[jmincey]

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.

---

Does everyone go blind whenever I acknowledge there are costs of doing business and that I have no quarrel with advertising by YouTube?
This is a straw man.
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?

[mdawson]

Quote:

---

What annoys me more than the lower thirds promotion are the product placements in the content...
Heroes:
"Hey, we have to go find Sylar!"
"Yeah, let's get into our brand new Ford Edge!" - camera zooms in on Ford logo.
"Sounds great! Mind if I drink a refreshing Coke?"

---

Actually, I would prefer product placement to intrusive advertising. People use brand name product all the time and we see such products in our daily lives at home, on the street and at work or school just from general usage without any advertising. Having brand name products present in television shows, movies or videos is just a representation of the real world. I would rather have content producers earn revenue by having products appear in content as they would in real lifethink of all the Macs that have appeared in various shows that have been effectively advertised without blatantly pointing them outthan have ads interrupting the content; I am not including normal commercial breaks in this.
Now the type of blatant promoting that you have in your quote, with the characters is unacceptable. It is one thing to have a scene where someone says, Hand me my Coke, because that is what is sitting on their desk next to the person they are conversing with. Again, a scene in a family sitcom where a parent buying a car for their newly licensed teen states, Well the Toyota is known for being more reliable is not something far fetched; you hear such things all the time. Your example is a case of going overboard, but the television industry has made a point of rebranding or obfuscating products seen on the screen. Visible, brand-name props is a good way to subtly advertise a product and earn revenue for the content provider.
Such techniques do not work for YouTube, but there are far less intrusive ways to advertise on Websites. A I stated in a similar thread yesterday, it is no wonder that many people now have less than no attention span as content is constantly interrupted. Also, as others have indicated, we are now so saturated by advertising that most people simply ignore them. As the video linked indicated, ad hits registered by Google are more likely to be errant clicks than interest in the product.

[rimglow]

Can someone provide a link to one of these videos, with an add? Can't seem to find one.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

Actually, I would prefer product placement to intrusive advertising.

---

I'm inclined to agree, so long as it does not materially alter the content. The Macintosh itself has been used in product placement in a number of feature films -- either by design or simply because the Mac is favored in the film industry.
But even product placement can be taken to extremes.

[mdawson]

Quote:

---

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.

---

Hmm... this reminds me of something I heard once when the fledgling networks were building their audiences.

Fox turned into a hard-core porn network so gradually, I didn't even notice!
Marge Simpson, Lisas Wedding The Simpsons
[/list]As many Fox shows did early on, The Simpsons took this self-deprecating pot shot at the network. Fox and later the WB were notorious for airing content that would have been considered too risqu by the major networks and they upped the ante every season for a while.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

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.

---

Does everyone go blind whenever I acknowledge there are costs of doing business and that I have no quarrel with advertising by YouTube?
This is a straw man.
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?

---

Yes, you are stating the obvious again, there are good ways and obtrusive ways. OK. Great. What's your point other than the obvious? Anything specific? Yeah, ads in the sky, ads on sidewalks. And?
This is simple, really. If you piss people off, your ad dollars are wasted and you are doing the opposite of what your objective is - to attract and retain customers. And someone will provide an alternative if there is a market for it. People hate ads on radio, you can now get commercial-free satellite radio, if you want. If enough people want that, they make a profit and stay in business.
If you piss people off with animated Flash ads on Web pages, people will start disabling the ads...so they start making them less annoying.
I don't listen to AM radio much anymore simply because of the amount of ads on it. I can buy a subscription to HBO and Showtime and watch television shows without ads.
I don't know what your point is, if you are saying there needs to be a solution or action to take place. I totally agree with you that some ads are damn annoying.

[MacOldHand]

Quote:

---

How about showing the ad AFTER the clip is done.

/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

---

Perfect, if you ask me. Then I can close the web page before ads start.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Actually, I would prefer product placement to intrusive advertising

---

But that's what I think product placement is a lot of the time - intrusive. With a TV commercial, I can go to get something to eat or fast forward with TiVo. But when I'm watching "24" and a Dell logo is staring me in the face, it's distracting to me, personally.

Quote:

---

Having brand name products present in television shows, movies or videos is just a representation of the real world.

---

Except that Dell monitors don't have a giant Dell logo on the back, as an example.

Quote:

---

. I would rather have content producers earn revenue by having products appear in content as they would in real lifethink of all the Macs that have appeared in various shows that have been effectively advertised without blatantly pointing them out

---

I'm not a Mac zealot who criticizes one thing but doesn't criticize it when Apple does it, and I'm not implying you are.
Here's my point that makes it perfectly clear what I'm talking about - if a product placement isn't distracting to me, I don't notice it. If I don't notice it, it's not effective product placement, and they want to make sure I notice it so they get their money's worth (the advertiser).
So they are motivated to change the direction of the shoot, the lighting, the blocking so that the product is noticed.
You want to suspend your audience's disbelief. It's much better for Marlon Brando to ask for a beer than for him to ask for a Budweiser, in my opinion. I don't want to see the plot or direction or action deviate specifically for the product, and I notice that more than others, I guess.

Quote:

---

It is one thing to have a scene where someone says, Hand me my Coke, because that is what is sitting on their desk next to the person they are conversing with.

---

But you are being naive about it, no offense. A writer doesn't write "Hand me my Coke" to further the story or make it real. The writers are typically told that they need to put in a reference to a product from an advertiser. It's only there for the ad. A writer would typically write, "Hand me my drink" and it would be a fictional drink. This lets the piece be timeless, first of all, and it also lets the audience continue to be in a fantasy world, suspending their disbelief.
This is obviously subjective. I'm sure I'm more sensitive to it than most people.

Quote:

---

Also, as others have indicated, we are now so saturated by advertising that most people simply ignore them.

---

The advertisers aren't going to spend money on ads that have a low return. This is basic advertising.
But as more people skip commercials via TiVo and turn off banners with browser plug-ins, the more they will try to put it in the content you are watching. If they don't get enough revenue from ads, they will start charging to host or a subscription, etc.
I think Google's ads are non-intrusive in little boxes over many pages and they seem to be doing OK, don't they? I actually paid for some ads for my business through Google.

[jmincey]

Quote:

---

This is simple, really. If you piss people off, your ad dollars are wasted and you are doing the opposite of what your objective is - to attract and retain customers.

---

Actually, it's not that simple. You may be an exception, but most people (in my experience) settle for what they get. They may not like it, and some may squawk, but ultimately they settle. People take the path of least resistance.
Just look at how few people in these forums are even so much as squawking about the problem. Instead we are trained to reflexively defend what corporations do.
The threshold for what we are willing to put up with is pretty damn high. And my point is not merely that ads can be annoying (which we all know to start with) but that we should draw the line and refuse to accept the encroachment of ads in content.
In many parts of the world, programming is not interrupted for ads at all. Instead ads are broadcast between programs. Not so here. We stipple programming with adverts all the time.
So what I'm calling for is that we stop taking the path of least resistance and that we stop putting up with this. Given that virtually every media outlet is jumping on the advertising bandwagon in a big way, we cannot rest assured that the diversity of consumer choices will protect us.
Most people who claim they will cease their patronage of a content provider seldom follow through. Instead, more often than not, it's just bluster. And what I ask is that we make it more than bluster. Let's translate it into action.
Any content provider which cannot deliver the content without advertising overlayed on it should face a serious risk of forfeiting its audience.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

You may be an exception, but most people (in my experience) settle for what they get. They may not like it, and some may squawk, but ultimately they settle. People take the path of least resistance.

---

Ah, so nobody switches cell phone companies because of bad service?
Nobody switches their TV provider?
Everyone just buys the same car even though the last one was a lemon?
You get my point.
Again, I don't really know what your point is here. What are you advocating for?

Quote:

---

ust look at how few people in these forums are even so much as squawking about the problem. Instead we are trained to reflexively defend what corporations do.

---

That last sentence is hyperbole, IMHO, and belongs on the Daily Kos, unless you are talking about Mac users, in which I agree that they tend to just defend what Apple does, but I don't think anyone trained them. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

The threshold for what we are willing to put up with is pretty damn high. And my point is not merely that ads can be annoying (which we all know to start with) but that we should draw the line and refuse to accept the encroachment of ads in content.

---

Or...maybe they just don't have a problem with it as much as you do, like my problem with product placement?

Quote:

---

In many parts of the world, programming is not interrupted for ads at all. Instead ads are broadcast between programs. Not so here. We stipple programming with adverts all the time.

---

And many parts of the world have government-run television that is paid for by tax dollars, and many parts of the world have a GDP a fraction of ours. Don't want ads? Go elsewhere. Download shows from iTunes.

Quote:

---

So what I'm calling for is that we stop taking the path of least resistance and that we stop putting up with this. Given that virtually every media outlet is jumping on the advertising bandwagon in a big way, we cannot rest assured that the diversity of consumer choices will protect us.

---

Yes, you think we are all dumb Americans (I say Americans because of your comment about other parts of the world) and we need to wake up and change our ways because your opinion is we need to change. Well, maybe most people don't think there's a problem.
And, again, you are lacking on specifics. Your rhetoric is nice, but what do you want everyone to do?

Quote:

---

Most people who claim they will cease their patronage of a content provider seldom follow through. Instead, more often than not, it's just bluster. And what I ask is that we make it more than bluster. Let's translate it into action.

---

Yes, you need more than a handful of communists to make change. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

Any content provider which cannot deliver the content without advertising overlayed on it should face a serious risk of forfeiting its audience.

---

I don't agree with the notion that people are dumb lemmings who don't make free choices. This is the typical nanny-state thinking, that everyone needs to be taken care of and dictated to.
If your logic were true, Jeff, the millions of PS2 customers would all be buying PS3s.
In the end, it's all a lot more complicated than you seem to be making it. Yes, resistance is an issue with consumer adoption. It's a reason Windows users are wary of switching to the Mac. But there are many factors involved with a consumer's choice. Your argument is there is no line. There definitely is. The debate is how much does a consumer put up with before they walk.

[jmincey]

Tallscot, of course I don't say that nobody votes with their behavior or dollars (and I think you know this full well). I even have said you may be one such example who does precisely that, (which is to say you are an exception).
Now you may counter that the exception is actually the person who settles and goes along with whatever corporations lay on them. And I would in fact prefer that you are right that people are not so mind-numbingly susceptible to marketing that they would put up with almost anything. I would prefer to think people have their limits and that they would not merely complain but ACT on their complaints.
Alas, this is not my experience with the vast majority of people. You put some provocative videos on YouTube, and people will watch them -- obtrusive ads notwithstanding. And I'm sure YouTube is counting on this.
And I find this unfortunate. I would prefer that more people have the courage of their convictions. And I think I've made my point amply clear now to anyone honestly seeks to understand it.

[pmbx]

Deleted my videos and account already. Should have known not to trust Google. I never intended someone to make money of my content. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Tallscot, I find your posture quite combative. Of course I don't say that nobody votes with their behavior or dollars. I even said you may be one such individual who does precisely that, (which is to say you are an exception).
You are more interested in slicing and dicing than in understanding. Differ with my point of view if you like -- that's fair game. I would in fact prefer that you are right that people are not so mind-numbingly susceptible to marketing that they would put up with almost anything. I would prefer to think people have their limits and that they would not merely complain but ACT on their complaints.
Alas, this is not my experience with the vast majority of people. You put some provocative videos on YouTube, and people will watch them -- obtrusive ads notwithstanding. And I'm sure YouTube is counting on this.
And I find this unfortunate. I would prefer that more people have the courage of their convictions. And I think I've made my point amply clear now to anyone honestly seeks to understand it.

---

Jeff, you are completely ignoring the fact that maybe the majority has a different view than you. 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.
I say to you that the free market dictates what consumers will accept and won't accept. Your position is that they are all saps and lack courage.

Quote:

---

Alas, this is not my experience with the vast majority of people. You put some provocative videos on YouTube, and people will watch them -- obtrusive ads notwithstanding. And I'm sure YouTube is counting on this.

---

So? Good for them. I wish I would have thought of it and made millions too.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Deleted my videos and account already. Should have known not to trust Google. I never intended someone to make money of my content. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

---

There you go, Jeff. If enough people do that...the market will decide.