| 7:24 am on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Is this earning more revenue?
| 12:23 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I just ordered a Dodge and now I have Dodge video ads on my pages. Google are really scary some times...
| 5:05 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Is this earning more revenue? |
I don't know, yet. But there are more of them on my site now; like Sheraton, Viagra, BMW, etc.
| 5:46 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It seems video ads is the next big thing
| 10:24 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just saw one that is probably for employment at Disney based on the info at the bottom. A gal looking like a tour guide with a big grin.
| 10:56 pm on Feb 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Can you watch your own video ads, is that against the AS policy? Also, are they worth more than regular ads? |
If it requires you to click it to see it then NO.
Never ever ever click your own ads, no matter how attractive they are.
| 4:31 am on Feb 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have seen a couple of flash eo ads, but this was quite some time ago. I have not seen an actual video ad yet.
Is anyone seeing video ads outside of the US? and if so where?
Also are the videos all in the 300x250 format and what does the payout seem to be like?
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 4:33 am (utc) on Feb. 12, 2007]
| 1:29 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Actually, you're welcome to watch the click-to-play video ads that appear on your site by clicking the Play button.
We want publishers to be able to check the content of video ads playing on their sites, so we only count clicks that lead a user to the advertiser's site, such as a click on the display URL or on the video while it's playing. Clicking only the Play button will let you watch the ad without generating invalid clicks.
For more info on video ads, check out:
Hope that clarifies,
| 4:38 am on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Thanks ASA, I am glad I was wrong on that! I might check out the ones that run on mine then, cool.
| 2:16 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Seems like the advertiser will get free brand exposure if they choose cost per clickthrough.
I'd prefer that it be CPM plus cost per clickthrough.
| 2:30 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
ASA, is it possible to get video ads on non-US sites? Or at least watch examples for them?
| 2:47 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|so we only count clicks that lead a user to the advertiser's site |
My god that is a huge potential for advertisers to get free branding.
How are you combatting this? Is there a minimum click through that a video ad needs to generate in order to continue to display?
| 3:20 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Seems like the advertiser will get free brand exposure if they choose cost per clickthrough. |
exactly. from the publisher perspective, it is unreasonable to give advertisers full visual exposure for free.
concerning cost effectiveness, if they have the option, advertisers will optimize their campaigns as follows: if their focus is on branding, they will choose cpc video ads. if they want a high clickthrough they will choose cpm.
thereby carrying over the marketing risk to the disadvantaged publisher.
| 3:28 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It is kind of like giving the advertiser a free commercial on a tv show, but only charging them if the consumer goes to the store. Commercials have value by themselves. They build brands and they burn products into our minds. Who is to say that someone won't watch a Chrysler video on my site, totally love the car and go buy one without ever "clicking" thru to the site. I just helped sell a car, yet I got nothing.
Doesn't seem right to me.
That said, I may be a bit too trusting, but I do trust that Google will do the right thing for my site in regards to ads earning the most revenue. If the video ads by chance earn less, I'm hoping they show less on my site.
Case in point, a few months ago I started seeing lots of video ads on my site. They were all over the place. Earnings were up a bit, so I figured they were doing great. Well now I don't see any video ads and earnings have climbed yet again. So from my perspective, Google is continuing to improve my revenue regardless of ad format.
But I still don't like giving something away for free...=)
| 5:25 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|are they worth more than regular ads? |
Theoretically traffic from "Video ads" would have to be payed at a higher rates because:
- there should be no accidental visitors (since as I understand surfer needs to click twice)
- clicks are more likely to convert (since those who click twice are "really interested" in ad's subject)
But payout depends on advertiser. As I understand there is nothing to do if advertiser decides he wants to pay max .10 per click. So from this point of view video ads are like other ads, where payout depends on advertiser rather than on ad type. Am I wrong here?
| 11:29 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
First, in case there's any misunderstanding, video ads can be either CPC or CPM.
Our targeting system will take into account all of the relevant factors when deciding which ads to show on your site, including factors specific to each type of ad (text, video, image, CPM, CPC, etc.).
Second, you're right - a good video ad might get its message across without requiring users to click, but a good text ad can have the same effect.
As we always say, we'll deliver the ads that should generate the highest earnings for you. If an advertiser creates such a perfect CPC ad that no one ever clicks on it, what incentive does our system have show that ad? It's a constant balancing act.
Of course, if you think a particular ad is bringing down your earnings, feel free to filter it out.
I hope that helps--
| 1:24 am on Feb 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|a good video ad might get its message across without requiring users to click, but a good text ad can have the same effect. |
nah.. a video ad has multiple the branding effect of a text ad. it's about visual impact and emotion. this is something a text ad could never deliver.
plus, watching a video is time consuming = less time for me to market the user otherwise. plus, a video ad takes more ad space than a text ad.
these are all things that require a damned good counter-argument in terms of superior payout to convince the publisher of implementing those ads.
|As we always say, we'll deliver the ads that should generate the highest earnings for you. |
good to hear that once again. and this is exactly why - when i turn on image ads on trial - if any the same lonely old neon colored ad appears in my ad blocks. nothing has changed since 5 years. advertisers won't adapt because proper branding on the net still doesn't catch on and cpc text ads rule because they are so measurable.
on the other hand, publishers won't provide the critical ad space for image/video because most experience and expect inadequate earnings as they know inventory, advertiser competition and payout rates are meager.
and google algorithm rightly won't show the ads, because as they say, they only show the ads with the highest earnings potential.
a vicious circle: low volume - low delivery.
google must be pretty depressed about this situation. after all those years still no foot in the door with brand advertising.
it's simply that their cpc contextual text ads which made them big outperform everything else by far. wonder if this could ever change..