Google's New Patent on Commercial Breaks

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."

Ads

[FredFredrickson]

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 am sceptical it would be used as described

[MLCT]

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.

Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology

[namgge]

...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

If they can keep it clean, fine

[willyhill]

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 anyone else had gotten a patent on this they'd be crucified, but this is Google.

More Google Evil

[Doc Ruby]

What's more annoying? How about patenting a business practice? How about patenting SW?

Pretty goddamn "annoying".

Re:I hope they are patenting this to..

[yincrash]

Except if companies have to pay to license it, they would probably have more ads to pay for the license fee in addition to the content being presented.

Interesting patent

[Coopjust]

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...

Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology

[dissy]

(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!

Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology

[tambo]

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

Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology

[tomhudson]

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!"

Interrupting Ads are very annoying

[mysidia]

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...

Re:Sounds like an abuse cool technology

[Frozen Void]

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.