Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Google Video Runs Ads & Shares the Profits 80

god4twenty writes "Google announced yesterday that they are testing ads on videos on the Google Video service, matching capabilities that other video services have had for a while. Up to now, Google Video uploaders could make their video available either for a fee or for free. The new ad-laced videos are available on Google Video's "free today" section. The new ads appear as banners above the video.

When the test concludes, Google plans to run auctions where advertisers bid to have their ads displayed on each video. The ad revenue will be split with the video owner. "
Time for me to start collecting phat bank from the videos I have up there.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Video Runs Ads & Shares the Profits

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry Taco. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hamster Havoc [cmdrtaco.net] will not make you "phat bank."
    • Don't watch google videos with ads. Refuse. Make this a money loser. Please, please, please don't let them make money off this. Utilizing psychological techniques on people to make them take actions without reason is EVIL, google. That means advertising. It's evil. Hiring psyche majors to apply their scientific knowledge to the task of assembling a visual display that convinces millions of people to act contrary to reason and buy inferior crap in the warped belief that it will make them thin and get
      • OK, so by your logic:

        Sites with advertising are evil.
        Slashdot is a site with advertising.
        Therefore, Slashdot is evil.

        It kinda confirms what I though all along.
        • No, slashdot isn't evil. But when they sell our mindspace to Microsoft etc, they do evil. We're just so accustomed to it that we tolerate it, but we shouldn't. Personally, if I could choose between condemning an advertising exec or a mugger, I'd go for the advertising exec. The mugger could stay busy every day for years and not cause the kind of harm that advertisers with their capacity to reach billions of people cause every day.
  • Phat Bank (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caleb_is_a_dharmabum ( 973232 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:18PM (#15592646)
    Can you make revenue by posting other's copyrighted work? Most of the videos I see on youtube or google video are ripped. No I did not read the article. Yet.
    • Ah, "owner's video." Sorry.
      • Re:Phat Bank (Score:2, Insightful)

        by frosty_tsm ( 933163 )
        I had the same concern. The purpose of this program seems to be to encourage copywrite owners to put their works online and be able to make money off of it.

        Maybe we'll find the networks posting their tv shows on there. I mean, make money from ads by showing commercials or with google's ads...
    • Looks like someone has actually paid attencion to a Mark Pesce [wikipedia.org] lecture.
    • Re:Phat Bank (Score:3, Interesting)

      by carl0ski ( 838038 )

      Can you make revenue by posting other's copyrighted work? Most of the videos I see on youtube or google video are ripped. No I did not read the article. Yet.

      Since it clearly states the split the revenue with the Video owner they will fetch permission

      from the video ownerwhether it be ABC NBC or your home video.

      If you grant permission they will stick an ad in your video and you get a profit,

      else it gets no ad and you get no revenue.

      The person who uploaded a Copyright protected video and claims revenue

  • so... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joe 155 ( 937621 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:21PM (#15592662) Journal
    will this be a step closer to us getting free episodes of CSI/Lost etc. If they are going to have adverts why not put on stuff like that?
    • Re:so... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I already get free episodes of those shows with advertising. All I have to do is turn on my TV and tune to the local CBS or ABC station.
    • Re:so... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ChrisGilliard ( 913445 ) <christopher@gilliard.gmail@com> on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:39PM (#15592790) Homepage
      will this be a step closer to us getting free episodes of CSI/Lost etc. If they are going to have adverts why not put on stuff like that?

      Yeah, I really think this might mean we get most of our content free. Why? Well, because the distrubution cost is very low. Much lower than the cable companies distrubution costs (i.e. maintaining their networks). Also, imagine if you instantly had your content available accross the world (as opposed to just one country at a time). Shows could instantly be a hit world wide. Also, you have a single partner to deliver this content (Google). In fact, Google makes it so easy to upload anyone can do it. You don't have to be a big shot tv producer. If American Idol had 40 million viewers in the US, how many people around the world would have tuned in if it was easily accessible? Also, I believe Google has the capability to make much more ad revenue off of these shows than traditional tv ads. This is because they allow the allow a more direct marketing approach by giving click-thrus. On tv, it's mostly just image advertising. So, why charge for content when you can make so much with ad revenue. Pay-per-view content will still be around, but it will be highly specialized content that doesn't get a lot of viewers.
      • yeah, but lets hope the net remains neutral
      • Why? Well, because the distrubution cost is very low. Much lower than the cable companies distrubution costs (i.e. maintaining their networks).

        You can't possibly be serious. Broadband on-demand video cheaper than traditional broadcasting!?

        If that were the case, cable and satellite TV would already be long gone by now.

        The only reason it's fairly cheap at the moment is because nothing has hit YouTube or Google that is popular enough for 40 million people to want to download and/or stream it at the same time.
        • Re:so... (Score:5, Informative)

          by ChrisGilliard ( 913445 ) <christopher@gilliard.gmail@com> on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:30PM (#15593096) Homepage
          You can't possibly be serious. Broadband on-demand video cheaper than traditional broadcasting!?

          Not in terms of total cost, but remember, you pay a bill each month to your broadband provider for your service. This is a sunk cost and Google doesn't have to consider this in their costs (as long as we have net neutrality). Also, Google has to pay for their bandwidth usage. I'm sure they have this cost in their equations already though, so it has been factored in. If it's profitable for one user, it's profitable for 40 million.

          When that day comes, Google's video servers will burn up faster than an un-recalled PowerBook 5300 running Apache that just got slashdotted.

          If Google is doing the ad sponsored video, I'm sure they've crunched the numbers. They're not doing something that loses them money. If they can make money with a couple thousand users, they'll make more money if they have millions. All they have to do is scale. So far they've been great at scaling. They're currently building a 20 acre supercomputer with it's own power plant for cooling (I'm too lazy to post the link but the story was slashdotted earlier). I think they can handle the file serving side of it for sure. File serving is not super compute intensive.

          It's already seen overseas. Don't ask me how, but when I was in Japan, girls there could name just about every contestant.

          Sure it's seen oversees because it was syndicated oversees to many many countries. But the beauty of this is that you don't need to negotiate a separate contract for each country, you don't need to hire lawyers to setup corporations in each country, etc. Google just hosts it. Anyone in the world can see the same video. Yes, American Idol can afford to syndicate globally, but can your average Joe who's uploading his vlog? I don't think so. Now he doesn't have to do all that stuff, it's just available everywhere.
        • If that were the case, cable and satellite TV would already be long gone by now....

          The only reason it's fairly cheap at the moment is because nothing has hit YouTube or Google that is popular enough for 40 million people to want to download and/or stream it at the same time.


          The beauty of it is, unlike tv, they won't have to do it at the same time.

          The user population will get comfortable with the fact that they can request content to fit their schedule, instead of conforming to a broadcast schedule. It's con
      • Re:so... (Score:2, Interesting)

        The only problem with that, is a lot of companies aren't looking for worldwide ads for everything . . . then you end up with stuff like ads in English only, campaigns not always being global, etc.

        Now, for some stuff it could work, like massive advertising for the World Cup (sponsors' ads along with highlights?), or if the technology expands out, with the big multinationals, being able to purchase the rights to a video, and run regional campaigns throughout their various markets.
        • The only problem with that, is a lot of companies aren't looking for worldwide ads for everything . . . then you end up with stuff like ads in English only, campaigns not always being global, etc.

          The underlying assumption is that everyone would see the same ad. This is exactly why the internet is better than tv. The internet can customize the ads to the user. At a minimum, Google could detect that your ip is from Hong Kong and automatically serve up Cantonese content or whatever language you speak, at t
          • I'm sure Google could very easily implement a system that targets ads to US ips or Japanese IPs, etc.

            I can already confirm that this is a standard practice in online advertising. Google video already allows you to limit your content being served based on region, the advertising tool will just sit on top of that.

            Google is in it for the Ad revenue. It wouldn't do them a lick of good to serve english ads to Cantonese surfers who wouldn't click through on them.
      • Well, because the distrubution cost is very low. Much lower than the cable companies distrubution costs (i.e. maintaining their networks).

        How exactly are you receiving the content? Via broadband internet perhaps? Unless you're among the lucky miniscule who receive your internet via wireless, the distribution cost of this model is exactly the same as regular cable -- its going over the exact same infrastructure! In fact, google's distribution cost is probably higher because, despite google's brilliance, ca

        • How exactly are you receiving the content? Via broadband internet perhaps? nless you're among the lucky miniscule who receive your internet via wireless, the distribution cost of this model is exactly the same as regular cable -- its going over the exact same infrastructure!

          Again, Google doesn't pay your broadband bill. You do. I probably should have said, "Google's distribution cost is very low" instead of "the distribution cost is very low".
      • The internet distribution cost Could be very low. with suitable multicast servers if everyone watched at a predefined time etc. and network maintainence fees don't go away they just shift from the tv bill to the internet bill.

        Anyways, I can't find a single point in your entire comment that i found to be in any way correct. too bad there is no 'wrong' moderation on slashdot huh.
        • The internet distribution cost Could be very low. with suitable multicast servers if everyone watched at a predefined time etc. and network maintainence fees don't go away they just shift from the tv bill to the internet bill.

          I'm talking about Google's costs (not total costs). Since YOU already pay your internet bill, it doesn't need to be factored into Google's cost. This is why I think their will be a lot more content available.

          Anyways, I can't find a single point in your entire comment that i foun
      • Also, imagine if you instantly had your content available accross the world (as opposed to just one country at a time). Shows could instantly be a hit world wide.

        I think you're forgetting there's a language barrier. That model only works for funny/dumb stuff, or something without dialog. Not everyone speaks English; you'd have to dub it or add subtitles in every language out there, and the process itself is quite expensive. That's the reason why most shows here (in Argentina) air 2-3 months after it's sho

        • Well, yeah, that's true, but there are less than 300 million english speakers in the US and there are over a billion world wide, so it expands your audiance significantly. Also, the same thing works for other languages. For Spanish, it's the difference from being a show in Argentina as opposed to a show that all Spanish speakers can watch. Chinese too.
    • will this be a step closer to us getting free episodes of CSI/Lost etc.

      You know about this [go.com], right?

      I made the unfortunate mistake of watching the series finale of Alias this way. The delivery method itself works pretty well, but having been only the second episode or so of Alias that I've seen, I was pretty unimpressed with the way the show turned out.

      I had to watch 3-4 30 second ads, for a total of about 90 minutes (in what I presume aired for 2 hours on normal TV, not bad). The annoying part was, you ha
    • Re:so... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot&spamgoeshere,calum,org> on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:24PM (#15593059) Homepage
      But I don't want to watch American-targetted adverts (that are on every 5 minutes, from what I'm told).
      How will they handle international distribution?
    • You can already watch LOST for free on abc.com with advertisements. The picture quality is pretty good too. This has been going on since about 2/3 through this past season.
  • CmdrTaco (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That sex tape of you and Hemos is not going to make any money. Now you and CowboyNeal... that's some phat bank.
  • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:24PM (#15592690)
    Time for me to start collecting phat bank from the videos I have up there.

    You should take the proceeds from your phat bank, buy yourself a booktionary.

  • by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:24PM (#15592693) Homepage
    Phase 1: Upload video of roommate lighting a fart.
    Phase 2: ...
    Phase 3: ROFLMAO !
  • So doesnt it makes more sense to upload a video to Google Video & make money, instead of using youtube?

    Youtube under pressure to come up with a revenue model.

  • by spyrochaete ( 707033 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:01PM (#15592908) Homepage Journal
    You can double-click the video to view it fullscreen which hides the ads entirely. If you hit F11 most browsers switch to minimal mode which is a great way to watch episodes.
  • - days to wait for you can share your video (seriously, can anyone wait that long) - difficult to directly get to the video site (click "more" you noob ?) - less search options - less videos in the long tail (geee, anyone surprised) and now ADS.. Youtube is on steriod investments and heavenly ad-less, but Google is making a hard bet on competition now. With a web 2.0 culture you can't be that restrictive, full stop. Curious what google would do if net neutrality did get the go ahead....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:04PM (#15592932)
    This is a Microsoft-worthy move. (and I mean the smart Microsoft of the early 90's, not the lumbering triceratops of the present).

    Integrating ads into their videos immediately takes Google's core structural advantage (the network-effects-rich matching of many small/medium-size advertisers with the millions of web searchers and content seekers) and applies it to a market that isn't, shall we say, a hand-over-fist moneymaker.

    Consider some of the other video sites out there. YouTube is spending millions on bandwidth, and increasing exponentially. Yet they make their money on flat text ads served by....Google. Just like every other tiny content site on the web. Yet from launch, Google Video hasn't had any ads (unlike GMail, for example, or the main Google search site). They were clearly biding their time until they had a good idea for monetizing the traffic, and they knew from their own internal economic analyses that text ads weren't the answer. People go to YouTube for quick hits (just to watch a single video), sometimes for browsing the coolest video of the day, but not because they're in the ad-clicking mindset that they're in after an open-ended web search. And as a content provider with Google ads, YouTube gets paid for click-throughs, not just impressions.

    But if you take the broadcast television model and force the viewer to subsidize the stream, then those quick hits suddenly become self-supporting. Sure, Google will get paid less per video impression than it would for a click-through (from either a text or video ad), but it will have hundreds/thousands time as many video ad impressions as it would text ad click-throughs. And here's the major barrier to entry--YouTube and the other video sites don't have a stable of advertisers who can place these ads. Those other sites can't just create those ad networks from scratch, either.

    Before this move, video serving was a commodity without any real network effects. Google and YouTube were essentially equivalent, strategically, with perhaps an edge to YouTube (for the weaker copyright protections, and consequently superior selection of pirated stuff). After this move, why would you post a video on YouTube when you can get paid to post it on Google? It's the difference between running a free web site with no revenues and running a free web site with Google ads in the corner. Once you get fees, you never go back.

    -AC

    • "After this move, why would you post a video on YouTube when you can get paid to post it on Google? It's the difference between running a free web site with no revenues and running a free web site with Google ads in the corner. Once you get fees, you never go back."

      Maybe you don't want a major U.S. corporation to know where your contact information? You know, if you are making dissident videos?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      YouTube is the latest Myspace. Like all geeks you fail to see the social aspect. Why post to YouTube instead of making money on Google? It is because you ARE paid on YouTube... you are paid in social ways. You get comments saying how hot you are, you get friends, and "fame".

      The markets are COMPLETELY different. YouTube, is YOUtube. It is for people. They are copying every feature Myspace has, but centering it around video. Google Video is for all the copyrighted crap people are flooding YouTube with. Those
  • There is more and more phony videos now.

    When something gets big and then you throw in some money you see alot garbage like email.

    I think the ones that DIRECTED or obviously phony should be tagged and seperated/categorized.

    I saw one video that was silly about mentos and cola where the girl drinks both and explodes. It was funny and then you see the big ad for the director/producer of it. That kind of ruins it. Wasn't even worth my time. I like reality without the special digital effects.
  • Can O' Worms (Score:4, Insightful)

    by apflwr3 ( 974301 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:41PM (#15593425)
    Seems like this could lead to some trouble. Copyright violation is for the most part overlooked on Google and YouTube right now because the videos are amateur, or the clips are uploaded by fans, and anyway who cares because no one is making money anyway. But if uploaders start making a profit you can certainly bet the copyright holders will start to pay attention.

    It's not just the RIAA typoes we have to worry about, either-- how many of the subjects of these videos signed releases? If I put up a video on a free site of a frat guy lighting farts on fire he'll probably just laugh it off. If I am making a profit from that video without an agreement with the star he's going to have the right to demand a cut (or even damages for posting his image without permission.)

    Also, if there is a violation of copyrights (or use of a person's likeness without permission) under the free model Google can pretty much wash their hands of it and say they don't take responsibility for what is uploaded to their site. If Google is taking a cut of the ad profits, however, aren't they making themselves complicit too?
  • by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:44PM (#15593439) Homepage Journal
    Adding

    http://video.google.com/sv*

    to my addblock filter kills the logos, but does anyone have a rule that kills the text and box too?
  • All I know is they better not implement something like Comedy Central and Cartoon Network did. Adult Swim Fix is running that stupid Honda campaign FOREVER and I just discovered today that when I watch Daily Show video clips, they all have the same stupid Pringles ad in front of them.

    I'm in advertising, I like seeing new and interesting ads, and while the first time through those ads were cool, now they are fucking annoying, especially when I tend to watch the video clips one right after another like with

  • screw google and these ads.

    thios is only gettin worse. the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads. if i wanted commercials i would go watch tv.

    i hope more people realize that this is just headed to having all internet videos with commercials on them, without the user knowing what they are even getting.

    this shit has to be left in the dust by everyone, or you wont recognize the internet in 15 years; it will be like digital cable, only with commercials.
    • thios is only gettin worse. the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads. if i wanted commercials i would go watch tv. But, remember that it ISN'T your media. Once you upload it to Google they can display it however they want, and in addition they can display any part of their site however they want to. this shit has to be left in the dust by everyone, or you wont recognize the internet in 15 years; it will be like digital cable, only with commercial
    • thios is only gettin worse. the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads. if i wanted commercials i would go watch tv.

      But, remember that it ISN'T your media. Once you upload it to Google they can display it however they want, and in addition they can display any part of their site however they want to. this shit has to be left in the dust by everyone, or you wont recognize the internet in 15 years; it will be like digital cable, only with commercia
    • "i already dont like google video because it doesnt let you right click and save their stuff. now there is going to be more drm and commercials? i think my response is clear: and the horse you rode in on."

      Dude / Dudette, JUST DOWNLOAD THE GOOGLE VIDEO PLAYER AND YOU CAN SAVE THE VIDEO. And DRM? Yes, but at least this DRM doesn't have an expiration date, and the program to view the data is free (as in $$$) at least.

      It isn't perfect yet, but it is better than before and looks sustainable long-term.

      Wow, you
    • This is Google we're talking about, right? They'll find a way to project ads onto skittering pigeons in Bryant Park [wirelesscommunity.info] and you're somehow surprised they're placing ads atop videos they're hosting and serving?

      if you don't like it, don't watch it

      the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads.

      whose whole point? Not mine, certainly. I user a computer to create my own media [google.com] (fwiw ...); I don't expect to forever to be able to manipulate others' media as I

    • thios is only gettin worse. the whole point of having a COMPUTOR is so that you can manipulate your own media, ie get rid of ads.

      Er, no, "getting free stuff" is not the whole point of having a COMPUTOR, unless you are an extremely boring and greedy individual. Surely being able to post on Slashdot is the whole point? ;)

      Anyway, if a significant number of people feel the same way there's nothing under this model to stop Google allowing you to pay a bit of your own cash to skip the ads. You can't do tha

  • I dispise any form of video ad on any web-page. And especially the ones with sound. Still don't know how to block them effectively, but I will not deal with any business advertising to me that way.

    And the worst part is that somebody probably thought these were a Good Idea.

  • Revver.com (Score:4, Interesting)

    by seaotter02 ( 979726 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @09:33PM (#15593976)
    Revver [revver.com] has been doing this for some time already - just with much less intrusive ads. That diet coke and mentos experiment [eepybird.com] linked on Slashdot was using Revver and made over $20,000 for the creators in two weeks (according to various news reports [nypost.com]).

    Revver splits the ad revenue 50-50 with creators - or if there is a syndicator involved 20%(syndicator) - 40% (creator) - 40% (Revver).
  • The thing which made Google ads acceptable led to the enormous success of Google was that the web page ads were unobtrusive, i.e. didn't distract the site visitor from the content the visitor was trying to digest. If you recall, at the time of Google ad launch, all contemporary and competing advertisers were in a race for creating the most obnoxious adds with the seeming goal of distracting the visitor as much as possible (blinking, bleeping, animating etc.).

    As long as Google can provide ads which doesn't d

I program, therefore I am.

Working...