Google To Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers

sufijazz writes "Google has announced its intention to allow advertisers to monetize the contents of YouTube videos. 'The ads accompanying the outbound YouTube clips won't be in a video format. Instead, they will appear as a graphic straddling the video or as a link along the bottom. Google won't be pulling clips from YouTube's entire library ... The material sent to other Web sites will be confined to video from providers who sign consent forms. With the new twist, Web sites participating in AdSense now can sign up to specify the kinds of YouTube videos they want shown on their pages.' Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently. Both the creator of the video as well as anyone that embeds it on their website will receive a share of the profits. The company has yet to specify the percent each party gets."

AdSense's future...

[dada21]

I wrote about this a year ago in terms of YouTube being a great monetizing (that's AdSense-speak) product for all involved: Google, the publisher (website), and the advertiser. Flash-based videos are hard to "ad-block" plus people are more likely to actually notice an ad if it is discretely placed and doesn't interfere with the video. I think this is a great idea.

I like AdSense, it provides a reasonable enough income (although nowhere near 30%) for the sites I edit and host, but I think it is time that Google moves into a more targeted direction.

The amount of information that AdSense ads sends to Google is astonishing -- which is one reason most geeks probably block ads. I'm a fan of blocking ads if you don't have any desire in the advertisers, and I openly support it on my sites (some of them even provide a link to ad-blocking software). For me, interested parties who click ads make me more money than uninterested parties that accidentally click ads. Win, win, win.

Yet since Google has such a vast supply of information on people who don't MIND ads, why not start putting up ads that might be of interest to the user? If "John" goes from a site about gambling to a site about sports, Google knows it -- why not start displaying ads for "John" that combine all of his possible interests? The YouTube ads can be the same -- they know where you've been, so why not combine those keywords into ads that MIGHT be more interesting to you?

Sure, it's a privacy breach already, but that's what pays the bills for the sites you're visiting freely. Not many of us are going to pay for a subscription to a site (although I pay for many), so advertising has to be what it is -- it can just get better.

I'd also like to see a user-configurable plug-in that lets a user "vote" on ads. I'm sick of seeing certain ads on certain sites, so we should have the ability to tell Google "Don't show me these anymore." The content publisher (website) may prefer those ads because they pay CPM (pays per visit, not per click), but if the visitor doesn't want to see them, isn't it in the advertiser's and the visitor's best interest to turn them off for that user?

Re:AdSense's future...

[speaker of the truth]

I think this is a great idea.

It allows for more choice for website owners and advertisers, but this sounds absolutely dreadful to me as a website viewer who actually displays ads (when displaying such ads doesn't compromise my security/privacy). Google was always hailed for ONLY producing non-obtrusive text ads. They've since moved to graphical ads and so they're one big advantage has been lost. Google is now no longer any different from any other advertising agency.

I'll certainly be avoiding all websites that make use of these obtrusive ads in obtrusive ways.

Re:Privacy consernes

[grand_it]

But is it legal for google to tell e.g. government agencies about the ads I get?

That's the point in the short novel "Scroogled" by Cory Doctorow. http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/09/google_fiction_evil_dangerous_surveillance_control_1.php [radaronline.com]

In brief: DHS outsource border bacground checks to Google. Scary...