In fact it was first developed by me (Kevin Sherman) while working for a digital advertising company called Lot21 in early 2000.
I developed the idea, demos, and even had our group submit a patent application for it.
The courts might get a peice of this one.
Jeff
· 2 years ago
Are you planning on suing Google for rolling ads during the video? I don't get how it's your original concept and how you could have patented it...
CountRob
· 2 years ago
Well it was really, really fun these past 2 years. Goodbye YouTube...
This is absolutely rediculous. The main reason everyone went to YouTube was that it had fast streaming and no ads. All I can say is that if they're going to deface our vids with ads, they need to give us a share of the revinue. Yes, their bandwidth costs a million a month, but they were already making 15,000,000 a month just from banners and text ads. This would have never happened if google hadn't bought them.
Kevin
· 2 years ago
Of course we can't sue Google, who can? They have more money then anyone, so don't get too silly.
I was simply pointing out the fact that this is not an original idea and we in the advertising world have been making things like this happen for a long time.
The one thing we didn't have of course is the mass market to make it possible. Google is uniquely positioned to leverage and roll out this type of interaction technique because of their market size.
Generally speaking, a good idea is basically worthless unless you can effectively implement it on a large scale, so kudos to them for finally getting it implemented on a large scale.
So relax everyone, I think Google and Youtube specifically will be around a bit longer still. ;-)
MetroBoxTV
· 2 years ago
I like it. we are in the planning stage of doing something similar on our site using Adap.tv
LonelyBloggers
· 2 years ago
As someone that has spent significant money on producing videos, I do find it alarming that they won't be sharing "in-video" advertising with the people that actually own the content.
First Google/YouTube is pissing off licensed copyright holders under lawsuit because they place ads beside copyrighted content, now they are going to piss off "the other half" of people that produce user-generated content.
I can't complain because our videos have been watched almost 900,000 times on Youtube (8000-10,000 views per day now) and appreciate the awareness it generates for us....
..but if YouTube is going to profit from "in-video/intrusive" ads, they should be kicking some of that revenue back to the owners of the content. Without content YouTube would not exist, so why not reward the people that spend the time and money to produce the videos?
Jeff
· 2 years ago
Your rant would have been great if it were based on the facts. The NYT article clearly states they plan to share the revenue...
"The revenue from the ads will be split between the media partner and YouTube. Ms. Naughton said Google would charge advertisers $20 for every 1,000 times the ads were displayed. Google said the ads would begin appearing today throughout the site. Ms. Naughton also said advertisers would be able to take aim at specific channels and genres, as well as demographic profiles, geography and hour of the day."
mark
· 2 years ago
If Google plans to pay the users well, I don't mind the ads the way it looks right now.
All Comments
In fact it was first developed by me (Kevin Sherman) while working for a digital advertising company called Lot21 in early 2000.
I developed the idea, demos, and even had our group submit a patent application for it.
The courts might get a peice of this one.
This is absolutely rediculous. The main reason everyone went to YouTube was that it had fast streaming and no ads. All I can say is that if they're going to deface our vids with ads, they need to give us a share of the revinue. Yes, their bandwidth costs a million a month, but they were already making 15,000,000 a month just from banners and text ads. This would have never happened if google hadn't bought them.
I was simply pointing out the fact that this is not an original idea and we in the advertising world have been making things like this happen for a long time.
The one thing we didn't have of course is the mass market to make it possible. Google is uniquely positioned to leverage and roll out this type of interaction technique because of their market size.
Generally speaking, a good idea is basically worthless unless you can effectively implement it on a large scale, so kudos to them for finally getting it implemented on a large scale.
So relax everyone, I think Google and Youtube specifically will be around a bit longer still. ;-)
First Google/YouTube is pissing off licensed copyright holders under lawsuit because they place ads beside copyrighted content, now they are going to piss off "the other half" of people that produce user-generated content.
I can't complain because our videos have been watched almost 900,000 times on Youtube (8000-10,000 views per day now) and appreciate the awareness it generates for us....
..but if YouTube is going to profit from "in-video/intrusive" ads, they should be kicking some of that revenue back to the owners of the content. Without content YouTube would not exist, so why not reward the people that spend the time and money to produce the videos?
"The revenue from the ads will be split between the media partner and YouTube. Ms. Naughton said Google would charge advertisers $20 for every 1,000 times the ads were displayed. Google said the ads would begin appearing today throughout the site. Ms. Naughton also said advertisers would be able to take aim at specific channels and genres, as well as demographic profiles, geography and hour of the day."