[jmincey]

Quote:

---

Your arrogance is on display when you imply that most people feel the way you do, but they just don't have the gumption to stand up for themselves.

---

We each have opinions on this question. Yours may be closer to the truth or mine might be. Why can't we leave it at that? Why must mine also be arrogant?
I happen to think most people are very susceptible to marketing. Did you not earlier in this thread say yourself that marketing works?
I hope you are right that people have limits to what they will put up with from a content provider, but as I survey newspapers, radio, TV, and the web, I don't feel I have great cause for optimism.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Your arrogance is on display when you imply that most people feel the way you do, but they just don't have the gumption to stand up for themselves.

---

We each have opinions on this question. Yours may be closer to the truth or mine might be. Why can't we leave it at that? Why must mine also be arrogant?
I happen to think most people are very susceptible to marketing. Did you not earlier in this thread say yourself that marketing works?
I hope you are right that people have limits to what they will put up with from a content provider, but as I survey newspapers, radio, TV, and the web, I don't feel I have great cause for optimism.

---

The discussion is not about whether or not marketing is effective. That's you trying to change the subject.
We both agree that advertising is OK but advertising that is too distracting, too invasive, is annoying. We agree on that. But I think your tolerance for advertising in general is much lower than the general public's, as evident by you comments of commercials in TV shows and not in-between shows, etc. And you seem to be irritated that more people aren't raising their displeasure of this advertisement. My point to you is that maybe you are the minority and that if enough people felt like you do, change would occur. Your response to that is that you aren't optimistic that they will act on their displeasure. The flaw with that thinking is it assumes that enough people feel the way you do in the first place.
Ask yourself this - why does every browser come with a pop-up blocker? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jmincey]

I'm not looking at a snapshot of the present and basing my views only on that. I'm looking over a period of several decades and observing that whenever advertising is either introduced or increased in a medium, it is met with complaints (if it is noticed at all) and then ultimately resignation (if not acceptance). I don't recall a single instance of push-back by the public when the volume of advertising (or the presentation of ads) was getting (in relative terms) excessive or otherwise unacceptable.
We shall see how this pans out with YouTube and whether we will be able to just add it to the list of the foregoing.
Pop-ups are different only because it requires the user to expend effort beyond just sitting and staring.

[OM_user]

Having not actually seen any of these ads yet on Youtube, it's hard to properly comment on it, but I will say that from the description of the new ad service, it sounds like something I will not like very much.
Like others, I completely get why Google/Youtube feel they need to increase ad revenue. It must cost a bundle to run a site like it. So I have no issue with ads in general. but placing them right over a portion of the content just seems like stepping over the line to me. Place them anywhere on the site, but if they show up over what we're trying to watch, you potentially alienate your viewership.
I've been to sites, as I'm sure many of you have, where I'm reading an article and an ad will float out from the edges of the page and plop itself right in the middle of the content, while I'm reading it! I can't speak for others, but I personally find these ads HIGHLY annoying. I'm willing to forgive it once, but if I visit the site a second time and it occurs again, I take that site off my list of sites to visit. Is this really what Google and Youtube want to do?
And I take objective to the notion put forth by some here that somehow YouTube is where it's at if you want your videos seen. Yes, maybe right now it's the reigning king in this regard, but let us please not forget YouTube's roots. How it started as a small nothing site and built up a reputation and growing viewership. There's nothing to say that some smaller startup couldn't come along and begin to win over content publishers if they become disgusted enough with this new ad practice on Youtube. Things can change a lot more rapidly in this internet age. YT is not infallible and Google may be doing something that will kill their golden goose.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

I disagree. For google, bandwidth is basically free and unlimited.

---

Bull. The cost of maintaining whatever network connection they have to successfully deliver terabytes of data per day (estimated at 25 PB per month over a year ago, and certainly much larger now) is terribly expensive (because they have to pay for pipes that are large enough to handle peak traffic). You're also completely ignoring the cost of all the servers, storage, etc. of hosting all that video. It's awful easy to say that it's free when it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

Quote:

---

They have been forced by the FCC to cap your download upload speeds at home. Comcast and the other internet providers could turn on 100mb speeds to your home tomorrow and they want to, but can't.

---

This is also a load. If Comcast was really capped by the FCC, then FiOS wouldn't be able to deliver 2.5 times the speed (and they do).

Quote:

---

"long overdue and it's catching up with us" is just an excuse for why advertising is being thrown in your face and it's just plain wrong.

---

Right, just because you suppose that bandwidth is basically free for Google, it must be true.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

I'm not looking at a snapshot of the present and basing my views only on that. I'm looking over a period of several decades and observing that whenever advertising is either introduced or increased in a medium, it is met with complaints (if it is noticed at all) and then ultimately resignation (if not acceptance). I don't recall a single instance of push-back by the public when the volume of advertising (or the presentation of ads) was getting (in relative terms) excessive or otherwise unacceptable.
We shall see how this pans out with YouTube and whether we will be able to just add it to the list of the foregoing.
Pop-ups are different only because it requires the user to expend effort beyond just sitting and staring.

---

There you go, Jeff. There is definitely a line there and if an advertiser crosses it, the consumers make their displeasure known and someone offers a solution for them. You want to try to dismiss pop-ups, but the fact remains that is an ad and it [censored] enough people off, enough people pushed back, that a solution was offered. You say pop-ups are different but they are very similar to the overlay ads on the YouTube videos.
Again, you completely ignore the rise of commercial-free content over the last few decades via subscription television/radio. You are ignoring the free market, which means someone will offer an alternative if there are enough people who are unhappy with the status quo.
Traditional mediums are becoming less relevant and the market is offering alternatives. Your view that consumers don't change and their demands don't change is seriously flawed.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I refuse to believe advertisers cannot get their message across without compromising the content of programming in the process. Let's not be so quick to defend or capitulate to this.

---

What you stated matters not because you do not control the programming or how it may be modified. As someone else posted that by uploading to YouTube you agree to allow YouTube to modify the programming any way that they want including making derivative works. Therefore since you control nothing defense or capitulation nonwithstanding the people in control will do whatever they want if they think it will help generate increased revenues.
Expect to have more and more of this reammed down your throat. When Adelphia (now Time Warner Cable) first introduced their advertising flip bar as part of the guide I flipped and called them and vehemently complained. Guess what flip bar is still there today and I can not see it because I have trained myself to completly ignore that portion of the television screen when the guide is up. Expect more and more of this type of thing if you want to be on the net, watch Tv, etc. One more thing look at the DVD track 0 abuses where consumer control, except fast forwarding is locked out while the trailers/ads play, even on purchased DVDs. I predict that this kind of crap will be much worse on HD-DVD and BluRay. It will be awhile before I adopt either of those systems due to the format wars, expensive dual or tri format players, all the DRM, etc.

---

I switched to DirecTV. It doesn't have ads in their guides. The whole screen is dedicated to the content.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Bull. The cost of maintaining whatever network connection they have to successfully deliver terabytes of data per day (estimated at 25 PB per month over a year ago, and certainly much larger now) is terribly expensive (because they have to pay for pipes that are large enough to handle peak traffic). You're also completely ignoring the cost of all the servers, storage, etc. of hosting all that video. It's awful easy to say that it's free when it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

---

Bah! The next thing you are going to say is it costs record companies money to produce albums! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Businesses need revenue sources, and YouTube can advertise. But there's a good way and an obtrusive way. You don't disagree with that, do you Derik?

---

Jeff, you're making the assumption that your chosen methods of advertising are sufficient for maintaining the service serving that advertising. Your entire argument hinges on this assumption.
Here's my oversimplified query for you. If advertisers find value in banner ads/whatever advertising method is Mincey Approved, don't you think they find greater value in advertisements that are riding along the bottom of the content that can be clicked into without losing the clip being watched?
Here's the second oversimplified query: if the cost of running YouTube outpaced Mincey Approved advertising methods, wouldn't integrated advertising be one way to mitigate that monetary problem?
Finally, I think this discussion was lost in the woods of the hypothetical a couple hundred miles ago. This is a content creator chosen action. Even if YouTube didn't support this, nothing prohibits these creators from doing it themselves, so really, at this stage, any animosity should be aimed at them. Instead, we're letting Jeff's innate distrust of anything corporate to dictate that all video will be stamped with these types of ads.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I disagree. For google, bandwidth is basically free and unlimited.

---

Bull. The cost of maintaining whatever network connection they have to successfully deliver terabytes of data per day (estimated at 25 PB per month over a year ago, and certainly much larger now) is terribly expensive (because they have to pay for pipes that are large enough to handle peak traffic). You're also completely ignoring the cost of all the servers, storage, etc. of hosting all that video. It's awful easy to say that it's free when it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

Quote:

---

They have been forced by the FCC to cap your download upload speeds at home. Comcast and the other internet providers could turn on 100mb speeds to your home tomorrow and they want to, but can't.

---

This is also a load. If Comcast was really capped by the FCC, then FiOS wouldn't be able to deliver 2.5 times the speed (and they do).

Quote:

---

"long overdue and it's catching up with us" is just an excuse for why advertising is being thrown in your face and it's just plain wrong.

---

Right, just because you suppose that bandwidth is basically free for Google, it must be true.

---

Talk to someone with knowledge at comcast. They will tell you that their hands are tied by the FCC for speed and that they are forced to cap the speeds at the routers. That is why comcast introduced their speed boost, which doubles the download and upload speed in bursts, not all the time, but burst speeds. This was how they got a little more speed to the cusotmers, without violating the FCC rules. Fios got a better deal out of their FCC deal. Look it up before you go and blast BS. The FCC controls internet speeds in the US. Period, end of case.

[Grapho]

Reading both yours and Jeff arguments I have to side with Jeff on this one. Advertisement has become so prevalent that even laws have had to be put in place to curve it a bit. At lest here in Houston their are city ordinances prohibiting the displaying of commercial signs above a certain hight.
tallscot: Who in their right mind would like to have the content they are interested in viewing covered by as much as 20% by some obnoxious ad. Sorry, but I don't think Jeff is alone on this one.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Talk to someone with knowledge at comcast. They will tell you that their hands are tied by the FCC for speed and that they are forced to cap the speeds at the routers.

---

A convenient story.

Quote:

---

That is why comcast introduced their speed boost, which doubles the download and upload speed in bursts, not all the time, but burst speeds.

---

Speed Boost is the worst marketing gimmick ever. It doesn't work. I never, ever gotten better than the 8 Mbps I signed up for. The promise that it increases for sustained downloads is a complete lie.

Quote:

---

Fios got a better deal out of their FCC deal. Look it up before you go and blast BS. The FCC controls internet speeds in the US. Period, end of case.

---

Look it up? I'd love to. Please point me at this documentation.

[RobK]

As I said in yesterdays post regarding this... I've seen the ad overlays and frankly they're not really that bad. We'll all get over it. They could have made it a whole lot worse.