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.
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.
Sorry Taco. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sorry Taco. (Score:2)
Re:Sorry Taco. (Score:1)
Sites with advertising are evil.
Slashdot is a site with advertising.
Therefore, Slashdot is evil.
It kinda confirms what I though all along.
Re:Sorry Taco. (Score:2)
Phat Bank (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Phat Bank (Score:1)
Re:Phat Bank (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Phat Bank (Score:1)
Re:Phat Bank (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I'll pass (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually watched a video you would have seen that they are not overlayed. They appear above the video and at the end of the video.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re: (Score:1)
so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:so... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:so... (Score:1)
Re:so... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
RE:Re:so... (Score:1)
Re:so... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:so... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:so... (Score:2)
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
Re:so... (Score:2)
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.
Re:so... (Score:1)
Are you nuts? I always watch foreign language content in the original language with subtitles. Dubbing looses a lot of the subtlety present in the original language. Even if you can't understand it, it's great to see, for example, someone actually cursing in French rather than listen to the bland English translation (or Russian for that matter, I hear it's suitability for cursing is unparalleled). On top of this dubbing
Re:so... (Score:2)
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
Re:so... (Score:2)
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".
Re:so... (Score:2)
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.
Re:so... (Score:2)
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
Re:so... (Score:1)
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
Re:so... (Score:2)
Re:so... (Score:2)
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)
How will they handle international distribution?
Re:so... (Score:1)
CmdrTaco (Score:2, Funny)
"Phat bank"? (Score:5, Funny)
You should take the proceeds from your phat bank, buy yourself a booktionary.
Let the College pranks begin ! (Score:5, Funny)
Phase 2:
Phase 3: ROFLMAO !
Re:Let the College pranks begin ! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let the College pranks begin ! (Score:2, Funny)
better than youtube now? (Score:1)
Youtube under pressure to come up with a revenue model.
Ads only in windowed mode (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ads only in windowed mode (Score:2)
Re:Ads only in windowed mode (Score:1)
blunder again (Score:1)
A strategic leap ahead... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:A strategic leap ahead... (Score:2)
Maybe you don't want a major U.S. corporation to know where your contact information? You know, if you are making dissident videos?
Re:A strategic leap ahead... (Score:2)
Re:A strategic leap ahead... (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Good idea but one thing for Goog to consider (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Can O' Worms (Score:2)
Best. Typo. Ever.
Great... how do I Adblock it? (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Great... how do I Adblock it? (Score:2)
Comedy Central (Score:2)
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
this sucks (Score:1)
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.
Re:this sucks (Score:1)
Re:this sucks (Score:1)
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
Re:this sucks (Score:1)
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
Google? Putting ADs on VIDEOS? (Score:2)
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
Re:this sucks (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
And the worst part is that somebody probably thought these were a Good Idea.
Revver.com (Score:4, Interesting)
Revver splits the ad revenue 50-50 with creators - or if there is a syndicator involved 20%(syndicator) - 40% (creator) - 40% (Revver).
Re:Google video redefines "download" (Score:2)
It is quite possible to download the video from google. It does take some extra steps, though.
Open up that .GVP file in your favorite text editor. You'll find a rather lengthy URL in there. Copy and paste that URL into your browser's address box, and you've got access to the actual media.
I'm too lazy to look, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's a Firefox extension around that might even do the dirty work for you.
As long as it's unobtrusive.. (Score:2)
As long as Google can provide ads which doesn't d