Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google's New Patent on Commercial Breaks

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sat Mar 15, 2008 03:25 PM
from the we-interrupt-your-regularly-scheduled-inanity dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Patents
theodp writes "What could be more annoying than having ads precede online videos? How about having commercials interrupt the videos? That's the premise behind a newly-published Google patent application for Using Viewing Signals in Targeted Video Advertising."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: YouTube Commercial Breaks are Patent-Pending by theodp (442580)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google's New Patent on Commercial Breaks 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Sounds like an abuse cool technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ccguy (1116865) * on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:25PM (#22761124) Homepage
    The interesting part of the patent is not that they interrupt the video to show a commercial (surely there is prior art on that), but rather than the commercial breaks are determined automatically by analyzing the video and audio (detecting scene changes for example).

    Also, they gather 'interaction data' with the first commercial, and use it for the following ones.

    There's a bidding system to buy advertisement slots on specific video, so if there's a very hot video in say, youtube, you can put your commercial there almost inmediately... seems like the best way to maximize advertising costs.

    • Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by namgge (777284) on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:34PM (#22761200)

      ...so if there's a very hot video in say, youtube, you can put your commercial there almost inmediately... seems like the best way to maximize advertising costs.

      Quite so. Far better to adopt VW's approach: make an entertaining advert and stick it on youtube in its own right. Then people can watch it without it being interupted by some film,

      Namgge

      • That could backfire. If the ad weren't flagged as an ad, then we'd have to watch ads while watching an ad! Commercial breaks during a commercial! Shhhh....don't give them any ideas!
         
          Captcha: horrible
        • Don't know if this idea has crossed the pond yet, but in the UK we have whole hour shows containing ads (albeit mildly amusing ones), with commercial breaks in between.

          So they already had the idea.
    • Sounds to me like I would never watch a video interrupted by commercials unless it was actually like hour-long (like hulu) so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, losing their existing ad revenue. Also the autodetected scene changes would never work; the fashion in video editing these days is to use simple frame-to-frame cuts for scene changes.. how are you going to distinguish between the camera cutting around the scene in a fast-paced action scene and actual scene changes? People are going to get an
      • Audio analysis, if it's a consistent scene, it'll have consistent features in the frequency domain, etc.

      • Also the autodetected scene changes would never work; the fashion in video editing these days is to use simple frame-to-frame cuts for scene changes..
        The patent says they use audio analysis too.

        Besides, this the google. Just because you (or I) can't think of an algorithm that works well all or most of the time it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

        • The patent says they use audio analysis too.
          Yeah, that would make sense. Most videos have natural breakpoints built into them that would be suitable to inject advertisements into. Detecting that without a human involved would be innovative.

          Books have natural breakpoints too, we call them "chapters".
      • Other people pointed out audio analysis.

        Another thing is action shots are fast and quick.
        Thats easily detectable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dissy (172727)

      (surely there is prior art on that), but rather than the commercial breaks are determined automatically by analyzing the video and audio (detecting scene changes for example).

      I'm glad they just didn't take what TV broadcasters have been doing for decades and added 'on the internet' to the end. I suppose the automated part makes it unique.

      My only hope, them being google, is that once the TV broadcasters DO try to automate what they do, google sends them cease and desist letters!

    • So will the algorithm try to maximize the annoyance caused by the commercial, or minimize it?

       

    • Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tambo (310170) on Saturday March 15 2008, @06:06PM (#22762034)
      The interesting part of the patent -

      Wait, stop right there. There's a discussion of a patent on Slashdot, and the first comment acknowledges that it's interesting, and not that software patents are the spawn of the devil?

      If you took this exact same story and s/Google/Microsoft/'ed it, this thread would instantly fill up with "oh noes, Microsoft is patenting commercials in internet video" comments, and "there's no way that that's novel" comments, and "down with software patents!!!" comments. But I guess that since it's patented by Google, it's OK... or something... right? Help me out - my Slashdot Moral Compass is adrift at the moment.

      I don't intend this as a trolling post - just an interesting reflection on the culture here at Slashdot. Don't get me wrong; I like this place - I've even got it tied to a "/." keyboard shortcut - but the community often appears very inept when discussing these sorts of issues.

      - David Stein

      • It could be worse.. it could be patented by Apple!

        Then anyone who suggested it might be wrong would be modded into oblivion.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by chromatic (9471)

        ... but the community...

        There's the problem. You assumed that there's a single dominant opinion.

      • premises of self-delusion in believing "Google Be Good; Microsoft Do Evil" rearing its ugly head once again when closer to true reality is neither of them are fucking Saints.

        What did that skinny dude from India once said? "Action expresses priorities."

        And we all know what Google's priorities are.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Frozen Void (831218)
        Slashdot has alot of google fanboys.
        "Do no evil" is just marketing gimmick, its another corporation with commercial appetite. Wait for ten years and Google will show its true colors.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tomhudson (43916)

      Also, they gather 'interaction data' with the first commercial, and use it for the following ones

      So what are they going to do when most people's "interaction" is to click on "close", or to just go somewhere else, or tab over to another site while the ad plays (unwatched)?

      And now, we can finally say it - "In the GoogleSphere, ADS WATCH YOU!"

    • The interesting part of the patent is not that they interrupt the video to show a commercial (surely there is prior art on that), but rather than the commercial breaks are determined automatically by analyzing the video and audio (detecting scene changes for example).

      That's prior art, as well. TV networks use software that looks for completely black frames as a marker for where ads go. When Joss Whedon did Firefly, he wanted to have a full second of blank screen at the end of an act so the story had time

    • Seems like Google patenting the video-equivalent to popup ads.

      It doesn't matter if the popup ad only shows up when you scroll down to the next chapter.

      Interruption ads are still interruption ads.

      Video interruption with ads in the middle is just as evil as popup ads in the middle of viewing a website.

      And here I thought Google's motto was to not be evil. Oh boy was I wrong...

  • Ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:28PM (#22761152) Homepage Journal
    I'm one of the few that don't care about ads, show 'em. Keep services free! But only under the following conditions:
    1. There's a subscription service to get rid of ads. I use sites like YouTube enough that I'd pay to get rid of 15 second ads every video play.
    2. Non interrupting ads only. At the beginning, at the end, what have you. But none in the middle, please.
    3. Get a variety of ads. I'm sick of HULU playing the same 2 ads every three minutes. Seriously, it makes me want the product they're advertising even less.
    • I use sites like YouTube enough that I'd pay to get rid of 15 second ads every video play.

      Youtube finally found its (one person) market! Now if you can figure out how to cover a USD 1 billion annual subscription fee, we'll have sorted out the site's revenue model once and for all.

    • I'm a guy who doesn't mind cancer so much, provided it's curable, doesn't rearrange my DNA, has vitamin C, that sort of thing. If they need to give me a freckle or two to justify continuing to let me see things free, well, shucks, I'd be a jerk to complain.

      It's not impossible after they invent silent, invisible, opt-in, informative advertising. From there we can talk to Satan about putting a day spa in Hell.

  • I hope they are patenting this to.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the_rajah (749499) * on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:30PM (#22761170) Homepage
    just sit on the patent to keep anyone from doing it. They do promise to do no evil, right?
    • Even if they do use it, this would be a good thing as it would prevent others from doing it (unless they paid the additional money to license it). Right?

    • They do promise to do no evil, right?

      I'd put TV-style advertising way down on the "evil" scale. Producing content doesn't just magically happen for free, and nobody is going to make the next Blade Runner without a profit motive. Certainly a patent on this sort of ad tech is (to name just one example) far below helping certain governments filter access to Web content.

  • I am sceptical it would be used as described (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MLCT (1148749) on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:31PM (#22761176)
    The history (and part of the reason for its success) of google's ad business has been that the ads they serve *aren't* annoying. No flashing banner ads, no "punch the monkey to win a prize", just small clean fonted textural links. That being the case I would be very surprised if they implement this patent as read - they are too smart to do something that daft.

    The problem of delivering advertising with digital video is a real one for online activities, so I don't doubt google are working on it - but what is guaranteed is that they know if they annoy people then they will just go elsewhere.

  • Google patents annoying users (Score:3, Interesting)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Saturday March 15 2008, @03:32PM (#22761178)
    Google hearby patents all forms of advertising that annoys the piss out of users. All forms of pop ups and redirected ads will also fall under the user annoyance patent.
  • I recognize the need for advertising to support valuable online services, so I'm not reacting in the usual "OMG THIS SUCKS" demeanor. But Google has been successfull where other ad pushers have not because they understand that users are annoyed by ads, and theirs are the least annoying so far. If they can keep this "clean" where it doesn't become an annoyance, more power to them.

    It's a shame they have to patent it, but given today's IP climate I also understand why they have to go that route. Of course if

    • I recognize the need for advertising to support valuable online services

      I think this is false economy. Where do you think the advertiser gets the money to buy the ads to support the site? From the people who use the site and purchase the services advertised. But if you're not exposed to the advertising, you're not going to spend so much money, and you'll have more left to support the site through donations.
    • Their "this is Google" halo could be dented in short order rolling out something like this obnoxiously. I don't see Google wanting to explore that risk in the short term. More likely, this is a rainy day patent, if a revenue downturn in their existing business threatens their core competitiveness.

      Another move is that they might deploy something like this, but on a very small scale, enough to recover their Youtube bandwidth costs and not actually lose money on this service.

      It would be cool if some pharmace
  • What's more annoying? How about patenting a business practice? How about patenting SW?

    Pretty goddamn "annoying".
  • Shows have been interrupted for commercials for decades...

    Annoying as all hell, but nothing new.

  • ...instead of using the patent to bury it in a hole so deep it's almost out the other side of the Earth, I'll stop having anything to do with Google.

    Interrupting a video would only be the first step in taking us to that Trailer Park Nirvana where you will never, not even for one second of your waking life, be free of some kind of solicitation.

  • Interesting patent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coopjust (872796) on Saturday March 15 2008, @04:07PM (#22761408)
    So, having read the patent filing;

    -They're looking to dynamically take popular videos and put commercials in at points deemed good by the computer
    -They put in something that they think you will like (based on your Google history/ad watching history/content of the video)
    -They take your reaction to the newest ad and use it to better insert ads for both content and length. Maybe you like computing ads, or maybe you'll interact if the commercials are less often but longer (30 secs instead of 15 secs maybe).
    -Ads are taken by bid amounts- it'll prioritize ads that pay more to Google.
    -It'll automatically insert ads as it sees fit- if it can't find relevance, you don't get charged; if it finds people with interests similar to your ad, it will get inserted.

    This falls into a huge debate under the "don't be evil" motto. On one hand, Google is trying to make advertising $ better spent and make ads that the viewer will actually like. On the other hand, it opens a whole can of worms on privacy. One big one I see is shared computers. Having more than one user can really mess with the profile building it is trying to do...

    Personally, I see any implementation of this as a massive intrusion on my privacy- if YouTube implemented this, I'd stop going there. But Slashdotters aren't representative of the internet population as a whole; will people really mind targeted ads? Most people don't see adwords as an invasion of privacy, but this approaches a whole new level...

  • Another badly issued patent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Whuffo (1043790) on Saturday March 15 2008, @04:28PM (#22761474) Journal
    Prior art on this goes back a long way. I helped develop studio end hardware for the "UPI Newstime" system back in the mid '70s - the commercial breaks in cable programming were marked by a touch-tone sequence and the local broadcaster inserted advertising at that point automatically.

    That technology is still in use; ever hear a burst of fast touch-tone at a program break? That's this system at work. Other than that "using a computer" BS, what they're claiming is exactly what we were doing 30 years ago.

    For what it's worth, reliably detecting and decoding those touch-tone burst sequences using the technology available then was more than a little challenging. The Signetics 567 was brand new and looked so promising - but turned out to be a time sink. Never could get those little PLL chips to lock up fast enough and reliably enough. The real solution was a big mess of discrete analog stuff; those were the days...

    • Can't even take the 10 seconds to read the summary? It's a patent APPLICATION. It has NOT issued yet.

    • Another badly issued patent

      Zaa???

      You are correct that prior art goes back a long way, however, this is a patent application, not a patent.

      I highly doubt that Google will gain patent protection with the application as is and I agree that if this were to issue as a patent in current form it would be a mistake. I do think this is a good demonstration of the abuses attorneys put the patent system through though as most applications are exactly this general to begin with.

  • boingboing tv does this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quiddity (106640) on Saturday March 15 2008, @04:35PM (#22761508)
    See http://tv.boingboing.net/2008/03/12/goobees-animated-can.html [boingboing.net] which gets interrupted halfway through, completely ruining a short animation. idiots. what a hateful way to treat content.
  • Teenage girls dancing to the latest rap crap with a mortgage company commercial in the middle. Perfect.
  • Other than the fact the commercials might be dynamic based on the user watching, the whole idea of "advertisement slots" within a video is exactly the same as the good old TV shows/commercials we already know and love. This doesn't seem worthy of a patent.
    • Yes, also other than the part for which your post is different to a previous post it is exactly the same as a previous post.

    • Other than the fact the commercials might be dynamic based on the user watching, the whole idea of "advertisement slots" within a video is exactly the same as the good old TV shows/commercials we already know and love. This doesn't seem worthy of a patent.
      Is that perhaps why it's a patent application and has not issued as a patent?!
  • As annoying as some commercials are, it might be good to remember that radio might not have developed beyond a government service if someone hadn't figured out that selling advertising time during the broadcast could pay for the service.

    I occasionally watch tv shows on fox.com/fod, and I find the short interruptions of a single add to be more acceptable than dozens of ads during regular broadcast shows. A GOOD show might attract a high-bidding advertiser.
  • Enough with ads, they have the whole page to display ad, and an insert at the beginning "sponsored by..." should be enough without them having trying to rape the content.

    I come from a country where TV station are limited by law to one ad break per movie/tv show and where they don't pollute the screen with overlays of next weeks programming. Tv stations still make plenty of money don't worry. The difference is that our talk show host don't need to tell you they'll be right back every 8 minutes. It might b

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rdradar (1110795)
      I first modded this down as a troll, since Analytics is just a regular statistics scripts for webmaster. However, then I got it; its so clever. That Analytics service is used on millions of websites, almost every site uses it (slashdot aswell). Its a great tool, easy to use and free aswell. Theres no ads, and theres no any paid or premium user like service. And you know why? It brings more data to Google than anyone could ever imagine. Google Analytics script is now on almost every site on internet. They c
      • The only problem is that whenever a large slashdot discussion page fails to download and appear on the screen, the delay is invariably due to a file called 'http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js' or something similar.

      • So what I can fastly see, they can track users both with ads and the more hidden (and cleverly disguised) Analytics.
        You think this is a secret? I think you're the last guy to get this and it's not even that smart as all you need is no script installed and their puny user tracking ability simply vanishes.
    • Firstly there's hugee amounts of prior art for ads at the bottom of the screen. This is not new (it's also illegal in some countries due to the implicit mixing of advertising/content that it causes, but probably not in the US where most of googles content will be generated).

      Secondly that a heck of a lot *more* annoying than full page ads, because to skip it you have to fast forward past parts of the programme you actually wanted to watch.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.