Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[biz.yahoo.com...]
Interesting. In theory.
- in internet explorer with service pack click to activate the video module (can somebody confirm?)
- click to play the video
- click on the playing video to be taken to the advertiser landing page
so that's at least a two-click payout story, with mostly free video branding and visitors being distracted from your other content.
totally whacky, if you ask me..
As if we're going to subject our sites' visitors to vastly slower-loading pages to allow off-topic video files for MTV to load.
The publishers who will find this appealing have sites I never visit.
I can't imagine why anyone would agree to their policy without getting paid for the first click.
As if we're going to subject our sites' visitors to vastly slower-loading pages to allow off-topic video files for MTV to load.
Fortunately, we won't have to, if past experience with "image ads" is any guide. (And, of course, we won't even be tempted if the publisher pool isn't enlarged beyond 200 handpicked invitees.)
The publishers who will find this appealing have sites I never visit.
I doubt if I visit those publishers' sites, either. But you and I probably don't belong to their target demographic.
I can't imagine why anyone would agree to their policy without getting paid for the first click.
One could just as easily say, "I can't imagine why anyone would run CPC ads when they could be getting CPM ads that pay by the impression, not just when users click on ads."
Which click the publisher gets paid for isn't important in itself; what does matter is the eCPM.
By the way, I wonder whatever came of the "rich media" AdSense beta test that was discussed here a few months ago?
:)
A recent WIRED article mentioned that MTV has been losing viewership to the Internet. People who used to watch MTV are increasingly likely to spend their time at sites like MySpace.com.
So we should consider this deal to be a positive sign of the times for us as publishers: Even if we don't benefit from the deal directly (and even if we wouldn't want to be involved in the deal), it does confirm the growing size and importance of the Web audience.
moti, that sounds more like the current setup for google video ads(?)... are you one of the publishers who will be using this new program?
according to clickz: "Google aims to set itself apart from the king of the Web video jungle, YouTube, by paying affiliates a portion of advertising revenue from the in-stream ads."
that sounds more like the typical method of advertising with 'net video... it's cpm-based.
publishers currently need 100k views a month to qualify for this new google video program.
not relevant, because video files are a whole lot bigger than still pics... as car guy inferred.
>>>But you and I probably don't belong to their target demographic.<<<
in the long run, that won't be relevant either... for now, the test sites are getting both content and ads handed to 'em on a silver platter, but the program will be much bigger than that:
"After the test with Viacom, which will start at the end of this month, Google hopes to allow any video programmer to use its system to distribute programming with advertising. It also plans to add ad-supported programs to its own video site... Mr. Schmidt said Google would try different formats for advertisements in its test with Viacom. These include traditional television commercials before or after the clip, as well as somewhat less intrusive formats like static images that appear on the screen when a clip is completed... Mr. Schmidt said that Google would eventually analyze information about the advertisement, the video program, the Web page on which the video appeared and its vast store of information about the behavior of users." -new york times
Will "AdSense video" (to borrow the name of this thread) have any impact on us as publishers? I'd guess that will depend on the publisher and what's available.
If Google offered me European-travel video clips with ads (or even without ads) that users could view by choice, I'd probably say "cool." If Google said "How would you like to run interstitial video ads?", I'd say "No, thanks." And if Google didn't offer me video at all, I'd be perfectly content to go on making money with my current mix of Google AdSense text ads, non-Google display ads, and affiliate partnerships.
they are referring to how many times the video(aka ad) plays, which should indeed correlate to the pageviews... so most of us wouldn't be able to qualify.
this is a double-edged sword, because google has a long history of whored-out keyword pricing that they will no doubt apply to this video advertising model... so rich media content creators/publishers/ad networks who are currently getting premium cpm rates($25-30+) could see those rates drop because of competition from google.
i think that this google video ad program will expand beyond supplying sites with both content and ads, because content costs google money... so they will be looking for rich media content sites to monitize with their ads, just like they do with adsense... the ads will be cpm, but they will be contextually targeted to the video and the site.
the ads will be cpm
if this is the case, then that's indeed a whole other story. because even more than image ads, you simply can't pay video ads per click to be worthwhile for the publisher. you have to be compensated for the high visual branding impact and the user involvement in the advertising medium and distraction from your other content.
Publishers are paid on a cost per impression basis on the ads and the ad-unit is 336x280 to be shown in an above-the-fold placement (One ad per page). You also only get paid if a user sees an ad within the video so, for example, if a user views a 30 second video and sees 2 ads during this time it is classed as 2 views. The revenue is split 3 ways (content owner, Google & site owner) but Google is not disclosing the 3 way revenue split.
I have replied to the e-mail expressing my interest and am awaiting further details from AS regarding this and the code to place within my site. Can't knock it until I've tried it.
for the rest of us, google video just changed their tos, per this email i received: "you may have noticed that we're also been experimenting with making "for sale" content free by sponsoring videos with ads... Because this test has been successful, we're continuing to experiment with using ads to extend content distribution. To do this, we've made some minor modifications to our Terms of Service (TOS) so you can participate in ad programs we may roll out in the future."
so the inference is that people who post videos may get a cut of google's ad revenue?
My site is partly aimed at kids/teens and does 1.5 million unique visitors per month, but I'm still pleasantly surprised by the attention. The test begins August 21 and will last four weeks, the e-mail said. It didn't say we couldn't discuss, so expect to see feedback from me here in the near future.
I like that Google is being selective here. It's frustrating when you see AdSense on horrible sites with nothing to offer, while those of us delivering great content see low CTRs because we've developed with the user in mind.
I will keep things updated on how it converts e.t.c. once it has been on the site for a few days.
All in all ....so far so good...hope things continue as they are doing so at present.
btw: for the person above, the stats are under 'referals'
AdSense reporting is showing 110 "conversions" that have made a total of $2.68. I assume that means $2.68 / 110 = $0.02 per conversion. Not so great...?
Not for you, but for places like YouTube or iFilm that do millions of video views a day, that would probably add up.
It's obviously way, way too early for this yet. It needs time for advertisers to get on board, then test out what works, and so on.
I'm glad they are going there, though.
