Comments on: From YouTube to BooTube: A Giant (and Dumb!) Leap Backwards

By: John

John — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:31:03 +0000

A really interesting post!
Google has built its incredible success upon delivering its audeinces with what they want. Primarily, that’s been highly accurate search results. For some time Google has monetized this through ads, however these ads have been relavant to the user – added value to the searching experience on the whole.
I hope that this step is implemented well (I’m sure Google will do a great job of it) but the decision to interfere with the user experience and claim that ‘only 10%’ of users being turned off is a selling point is worrying one.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:21:55 +0000

As a producer of TV commercials I think that if your going to spam online video the best approach is to improve the creative of post roll ads (as Joseph said). 2% is just banner ad performance and bet that rate will get even worse.
Online video advertising in conjunction with online entertainment is intrusive and menacing.
There is a video advertising market that is about to explode and it seems that Google is failing to address it. it’s Local Video Advertising for the local directory market. There are 26 million SMBs in this country. Most will ue locally produced video ads for this. This is the LOGICAL online video advertising market. Most people can’t get past YouTube-esque video to see this.

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:23:52 +0000

I think Shawn said it best. It’s a setup, for sure.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:36:54 +0000

“They’re trying to run with the Madison Avenue big dogs now and they don’t have the experience, expertise or finesse to do so…so much so, that they are playing right into the wrong hands.”
But they do have a chunk of change to play with and 75% of the planet is using their search engine which I figure is enough to ensure some leeway for a couple of screw ups.
Experience and expertise can be bought and I wouldn’t announce the end of Google just yet.

By: Shawn Collins

Shawn Collins — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:10:34 +0000

Joseph -
I am surprised that you take such a simplex approach to the YouTube ads.
As far as I’m concerned, this is but one move in a big game of chess for Google.
You’re looking at the obvious, immediate result, and I think that’s flawed.
If I was a betting man, I’d wager this move is setting up a more significant move.

By: Joseph Jaffe

Joseph Jaffe — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:55:40 +0000

@Tim – nice analogy
I’m not sure we aren’t overestimating Google…to their credit they are risk-inclined and rabid experimenters/innovators, but they’ve certainly made plenty of gaffs in the past (remember their book venture?)
I’m not sure how much of this is Google versus YouTube.
What does interest me though is the classic challenge of focus. For the longest time, MSN could not shake the hangover of being perceived and acting like a TECHNOLOGY company. Yahoo! was able to pull ahead b/c it was – if nothing else – a media company through and through.
The same applies with Google. They’re trying to run with the Madison Avenue big dogs now and they don’t have the experience, expertise or finesse to do so…so much so, that they are playing right into the wrong hands.
It will be interesting to see how long (or short) this lasts…

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:44:23 +0000

Surprising how many people here are comfortable with the idea of advertising on YouTube. The idea of sharing video does however become uncool when you have the impression someone is crashing the party. It’s like having a threesome and your accountant decides to jump in bed too.
Google isn’t so dumb as to let their reputation slide down the toilet if this makes too many waves regardless of the click rates. We’ll see.

By: Ty Graham

Ty Graham — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:14:16 +0000

You’re a real thinker man! You know I came up with that idea a long time ago but now I call it Blip’d! If anyone was listening, I could blow you’re mind.

By: Marc Cohen

Marc Cohen — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:02:11 +0000

Google and others are claiming that these overlay ads are not intrusive. Of course they are intrusive. If you are watching a video and you see an ad it is intrusive – as good advertising should be. Let’s cut the charade and admit that it is intrusive. Nobody would watch an ad if it wasn’t.
Check out the Ad-Supported Music Central blog:
http://ad-supported-music.blogspot.com/

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:42:13 +0000

“Google has forgotten that products are created for the consumer, not the advertiser. Maybe you have too.”
What product are you referring to? You mean the user generated customer created product?
Because what Google is providing is the service, not the product.
“Eventually people will start moving away from YouTube to the next alternative.”
People have been saying that about Google for years now. Remember Teoma???? lol

By: Jay Ehret

Jay Ehret — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:15:17 +0000

“This is, in a way, about being first.”
You are right, Jim. And you are wrong. Google has forgotten that products are created for the consumer, not the advertiser. Maybe you have too…although it seems you often like to take the contrarian approach on principle.
Eventually people will start moving away from YouTube to the next alternative. I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, I’m simply going to wait for the eventual alternative.

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:38:07 +0000

Actually Joseph,
If you read the number crunching on this, this launch has absolutely nothing to do with making money for Gootube. The projections are thin. Here’s a link.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/08/mary-meekers-yo.html
This isn’t about monetization for Google. This is about a promise to their advertisers that they have the biggest/widest reach possible, more than anyone on earth, and they do.
This is, in a way, about being first.
That’s not dumb, that’s how you keep your stock high and your brand higher.
Dumb would be letting one of 100 other competitors steal their advertising partners if they didn’t do this.

By: Joseph Jaffe

Joseph Jaffe — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:53:43 +0000

Jim – this is no different from Bubble 1.0 where sites attempted to “get big fast” and then monetize later.
We’re still recovering from that hangover (which is why, according to Delloite + Touche – see my Jaffe Juice post), consumers prefer magazine ads to online ads.
Sorry, but this is Dumb with a capital “D”.
I’m not against monetization, nor even using advertising…but this overlay is no better (in fact, it’s worse) than what I was involved in, when I was at TBWA\Chiat\Day in 2001.

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:42:47 +0000

Joseph,
A post roll isn’t sellable, despite what you prefer. It’s just not. Why would I pay for an ad “after” the message was delivered? It would be innefective, completely.
And I don’t think Youtube “caved to the pressure”. Not one bit. This was the plan from day one of buying YouTube. I bet this was the plan of YouTube people before they even sold to Google too.
You may think this is a “dumb” move, but I disagree. It was a smart move to do this early enough in this new online video game, BEFORE it’s get even bigger than it is now.
Look, when YouTube launches its business channel/plan, and starts moving away from skateboarding videos, this will all make sense even more I believe.
The question I have is will the ads really be effective if they aren’t targeted well enough?

By: Joseph Jaffe

Joseph Jaffe — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:24:50 +0000

@cam – ridiculous that they’re taking credit for people ignoring the ad
@mgroves – actually I prefer a post-roll to this as it will only play out if it is acceptable to the “user”. Most will close out but at least its an engaged and non-inteusive impression. It also puts more pressure on the creative to perform.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:55:56 +0000

“In its test, Google said the ads got click rates of 1-2 percent, with 75 percent of clickers watching the message all the way through.”
It seems as if they’ve resolved themselves to the advertising failure. A 1-2% click rate is not indicative of engaging content.
I understand they’re under a lot of pressure to increase revenue, but that’s no excuse to make a choice that 1) fundamentally inconveniences their audience and 2) performs no better than banner ads.

By: mgroves

mgroves — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:37:52 +0000

What is a better alternative? Preroll ads are terrible, postroll ads wouldn’t work.