Comments on: Everyone Hates YouTube’s New, ‘Dumb’ Video Ads?

By: K.Sako

K.Sako — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:27:06 +0000

I Kombucha (kind stocks) to sell. U.S.A in kombucha to people looking for a sale. Details, e-mail us.

By: Ty Graham

Ty Graham — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:10:51 +0000

Let’s do a real world test and see how long a person can watch youtube videos without being annoyed by the ads. Let’s stick some crazed video lover in a room with some popcorn and tell him he can’t leave until he pushes the big red “ads suck” button! Come on, Your eye will be annoyed if you’re engaged in someone’s video. Don’t be too fooled, you might just realize that soon, everyone is going to get blip’d!

By: Matt Dickman

Matt Dickman — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:24 +0000

Jim — The people at VideoEgg.com claim that they’ve been using this format for over a year. Granted they don’t have the traction of Google, but they seem to have been first in the tactical implementation. There was talk of them having a patent, but I am not 100% on that.

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:25:59 +0000

“why would Google buy YouTube in the first place?”
So Microsoft couldn’t? I dunno. That’s way beyond my level of business expertise.
I’m just a marketer.

By: mgroves

mgroves — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:22:35 +0000

It doesn’t have to be huge amounts of money right now: just a sufficient NPV. If it’s ultimately not about money, then why would Google buy YouTube in the first place?

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:05:43 +0000

@mgroves, it’s not about money to YouTube. The number crunching proves that.
It’s about money for the publishers, and for the stockholders, but not Google’s profit/loss.
They don’t have first-mover advantage as much as they really have 800-pound gorilla advantage.

By: mgroves

mgroves — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:01:55 +0000

I very much agree with you, except that it is almost certainly about money. YouTube lovers have been wondering for some time now how they will continue to pay their bills if they don’t bring in any revenue.
I think Google is taking a risk, but it is a calculated, innovative one. If people get too annoyed, they will be able to adapt, because, as you state, they have first-mover advantage.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:47:16 +0000

“This is about being first. And continuing to be #1.”
I wouldn’t assume they will continue to be #1 just because they’re getting advertising money. What matters to advertisers are results, and they can be measured on this medium like they’ve never been able to measure before.
There is nothing this “service” is adding to the experience or to the advertiser that someone else couldn’t do with a banner ad.
It isn’t innovative. It is at best forgettable and at worst annoying. And if they annoy their audience too much, they’ll tune out and won’t be long at #1. They can still keep the prestige of being first (for who can take it from them?), but it’s the other thing that matters the most.
I just think we ought to be setting the bar higher. This seems to be a cop-out, and more importantly, the numbers show it to be ineffective.