[mdawson]

Quote:

---

Some people agree with each other that OJ was innocent too.

---

The OJ trial is an extreme case, it was handled poorly from investigation through trial and ultimately none of us know for sure beyond the fact that he does not behave like someone that is completely innocent. The responses to the video asking people about the new ad scheme is as the article states, may best be summarized by the first post: Yuck. Most people, at least YouTube members, as opposed to some seem to be with Jeff on this one. I did not say he was always right.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

I'd rather see ads than pay for subscriptions.

---

False issue. While no one LIKES ads as such, no one is under any illusion they are not a fact of life. I object not to the existence of the ads but rather to their presentation.
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.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Most people, at least YouTube members, as opposed to some seem to be with Jeff on this one. I did not say he was always right.

---

I can't draw that conclusion either. Users that don't care about it aren't going to take the time to say that it's ok. Squeaky wheels. (And I didn't suggest that you said he's always right. I just don't see people agreeing with him as some evidence that he was right about his argument.)

[JoeC]

I think Google has every right to make a return on its YouTube investment in any way it sees fit. If you don't like it, post your movies somewhere else, where they're far less likely to be seen.
The part that disappoints me is that the ads seem to be just random blast ads for anything and everything, rather than targeted ads based on the content of the movie. One of the true innovations of Google is its ad targeting technology, which ensures at least to a certain degree that the ads that show up in AdSense have something to do with the content of the page, thus increasing the likelihood that the ad will actually be of service to the visitor. An ad for something I actually want to buy is far less annoying. It's a win-win, because the advertiser gets the attention of someone who is actually interested in the product, and the user learns about a product that he or she is interested in buying.
Google's approach to advertising has always indicated to me that old school advertising methods, like spam email, where you just send the ad to a billion people and hope two are interested, will eventually die. I hope they have a method in the works for incorporating AdSense-type targeting in these video ads.

[GatorsFan]

I've just posted the following to the Feddback segment of YouTube:
"Here's an idea: Everyone creating a video for YouTube should sell and insert adverts of their own directly into their uploads. Create a video of surfers, for instance, sell a few seconds of it to, say, Bisect Surfboards, then run an overlay of the Bisect logo ---translucent, of course--- on the image of a surfer's magnificent tube ride at Waimea. Of course Google-slash-YouTube would probably delete the video as being "too commercial," which, in turn, could lead to all sorts of complaints about censorship, yada-yada, blah-blah."
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[d00d]

Quote:

---

Let's not be so quick to defend or capitulate to this.

---

No, let's instead be quick to jump to conclusions like these ads will be forced on all videos, that content creators won't have any control over how they're integrated into the video, etc.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

False issue.

---

No, it's not a false issue. There are subscription sites.

Quote:

---

While no one LIKES ads as such

---

Really? There isn't anyone who likes ads? Are you sure? Did you do a poll or something?

Quote:

---

no one is under any illusion they are not a fact of life

---

Really? Nobody? I disagree. Did you happen to go to the YouTube thread and read the posts there?
I for one will not use YouTube if you have advertisers
I've seen lots and lots of people on the Net who think music should be free, software should be free, and content should be free. These people typically have no grasp of basic economics.

Quote:

---

I object not to the existence of the ads but rather to their presentation.

---

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

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.

---

You need to read my posts better.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Let's not be so quick to defend or capitulate to this.

---

No, let's instead be quick to jump to conclusions like these ads will be forced on all videos, that content creators won't have any control over how they're integrated into the video, etc.

---

Are you accusing some of knee-jerk responses without all the facts? That never happens in Internet forums! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[d00d]

Never ever. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MacKayaker]

Quote:

---

Clearly you missed the earlier article about this.

Quote:

---

YouTube will work with partners on the new advertising scheme, and said in a note on its blog that ad revenue will be shared with content owners.

---

Also, I'm still not convinced that YouTube in its current form is actually a money maker.

---

And I would add that any one of the bazillions of content "creators" who have posted video on the site are fools if they think they will actually ever see any kind of kickback from ad sales on the site.
I think there is far too little understanding of what resources are required to host a site of this nature and have it serve as large and wide an audience as it does, as well as it does.
I'm not for advertising most of the time, but I'm even less for having to directly pay for the full cost of content delivery. As long as advertisers are willing to do so and the price I do pay is the inconvenience of dealing with ads, it's a necessary evil I can live with. And in a cable world, I pay for the channels I want - not for everything out there.
And anyone that says we ignore them, so why do they keep doing it is naive. It's like spam - there are enough people foolish enough to believe the ambassador of xyz country is really contacting them personally for help that it fuels the fires. Advertising is the same way - of course it works, but it's been around so long that they are feeling the need to get more and more invasive. I hate that, but I think the networks are the worst offenders with all the crap they toss out in the middle of a show in the lower third. I guess if they cram it in during the show, then they can use commercial breaks to work in more advertising, rather than show promotion.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

...let's instead be quick to jump to conclusions like these ads will be forced on all videos, that content creators won't have any control over how they're integrated into the video, etc.

---

Anyone with eyes open can see the encroachment of marketing in every facet of life. We live in a consumer culture and even toddlers are now marketed to. Even they are a demographic now. It's pathological.
Some marketers have pondered using sidewalks as a place for advertisements. Some have pondered using the SKY for getting out a message.
All our civic arenas are now named after corporations (even when public subsidies for them dwarf what the corporations contribute). Wings in universities are being named after corporate grantors.
I understand that marketing is a fact of life, and YouTube undergoes business costs and must have some revenue sources -- no quarrel with that. No quarrel with the concept of ads in general. But I know baby steps and trial balloons when I see them. I see the direction in which we are headed.
I would rather err on the safe side and NOT assume good will by a corporation. I would rather send a clear and unmistakable message that ads are fine but not within the content frame.
Where does this stop?
We are like the folklore of the frog in the frying pan. When tossed in the boiling hot water, we leap out to save our lives. But with the heat gradually and incrementally turned up, we don't notice a thing until it's too late and we burn to death.
Advertising has -- for decades -- been gradually "turned up" on us and I think human beings are more than consumption machines for corporations. This will sound like "alarmist" talk to a frog's ears, but it's long overdue that we recognize the magnitude of what is taking place here.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

it's long overdue that we recognize the magnitude of what is taking place here.

---

Yup, the cost of running a service like YouTube is finally catching up with us.

[Nobody]

I love it, youtube is going to go the same route as myspace and ruin itself. Everyone will move to another service.
Awesome.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

it's long overdue that we recognize the magnitude of what is taking place here.

---

Yup, the cost of running a service like YouTube is finally catching up with us.

---

I disagree. For google, bandwidth is basically free and unlimited. Bandwidth is not scarce in this country, quite the opposite. Bandwidth is plentiful and underused. The FCC has limited the speed of internet (1) and capped upload/download for home users and implemented incremental updates of speed. Look over the ocean, they have 100mb to the home. The us has fiber laid all over the country and it's not being used. Comcast is being handicapped by the FCC, Comcast would love to compete in the global market for internet speed, but they are not allowed too. 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.
"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. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif