YouTube is to run a trial of "pre-roll" video ads on selected content from several broadcasters starting from today. The pre-roll ads are short video ads shown before the video you requested and could be up to 30 seconds long. Advertisements will start appearing around videos from BBC Worldwide, ITN, Discovery, National Geographic and - from today - Channel 4.The idea for this form of advertising was first discussed over 2 years ago, back in 2007, so it has taken a while for the plans to come to fruition. These ads will be sold on a CPM (cost per mille) basis where the advertiser pays a certain price for every one thousand views of an ad. Whilst YouTube recommends a length of around 15 seconds for the advertisements, the advertisers will have a maximum of 30 seconds to use.
Activision, Renault, Match.com, Nissan and Warner Brothers will be some of the first to utilise the new test scheme, with an ad for Warner Brothers' new film The Hangover to be the first pre-roll ad, according to The Guardian. The overall aim of the scheme seems to be to get more high-end content providers to upload videos to YouTube, encouraging them with the incentive of the opportunity for more revenue.
Suveer Kothari, the head of YouTube UK, said: "Since we launched YouTube we have been trying to balance the demands of users looking for free, entertaining, professional content on the web, premium content owners looking for ways to monetise their content and advertisers looking for more premium content for them to showcase their TV creative against." Errol Baran, the head of future and digital media advertising at Channel 4 - who are the first content provider to show the ads - added, "[a]udience appetite for video-on-demand continues to demonstrate the shifting patterns of video consumption," showing that broadcasters must adapt to the changing viewing habits of consumers.
if you don't have a tv licence you are not allowed to look at the bbc website/bbc content online...
but yet they have ads on the site and now on their youtube videos?
jokers.
if you don't have a tv licence you are not allowed to look at the bbc website/bbc content online...
but yet they have ads on the site and now on their youtube videos?
jokers.
Eh, what? There is nothing stopping you looking at the BBC website without a tv license. Else it would only be available to a percentage of the British population, which clearly isn't the case.
he had no tv, just a computer on dial up and because he had loaded the bbc news homepage, he was fined about a grand and forced to pay for a TVL.
maybe its changed now, im just glad i got outta the uk
if you don't have a tv licence you are not allowed to look at the bbc website/bbc content online...
but yet they have ads on the site and now on their youtube videos?
jokers.
Like already said, the license funded stuff does not and will not have ads.
BBC Worldwide is commercial, and had ads. Likewise, if you visit news.bbc.co.uk outside the UK, it has ads - because if you're outside the UK you're almost certainly not paying the license fee.
Indeed, especially at the moment, you will be seeing more and bigger ads around the web.
You can complain, but it's a financial necessity at the moment.
You can complain, but it's a financial necessity at the moment.
Agreed.
RIP. Thou art missed.
Of course, they also seem to think "YouTube" and "professional content" somehow belong in the same sentence. Google just might be stealing the Reality Distortion Field away from Steve Jobs...
Really miss it...
A stupid idea, though. I hate that kind of ads ALMOST every time I play a video on BBC outside UK! Sometimes the ads got "jammed" and video no longer working. ****
that I've created and own the copyright, I think I should receive a slice of the advertising revenue.
10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:
1. to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
2. to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.
10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above.
Uh...Ok? If a company paid for another company why wouldn't they seek to make profit off the purchase or to pay the basic purchase off? If Google was nonprofit I could understand this.
Breaking news... business tries to make money thus business is EVIL!
Fail
Yes the adverts are annoying and for people on restricted bandwidth can be expensive.
I stopped going to YouTube when they put these little ad bars that pop up 20 seconds in. But this just completely kills it for me. 30 seconds is VERY LONG considering the fact that YouTube videos are so short.
What really riles me up is that these ****tards think we're idiots when they pretend this is a good thing for the consumer. Sure, sponsored ads might attract more "premium content" but it will turn away customers. Quite frankly, I don't really care for their excuses about bandwidth: it's not like the website is generating financial loss. The ads are just a risky cash-grab.
Well the way it's going its that or no youtube at all.
agreed. if these certain companies want to impose ads before THEIR uploaded content, fine. i never watch their stuff anyway.
if this is a move to a Hulu type service thats fine too. i dont mind watching one 1 minute ad or a couple 30 second ads in exchange for streaming an entire show.
however, if they force ads before user uploaded content i doubt i will go back.
if you want to make money with adds why not add a google ad-word bar and call it a day?
because a average joe video upload should NOT be messed with as it would kill youtube and dull it down quite a bit.
but i guess i would not have to much of a problem for more corporate uses with tv shows etc.
People will just start making ad-free versions of the affected videos.
I usually surf MSN Movies for the trailers, as they have them in HD as well, but don't require the Quicktime nightmare.
Just like a dope dealer......give them free samples, get em hooked them charge them for their fix.
In this case, you have to put up with annoying ads.
Sorry...the free ride is over.
No, I joke, but if this means I have to sit through a 30 second ad to watch full lenght HD T.V. shows for free, I'm all for it!
But if they start putting ads on videos like "Jizz In My Pants" and other videos like that then a lot of users will be upset. I think this is the only way they will compete with Hulu and their int'l T.V. deals. (http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/05/07/hulu-agrees-to-international-tv-deals)
All in all YouTube will still have enough users to remain at the top of the game and most users wont stop using YouTube because if a 30 second ad.
Last edited by NoctheniK on 22 May 2009 - 05:19
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.