assuming it's short)
2. TVC "stings" - the ultra quick ads often used to mark sponsorship of a TV programme, sometimes used between the programme and the actual commercial break
bradleyf81
· 8 months ago
Ya, I totally get what you're saying. I think the problem is that the people making the decisions probably don't have much exposure to social networks, or the general "internet culture." How can you target ads for something you don't understand? It would be like me (an American) trying to target ads for Zimbabwe or something. The internet and the way people interact with each other over it has evolved into a unique sort of subculture that almost everyone in the world participates in, to some degree.
I just had a funny idea... Imagine full width banner ads on your TV screen while watching Lost. Ha ha ha!
I think the "stings" would be a great idea. Just something short, sweet, and to the point!
kafka
· 8 months ago
I think no one is too keen on the idea of ads, but I'm willing to be no one was too keen on ads when they were introduced to radio and TV, it's early days for Internet video, but I'm guessing it will go the same way. I think the major change is that in the case of radio and TV you really have no options, over the interwebs people can develop plugins, redirect to mirror sites or just look for other sources.
@MattWilsontv
· 8 months ago
Why is this so annoying? Because we never had to deal with it before! Imagine all the sudden Tivo didn't let you fast forward commercials, or there were interstitial ads on twitter-- we'd be pissed!
It always amazes me when people complain about advertising. How do they think website owners pay for the sites? If YouTube doens't make money, it goes away, just like Mashable. This Internet must be free mentality is just plain nuts and in most cases I'd bet it's kids that don't have a clue how life and business works anyway.
Medela
· 8 months ago
$4.70 million is quite a large amount! I wonder how would you tube tackle with this.
Alan
· 8 months ago
The people who hate ads the most never buy anything from the ads anyhow. They are always going to bitch and moan but they'll remain on YouTube. Where else are they going to go?
Brad F. is right - its not the ads its the presentation of the ad. Google seems to fail at any creative deployment - YouTube is no different - a 30sec spot? Come on that's just stupidity by the ad sales and ad ops teams.
Ecommerce Job.. Where are you?
· 8 months ago
It sounds like the odd thing about it is the ad vs. content ratio. 1 minute of ad to 2 minutes of content is bizarre. Do they really think viewers will put up with 33% of their time going to advertising on a clip they may or may not find interesting in the end?
AskCarrieLee
· 8 months ago
As a Youtube partner I receive an very minute amount of income from youtube and the content I post. Although as of late I've found them censoring me and my peers to no end, and the money we used to generate is slowing down. Youtube is continually doing its best to push out the good independant content that the website was founded upon. The ads are becoming more and more intrusive day by day. I know that due to the traffic/bandwidth they need to generate as much income as possible, I don't even mind the half page gigantic banner ads. But to have unmutable, unkippable pre and post edit ads ,to me is unacceptable.
Carrie-Lee
Screen Sleuth
· 8 months ago
That solution stinks...sorry. As pointed out, watching 1 minute of ads for 2 minutes of video isn't something people are going to put up with, regardless of YouTube's money woes.
Aaron
· 8 months ago
firefox + adblockplus + #t=1s at the end of the url gets rid of the ads
istara
· 8 months ago
Talking of DRM, I've noticed that they've changed the Flash codec of many new videos, such that if you rip them, most existing video tools can't convert them or even view them. If you can get to the mp4 version of the youtube file (usually by a simple URL hack) then that's still able to be converted.
Quicktime can't even play some of the recent ones, nor can VLC. Screencapturing from the webpage obviously works but is a bit of a hassle by comparison.
It's stupid that they don't encourage more downloading - frankly all user-submitted cat videos should be downloadable by default - as it eases the strain on YouTube's servers and greatly helps those of that might want to watch something on a mobile device. Even with WiFi, I find many YouTube videos impossibly slow to load on my iPhone through the official YouTube iPhone app.
I can only assume this DRM, and the increasing deletions and account cancellations for "piracy", are part of some wider plan to focus on premium content with forced ads before (and during?) play.
The result will, I think, be migration of lower-end users to other sites, maybe tuduo if they ever offer an English-language interface, since being in China they're far more piracy-tolerant.
I'm also seeing loads of pro and semi-pro video on Vimeo rather than YouTube, which is surely due at least in part to their greatly better codecs. YouTube may have to consider offering a variety of video formats to paid users/"Directors", since it's frustrating to film or edit something crisply and beautifully, compress it with specific parameters to maintain its quality, and see it all blurred and smudged up by YouTube's one-size-fits-all (except it obviously doesn't) flash codec.
outreach
· 8 months ago
“(N)o one wants to advertise on your cat video”(!)? Huh? Our commercial on Youtube is a cat video. Go to catflasher.com to see it embedded. And, if Whiskas or anyone is watching we’ll do a deal with you to put a spot in this commercial. (Otherwise, this commercial is going into the webisode for our upcoming show.) Cheers!
kev
· 8 months ago
so i dont get it, why the hell dont people want to advertise on youtube, its one of the most popular sites on the web, even if it is a video of my cat, there are millions of people going on that site every day, and it will only increase with the increase in speed of the internet, it almost seems like there trying to do old tricks in a new media, i mean the advids on the front page are crappy for the most part and overly cheesy,
if youwant people to watch your ad on youtube it has to meet 2 criteria a) complete waste of time b) make it so that we sit and watch the entire thing with out realizing the vast level of time we just wasted, 30 second ads before and after a 1 minute clip is preposterous, if you want to use hulu as an example, then you should stick to it, they have about 2.5 to 4 minutes of ads for a half hour show, a ratio far more to my liking
Rachel Burkot
· 8 months ago
The most annoying thing about YouTube ads is that you basically have to watch them unless you get up and leave the room or cover your eyes and ears. I think the inherent problem with them is that they are forced on you, and people don't like that on principle alone. It's not like you can change the channel, like when commercials come on TV. To get to the program or clip you are trying to watch, you must first watch an advertisement. I'm not sure it's effective, even though more people are watching them, because people tend to react strongly and negatively when forced to do anything.
Matt Schwartz
· 8 months ago
YouTube is a powerful marketing tool for the right companies and even for individual content producers. I've worked with multiple clients who would happily pay a not-too-high fee for some kind of "power user" option on YouTube, allowing for links to product, possibly some some control over the ad on the page, etc. While I understand YouTube's desire to Huluize itself, I'd rather see it remain focused on User-Generated content but look at some other forms of revenue besides advertising. (Advertising can still be a part of its revenue, but I do think there are other methods as well). Given that many people and companies use YouTube for viral marketing, I would also recommend YouTube adapt a self-service advertising option similar to Facebook and MySpace that can offer people with a low budget to have display ads to their videos on relevant other videos' pages, driving traffic to their own videos.
nick
· 3 months ago
People are stupid, they want everything for free, they dont realized how much money cost to maintain youtube and all their videos, they think that because youtube is big, the have more than enough money to pay, NOT TRUE.
The gotta chose between ads or pay a premium membership
All Comments
Now they're left with an audience that will not be happy to see ads, and will not like how obtrusive the ads are. But all is not gone, they could take it another way..
They could remove all ads except for a box of adsense ads on the right side pane. Then charge big publishers to have video ads displayed after videos play on video embeds. Followed by charging companies like Stride, Dr. Pepper, to runs video ads on their network - that would bring in some cash as a lot of big companies like to run contests on youtube.
They could also charge money to video creators who create promotional / ad type videos on their site. Basically a pay us a small fee and we'll allow your ads on our site, plus give them a bit of promotion based on what you pay. There's a lot of affiliate marketers that create videos advertising some product that upload the video to youtube, and I'm sure google could take a small cut from them to give some more traffic to their videos - the marketers would be happy and youtube could get a slice of the pie.
Everything they currently do is under one, large banner and it's way too cluttered and the advertising feels like a hash-mash of various ill-fated approaches. For example they should separate their premium content (HD, TV shows etc.), their short-clips (ninja cat) and music videos into distinct-looking sections that utilize advertising techniques that make sense for the respective medium.
For premium content, which would be longer than 30 minutes, pre- and post-ads work very well (see Hulu). For short-clips, try offering premium services to the content publishers (white labeling, advanced analytics tools, etc.) to upsell various tools that make their lives easier. And I like what they've done with the music videos, in that there's now a 'Download this song' button, but they should make the site more appealing to the music crowd.
I believe such a strategy, while still under the banner of YouTube, would make the website a lot more usable and provide users with a clear distinction between the various video types and the monetizing strategy they should expect.
If they do switch to premium shows, they need to take advantage of Hulu's flaws! one of their biggest flaws, is licencing. If youtube can borrow enough money from Daddy Google to purchase world wide licensing rights to tv shows... they will win the international user audience!
What I do disagree with is the way they're going about it. Who in their right mind puts 1 minute of ads around a 2 minute clip? That's insane! Even given the fact that most people won't watch the second set of ads, 30 seconds is still too long for such a short clip. The ratio of ad to clip needs to be a lot better than that.
This article said no one wants to advertise on a cat video. Why not? What would be wrong with a 3 second image plug for Whiskas or Friskies preceding a "funniest cats!" video? I think that's the method YouTube needs to look into. Short, single digit second plugs for related products. In fact, they could work out a deal with Amazon for shared revenue by adding "Buy Advertised Item From Amazon!" or "Search for Cat Products from Amazon!" links below the video on the YouTube pages.
I think there are plenty of viable ways for YouTube to make money that haven't been explored yet.
There are two really obvious existing ad products that companies could use for online video/YouTube ad versions, without even having to product (or edit down) their existing TVCs:
1. Flash ads (even a Flash logo, or the Flash intro that some websites have, assuming it's short)
2. TVC "stings" - the ultra quick ads often used to mark sponsorship of a TV programme, sometimes used between the programme and the actual commercial break
people making the decisions probably don't have much exposure to social
networks, or the general "internet culture." How can you target ads for
something you don't understand? It would be like me (an American) trying to
target ads for Zimbabwe or something. The internet and the way people
interact with each other over it has evolved into a unique sort of
subculture that almost everyone in the world participates in, to some
degree.
I just had a funny idea... Imagine full width banner ads on your TV screen
while watching Lost. Ha ha ha!
I think the "stings" would be a great idea. Just something short, sweet,
and to the point!
"no one wants to advertise on your cat video."
These have to be the truest words ever written, thanks.
http://revver.com/video/1396484/friendly-cat/
Brad F. is right - its not the ads its the presentation of the ad. Google seems to fail at any creative deployment - YouTube is no different - a 30sec spot? Come on that's just stupidity by the ad sales and ad ops teams.
Carrie-Lee
Quicktime can't even play some of the recent ones, nor can VLC. Screencapturing from the webpage obviously works but is a bit of a hassle by comparison.
It's stupid that they don't encourage more downloading - frankly all user-submitted cat videos should be downloadable by default - as it eases the strain on YouTube's servers and greatly helps those of that might want to watch something on a mobile device. Even with WiFi, I find many YouTube videos impossibly slow to load on my iPhone through the official YouTube iPhone app.
I can only assume this DRM, and the increasing deletions and account cancellations for "piracy", are part of some wider plan to focus on premium content with forced ads before (and during?) play.
The result will, I think, be migration of lower-end users to other sites, maybe tuduo if they ever offer an English-language interface, since being in China they're far more piracy-tolerant.
I'm also seeing loads of pro and semi-pro video on Vimeo rather than YouTube, which is surely due at least in part to their greatly better codecs. YouTube may have to consider offering a variety of video formats to paid users/"Directors", since it's frustrating to film or edit something crisply and beautifully, compress it with specific parameters to maintain its quality, and see it all blurred and smudged up by YouTube's one-size-fits-all (except it obviously doesn't) flash codec.
if youwant people to watch your ad on youtube it has to meet 2 criteria a) complete waste of time b) make it so that we sit and watch the entire thing with out realizing the vast level of time we just wasted, 30 second ads before and after a 1 minute clip is preposterous, if you want to use hulu as an example, then you should stick to it, they have about 2.5 to 4 minutes of ads for a half hour show, a ratio far more to my liking
The gotta chose between ads or pay a premium membership