Google to Distribute Online Video Ads

sufijazz writes to mention an AP story about Google's plan to start distributing online video ads. From the article: "The video expansion, announced late Monday, will affect thousands of Web sites that rely on Google to post ads related to the surrounding material on a page. For instance, a news story about housing might prompt Google to display an ad for real estate agents. Google isn't allowing the video ads to appear on its own Web site -- a heavily trafficked destination that produced 58 percent of its $2.25 billion in revenue during the first three months of this year."

Re:Again??

[OctoberSky]

There is really not much to bitch about here. It is a still ad with the ability to become a video ad.

Slashdot already has those fancy Microsoft video ads, and thiers are set to autoplay! Although, thank FSM, they are muted from the start and the user gets to activate the sound.

Re:Again??

[NickFitz]

Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.

This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.

As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.

Re:Again??

[tomhudson]

While your point is valid, I would add one caveat - that the bit about having to click on the ad to see the video is the way it will work right now. As the article notes, advertisers aren't too happy about that. This could just be the camel's nose in the tent ...

Re:Whew, good thing I RTFA

[dyslexicbunny]

I don't click on Flash ads either but, more often than not, Firefox's NukeAnythingEnhanced is unable to get rid of them. Sure, I could get Flashblock as well but I've had some problems with Flashblock in the past.

My major concern is being able to remove them as well with NAE regardless of if the icon is tasteful or not. So long as I can do that, I doubt I'll be as bothered with them as I am about video that automatically plays (pointing at you, ESPN.com).

Re:what ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if enough people do it you'll se more and more sites switching to subscription models and ditching ads completely. Of course then you won't have the option of shoplifting content by blocking ads.

Re:Truly unfortunate

[forand]

Perhaps you didn't RTFA but as another reader pointed out: the advertisements will not stream unless the user click on it. So they will not be wasteing bandwidth nor will they be putting annoying video everywhere. If the user wants to click on an ad for something then they get a "better" experience. Seems like the same old Google to me: give the people only what they want. So you and I won't see the ads and someone who might actually buy what is being advertised will.

Re:I for one welcome our... err video ads to the w

[edgr]

hell this might be the push we need to have average joe buy a new computer and broadband...

Yes, because I can see this being a real selling point.
Potential broadband customer: "Why should I get broadband?"
Salesman: "Then you can watch video ads!"
PBC: "..."

Re:Appeal Dampened By Who?

[rainman_bc]

There is a happy medium and Google has found it.

Naw... I'll argue you'll find most people not playing the ads, and Google will have to adjust their strategy accordingly.

IMO, it's not a good move at all, advertisers won't go for it...

If you were watching a TV show, and it said "turn to channel 35 for great info on adult diapers", would you be as inclined to turn to channel 35? Perhaps if you were truly interested, but advertising isn't about that.