In particular, Adblock Edge. They claim not to whitelist. I doubt ad blocking is going to work for Youtube much longer, though. If they can detect when you're not actually watching, what's to stop them from just not letting you watch the video if you refuse to watch at least two seconds of the ad?
"Mohan said the goal is to make sure that advertisers’ video spots run for at least two seconds while covering at least 50 percent of screens -- the industry standard. "
Ghostery + NoScript does just fine. Apparently people don't know but, NoScript also blocks flash, silverlight, and html5 videos/storage. I didn't even know Youtube had Ads until I went to a friend's house.
Adblock is one of the worst plugins you can ever install if you still wish to use your browser without hogging resources.
Chrome based browsers have µBlock[1] and µMatrix[2] extensions to mitigate this very issue of hogging resources. Unfortunately these are not ported to Firefox yet.
NoScript is one of the worst plugins you can ever install if you want to have a modern web experience without per-site configuration. Meanwhile, Ghostery caused a number of web sites to stop working for me - commenting in particular, IIRC, but it's been a few years.
ABP could be better implemented, for sure, but mostly it just works.
4OD also serves ridiculous 2 minuet broadcast TV style blocks of Ads. This is why everyone runs AdBlock on their site, and why they fight a loosing battle to try a force people to view them.
Youtube adverts are tolerable, and sometimes i even watch past the 5 second skip if it is funny or interesting. 4OD ads get blocked outright.
I think this might be an effective response to AdBlock. It seems like death by 1000 cuts.
If ad blockers don't work on YouTube, then the average person won't bother to use them (because they won't be bothered to configure them). Videos are everywhere, and networks have improved to the point where you can reliably stream them from a mobile device. Is this the beginning of video ads plastered all over the web? Or is this just going to make YouTube more annoying?
I can't believe they weren't already reporting that. If I was an advertiser, I'd want to know how many people were skipping my ad and their demographics so I could stop targeting that segment -- or change my ads to reach that group better.
Simplest way to check whether people are looking at the ads is to make them all "skip to video in x seconds" ads, and then monitor for users who machine-gun said Skip button.
I don't want to be inflammatory, really, but i'm actually quite surprised that quite a few people on HN don't "own their box", so to speak (i'm referring to the people who are prepared to waste time staring at a button until it says "skip"). One aspect of this would be doing whatever is necessary to get their box not to do unwanted stuff like playing ads.
Not for me it isn't. I'm assuming it's your box which is decoding the ad and playing it to you, hence my remark.
On the other hand, if you're referring to listening to Youtube on a friend's box where you have no inclination to mess with things, consider my comment invalid :)
I think the most amusing detail of this story is that the stock plot shows a 12-point drop in Google's share price on the date of this story. There's even a noticeable valley in the day chart right around the time this story came out.
It's almost as if the investors are cottoning on to the storytime ...
I allow Google to show me its own ads, which are strongly graphically constrained compared to regular web advertising. But video ads are just insufferably obnoxious.
The worst thing about video ads is the bandwidth wasted on them. Especially in a country with not-so-good internet, those seconds wasted on video ads are precious.
Facebook has a simple but clever way of tracking who is engaged with their video advertisements. Video ads auto play in the background without audio, the user has to click on the video to get audio. Presumably they're then able to track engagement by the number of users who specifically choose to watch the video with audio..
and in the process suck down a bunch of wasted bandwidth. I hate it when a site auto-plays any video (or long audio), since i want to choose to not expend the bandwidth, but the choice is taken away from me.
If anyone from FB is here: I am ok with videos autoplaying, but if I then click to watch the video, please start it from the start. So many times I see something that looks funny, click it, and then all I get is the punch line as the video carries on from halfway through.
>“Video is the preferred means by which brand advertisers connect with their consumers,” Mohan said. “It’s a way to make them sort of laugh, make them think, have them make that emotional connection.”
pfffft. Sounds funny, since everyone I've ever heard anything about them from hates video ads like nothing else.
I actually think this is a good thing. I expect videos ads to disappear in the following year, assuming that Google tool works.
People would need to react much different that I suspect if the result isn't that less than 10% actually view videos ads. Even my four year old nephew knows how to skip a video ads. Either video ads need to be cheaper than dirt or I'm have to be way of the make the economy work.
With the exception of ads on search engines and a few highly targeted sites, I don't see ads (not just video) as a viable way of financing a service. It must be working for site like Youtube and Facebook of cause, I just don't know how, it's a complete mystery.
How about they start producing interesting content (emphasis on interesting) with a bit of product placement inside ?
I don't want to watch 30s of publicity for something I don't like and will never buy (and it could even make hate the brand). But if you insert in the video non obnoxious product placement I can live with it.
Example : I watched a cooking recipe yesterday. The cook emphasized 2 or 3 times the brand of flour he was using and that's it. I understand he needs to make a living (he's a pro, not a home cook) he was not obnoxious about it, I'm OK with that. I even have a more positive view of the brand he was advocating since they are clever about their publicity.
The problem with that, and "native" advertising in general is that it's a form of affiliate marketing, where the brand has little to no control over how obnoxious and spammed the delivery will be.
Not to mention the fact that brand advertisers are really picky on where they are being promoted. They're dipping their toes in real time bidding platforms, but that's a whole different beast to tackle.
While non-disclosed "native" advertising is dangerously close to "fraud" and is only going to hurt brands in the long run, properly disclosed "sponsors" or "affiliates" can be one of the best forms of advertising. It takes a skilled marketer and there is always risk, but the potential are also large.
If I already watch somebody like the professional chef, their opinions of various related brands (such as flour) may also be valuable. I don't have to like their opinion - they just have to have a consistent-enough history[1]. IN the case of the chef mentioning a particular brand of flour, the fact that the chef agreed to advertise for that brand (the risk goes both ways[2]) can act as a filter or heuristic.
I don't think this is the kind of relationship that can be easily automated. A "real time bidding platform" misses the benefits entirely - if there is filter-effect, you are left with only the annoying (and brand-damaging) parts.
[1] ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm-3GJsr8Xw ) TotalBiscuit gave a great monologue on this subject somewhat recently. While he focuses on video game reviews (vs "demos", vs "personal opinions/editorials"), the ideas presented apply generally. (the video track in this link can be safely ignored)
[2] In addition to the business risking a bad delivery, the chef risks his own reputation (and audience) if that brand of flower ends up being hated. If the audience starts to see the chef a merely a shill for various brands, the audience can suddenly turn against everybody involved.
edit: fixed the URL - apparently TotalBiscuit now has more than one video about review/marketing/etc.
What you suggest is not allowed under UK advertising rules. See for example the Oreo Lick Challenge which got some YouTubers in trouble with Advertising Standards authority, even though most of the youtubers had descriptions saying the content was sponsored.
This is the big problem. TV is the gold standard for advertising. That's where video advertising wants/needs to go in order to keep the same profit. Here in the US about 1/3 of a show is advertising of some form and about 1/4 is explicit "commercial break" 30 second spots advertising.
Can you imagine how any show can integrate that much advertising within the context of a show and have in retain its vibe. Imagine, for example, Gotham having one in every four minutes trying to tell you about boner pills, swiffer dusters, or toilet paper and still maintaining its dark mood? [Gordon Says, "... hold on, I have an erection that's lasted more than four hours. It's important I see my doctor now."]
Love it or loath it, AdWords does seem to actually work. I usually get a fairly high percentage of advertising targetted towards my interests. The most common way it goes wrong is when it continues to show me adverts for something I've already purchased.
But video ads? I get: A lot of adverts for trading platforms. I have no idea why. A lot of french adverts at work - because our connection surfaces there. However, I'm logged into my account, in English, I see no reason it shouldn't know better.
Youtube seems to have perfected the art of showing me adverts I'm not, and will never be interested in. Whether they have my attention or not is irrelevant.
i) I get gambling ads. This is a sleazy destructive industry and people should have to opt-in to receive ads for gambling products. (Ditto alcohol).
ii) I will queue up some obviously children's content for my son but get an adult's ad (eg ads for violent film) before that. This is fuckig stupid and it's disappointing that Google gets this wrong.
iii) I'll go to watch a 30 minute video but get a 5 minute ad. (Or maybe 3 minutes?) I should start making a list of the company names that do it.
iv) a lot of the ads are just terrible
Google really needs to implement some controls so people can avoid alcohol and gambling ads.
Why is it just alcohol and gambling and not, say, cat food and toothbrushes? I understand you don't like alcohol and gambling, but how do you derive that others should be prevented from seeing what you don't like?
I am asking for a filter for my personal feed. I am mot asking for a filter for other people. Sorry I didn't make that clear. This has weak potential for a claim under English law. If I am a person with an addiction to alcohol I might ask YouTube to make a reasonable adjustment: not to show me alcohol adverts.
Allowing users some granularity over ads makes sense for everyone. I am never going to buy nor rent a car so showing me car ads is stupid. Allow me to opt out of seeing car ads and the advertisers save money and the content I'm watchig doesn't get negative associations and I am less likely to install ad blocking software.
But if I create a video and host it on YouTube I would want to prevent adverts for gambling or alcohol to appear next to that video. I'm not sure this is offerred by Google.
This is a remarkably useless metric. The only reason anyone wouldn't skip an ad is when they are not looking at the screen, which is an inherently random event. Fine tuning an ad campaign based on this doesn't make much sense, does it?
48 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 87.3 ms ] thread[1] http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube
[2] https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
"Mohan said the goal is to make sure that advertisers’ video spots run for at least two seconds while covering at least 50 percent of screens -- the industry standard. "
Adblock is one of the worst plugins you can ever install if you still wish to use your browser without hogging resources.
EDIT: Links to source code for both
[1]https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
[2]https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
ABP could be better implemented, for sure, but mostly it just works.
This will soon be common to all as based services.
Youtube adverts are tolerable, and sometimes i even watch past the 5 second skip if it is funny or interesting. 4OD ads get blocked outright.
If ad blockers don't work on YouTube, then the average person won't bother to use them (because they won't be bothered to configure them). Videos are everywhere, and networks have improved to the point where you can reliably stream them from a mobile device. Is this the beginning of video ads plastered all over the web? Or is this just going to make YouTube more annoying?
Oh yeah, I hate them. Always to loud. Always unwanted. I'll find a way to block it on my phone too.
On the other hand, if you're referring to listening to Youtube on a friend's box where you have no inclination to mess with things, consider my comment invalid :)
It's almost as if the investors are cottoning on to the storytime ...
Auto-Play Videos >> "Off"
>“Video is the preferred means by which brand advertisers connect with their consumers,” Mohan said. “It’s a way to make them sort of laugh, make them think, have them make that emotional connection.”
pfffft. Sounds funny, since everyone I've ever heard anything about them from hates video ads like nothing else.
People would need to react much different that I suspect if the result isn't that less than 10% actually view videos ads. Even my four year old nephew knows how to skip a video ads. Either video ads need to be cheaper than dirt or I'm have to be way of the make the economy work.
With the exception of ads on search engines and a few highly targeted sites, I don't see ads (not just video) as a viable way of financing a service. It must be working for site like Youtube and Facebook of cause, I just don't know how, it's a complete mystery.
I don't want to watch 30s of publicity for something I don't like and will never buy (and it could even make hate the brand). But if you insert in the video non obnoxious product placement I can live with it.
Example : I watched a cooking recipe yesterday. The cook emphasized 2 or 3 times the brand of flour he was using and that's it. I understand he needs to make a living (he's a pro, not a home cook) he was not obnoxious about it, I'm OK with that. I even have a more positive view of the brand he was advocating since they are clever about their publicity.
Not to mention the fact that brand advertisers are really picky on where they are being promoted. They're dipping their toes in real time bidding platforms, but that's a whole different beast to tackle.
If I already watch somebody like the professional chef, their opinions of various related brands (such as flour) may also be valuable. I don't have to like their opinion - they just have to have a consistent-enough history[1]. IN the case of the chef mentioning a particular brand of flour, the fact that the chef agreed to advertise for that brand (the risk goes both ways[2]) can act as a filter or heuristic.
I don't think this is the kind of relationship that can be easily automated. A "real time bidding platform" misses the benefits entirely - if there is filter-effect, you are left with only the annoying (and brand-damaging) parts.
[1] ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm-3GJsr8Xw ) TotalBiscuit gave a great monologue on this subject somewhat recently. While he focuses on video game reviews (vs "demos", vs "personal opinions/editorials"), the ideas presented apply generally. (the video track in this link can be safely ignored)
[2] In addition to the business risking a bad delivery, the chef risks his own reputation (and audience) if that brand of flower ends up being hated. If the audience starts to see the chef a merely a shill for various brands, the audience can suddenly turn against everybody involved.
edit: fixed the URL - apparently TotalBiscuit now has more than one video about review/marketing/etc.
What you suggest is not allowed under UK advertising rules. See for example the Oreo Lick Challenge which got some YouTubers in trouble with Advertising Standards authority, even though most of the youtubers had descriptions saying the content was sponsored.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/youtube-ad-oreo...
This is the big problem. TV is the gold standard for advertising. That's where video advertising wants/needs to go in order to keep the same profit. Here in the US about 1/3 of a show is advertising of some form and about 1/4 is explicit "commercial break" 30 second spots advertising.
Can you imagine how any show can integrate that much advertising within the context of a show and have in retain its vibe. Imagine, for example, Gotham having one in every four minutes trying to tell you about boner pills, swiffer dusters, or toilet paper and still maintaining its dark mood? [Gordon Says, "... hold on, I have an erection that's lasted more than four hours. It's important I see my doctor now."]
Love it or loath it, AdWords does seem to actually work. I usually get a fairly high percentage of advertising targetted towards my interests. The most common way it goes wrong is when it continues to show me adverts for something I've already purchased.
But video ads? I get: A lot of adverts for trading platforms. I have no idea why. A lot of french adverts at work - because our connection surfaces there. However, I'm logged into my account, in English, I see no reason it shouldn't know better.
Youtube seems to have perfected the art of showing me adverts I'm not, and will never be interested in. Whether they have my attention or not is irrelevant.
I find YouTube ads to be just weird and annoying.
i) I get gambling ads. This is a sleazy destructive industry and people should have to opt-in to receive ads for gambling products. (Ditto alcohol).
ii) I will queue up some obviously children's content for my son but get an adult's ad (eg ads for violent film) before that. This is fuckig stupid and it's disappointing that Google gets this wrong.
iii) I'll go to watch a 30 minute video but get a 5 minute ad. (Or maybe 3 minutes?) I should start making a list of the company names that do it.
iv) a lot of the ads are just terrible
Google really needs to implement some controls so people can avoid alcohol and gambling ads.
Things such as gambling, smoking and (though somewhat debate-ably) alcohol all fall into this category.
Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, many countries now ban the advertising of cigarettes, so realistically, it's not too alien of an idea.
It is not a good idea to force an ad for beer on an ex-alcoholic/someone trying to stop alcohol, for example.
Allowing users some granularity over ads makes sense for everyone. I am never going to buy nor rent a car so showing me car ads is stupid. Allow me to opt out of seeing car ads and the advertisers save money and the content I'm watchig doesn't get negative associations and I am less likely to install ad blocking software.
But if I create a video and host it on YouTube I would want to prevent adverts for gambling or alcohol to appear next to that video. I'm not sure this is offerred by Google.