Advertising is going to happen. I think we can all accept that fact. How it's going to happen is the next phase of this adventure we're on.
I agree that ads need to be somehow "attached" to the video. Whether that's through pre/mid/post roll, product placement, or some other way we have yet to discover, the advertising needs to "travel" with the video. This is simply because once you remove the web browser from the equation - iTunes, FireAnt, BitTorrent, etc. - there needs to be a method for the advertisers to reach the viewers. That's not to say there isn't an opportunity for ads to be adjacent to videos, as web-based video is quite obviously a growing market. But we need to look beyond the web and what's here in the present, at least from a development standpoint. I haven't looked at Joost, but how are they tackling the advertising issue? On 3/2/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry I have to disagree with you Ads placed around the video I think > > is more distracting than a preroll or post roll....why would I watch > > a video 16X9 and in the "black bar" areas there is a bunch of ads > > placed there? I know I woundn't. > > > > Or course I don't think advertising is "evil" like a lot of people > > either. But that is another conversation... > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > +1 > > I posted this to Enric's page, but for some reason, it didn't go through: > > There are quite a few reasons why advertisements need to be _inside_ > videos. This assumes, as Chris pointed out, that the content creator > desires to make money with his/her video. This is the same > conversation as "how do we make sure that people see (and/or respect) > our CC licenses?". > > If the advertisement isn't inside the video, then, as you mentioned, > as soon as the video is watched out of context, the ad's no longer on > it. The purpose is defeated, because there is ZERO chance that > someone will click on an ad they never see. As far as advertisements > that run alongside or above or below a video, that assumes that > someone's willing to accept this visual intrusion while they're trying > to watch the video. Personally, if there's more stuff moving, that > wrecks my immersion in the piece. I'm actually less likely to watch a > video with ads constantly changing somewhere near it on the page than > I am likely to watch a video where I know there's going to be a pre, > post or midroll ad. > > The important questions are how to make the ads relevant to the > content, and as you brought up, the MOOD of the video, and how to make > the ads a seamless part of the video to the point that they're not > seen as an annoyance. > > Originally, I had ads running on my videos, but having looked at the > stats, it wasn't likely that someone was going to click on the ads > anyway. They were eyesores, and way more trouble than they were > worth. It would be different if I were making viral videos and > rolling the dice, hoping that hundreds of thousands of people would > watch the video, and I might get some clicks because of the numbers > game. As it stands, I don't have enough traffic to justify having > random, irrelevant, horrible-looking ads at the ends of my videos, so > they're gone. > > The key to all of this is having the ability to create your own ads > and change them as your sponsors change. There's interesting stuff > going on with this right now with "Wreck & Salvage", Galacticast and > blip.tv when they decide to roll out ads that you can modify and sell > on your own. Getting someone to sponsor you and making relevant and > useful ads for them as part of their sponsorship money is the way to > go. It's definite revenue, definite relevance and you're definitely > advertising someone you WANT to advertise or a product you want to > advertise instead of being victimized by the luck of the draw. > > -- > Bill C. > http://ReelSolid.TV > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Enric" <enric@> wrote: > > > > > > I've put up a post on my Lucid Media blog that may be of interest > > > here. It is the rational for not placing ads within videos: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/37s2ma > > > or > > > http://lucidmedia.cirne.com/index.php/2007/03/02/the-case-against- > > advertising-in-net-video/ > > > > > > Blog text follows: > > > ================== > > > Recently methods of advertising in video have become active in > > > development and implementation. Originally when I heard the rational > > > for Ads in net videos from Revver, I thought it worthwhile. Provide > > a > > > method for people making video on the net to gain revenue from their > > > work. This would support net videomakers continuing their work. > > There > > > had been entries on the yahoo videoblogging group and on blogs for > > Ads > > > targeted to the audience and content of the video. Similar to Google > > > showing Ads that try to relate to keyword searches; an Ad for Harley > > > motorcycles could appear on a videoblog entry about a weekend > > > motorcycle hog excursion with friends. > > > > > > Unfortunately, specifying include an Ad in my video on Revver, > > blip.tv > > > and others means you can have a powerful, emotive video on the > > > relationship to one's father followed by a upbeat commercial for > > Juicy > > > Fruit gum. Or a irreverent video of doing a prank on someone > > followed > > > by a commercial for the Heart Association. Now this problem probably > > > just relates to the technicality of specifying categories for the > > Ad's > > > relationships to video content and the amount of different Ads > > > available. With time the correlation of Ads to video content and the > > > viewership should have stronger matching. > > > > > > The question is why have Ads in videos on distributed networks. > > > Traditionally, on a television set broadcast a advertisement had to > > > exist within the video stream. No other location was provided for > > > placement. However on the internet an Ad does not need to be in the > > > video. It can be anywhere around the video on the web page. Either > > > top, left, right, bottom or lower down the page. Now video on the > > net > > > does not mean just a web page. It can be an iPod, mobile phone, > > Tivo, > > > or even projected in a theatre film festival. All of these non- > > website > > > screens can and probably will develop methods of displaying more > > than > > > just a video stream. A future iPod, mobile phone, digital TV and > > > theatre projector will be able to show more than just the video. > > Like > > > the Opera super- and sub-titles projected separately from the > > > performance, these screens will probably eventually have dynamic > > > separate information areas where Ads can appear. Further with the > > > usage of different screen ratios than 4x3 (16x9, etc.), space can be > > > made available around the video to place Ads. This puts advertising > > in > > > the video stream, but does not directly break up the video > > continuity. > > > > > > Google proved the failure of putting ads directly in searches. Flash > > > Ads that pop-up and dance up over the content of web-pages send > > people > > > away from sites. And Ads that interrupt the video, even at the end, > > > will be found to be ineffective. They will either drive people away > > > from watching the videos if at the start or middle or tend to not be > > > watched if at the end. Ads placed around the video will work since > > > people can choose to pay attention to the periphery of a video if > > the > > > ad relates to their interest or ignore that area. > > > ================== > > > > > > -- Enric > > > -======- > > > http://www.cirne.com > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
