Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Video Units

poor performance

         

Malkovich

7:11 am on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I tested Google video ads and they seem to suck so far!
1. Poor click rates in comparison with other adsense units on the page.
2. Ugly designs of video-players.
3. Irrelevant ads (comparing to other adsense units)
4. Poor customization of video content

I took them off my sites after couple of days. The idea seems nice but poorly implemented. Maybe it is only my experience.

Quadrille

8:44 am on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



There's already a thread on this - you might like to add your thoughts there.

potentialgeek

12:26 pm on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I don't understand why anyone would think video ads would work when image ads (often) don't, compared to text ads.

Are the people at Google trying to get this thing to work former TV advertising execs?

Somebody show us the data which shows video ads will do what image ads couldn't.

Image ads = inexpensive junk.
Video ads = expensive junk.

If you want your company to use video advertising, try TV, and stop polluting the web with annoying ads.

Thank you,

p/g

P.S. Googled video ads suck...

Though in-stream ads are popular with advertisers, a new study shows that viewers do not share that enthusiasm. A study by Forrester Research discovered that 80 percent of web video viewers said in-stream ads - those placed before and after video clips - were 'annoying,' and 75 percent said they ignore them."

P.P.S. This research was made public in 2006 (last October). And then Google bought youtube for video ad revenue? Who is paying attention?

[Source:http://www.adweek.com/aw/iq_interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003317341]

Paris

1:10 pm on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Image ads = inexpensive junk.
Video ads = expensive junk.

PG, the video unit ads are NOT video ads, though. They're the same AdWords text ads that show on regular ad units. If anything, the concept is pretty neat in that it cycles through several ads (in slow enough intervals) to give you more bang for your space.

The real killer right now is a complete lack of video content in YouTube's partner program. Unless you happen to run a website like DarthVadersBrotherManagesaRuralSupermarket.com or HereAreAllofTheLonelyGirl15Videos.com, you're stuck with little more than an off-kilter virtual cinema.

ecmedia

2:43 pm on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Same experience as Malkovich from just a few days of putting them. Extremely low CTR and price per click. Will try for a week or two more and then decide whether to keep them.

gjb01

10:42 pm on Oct 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



link to other thread?

this whole concept baffles me. i thought this was going to be extended advertising videos that played at a cost-per-impression basis. That would have been exciting. This is just garbage for publishers.

Quadrille

12:09 am on Oct 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



One man's garbage is another man's pay check.

Probably more useful to consider this one moere service that you can take or leave.

Most of us will probably use it little or not at all - but i don't think that's reason enough to dismiss it.

For some it could be a positive boon :)

(see discussion on the earlier thread!)