Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

righteousruminations.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#11

Post by zitterbewegung »

jbob2000 wrote: post #5

This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad. What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placemen…

This doesn't work for tv shows so why would it work for Youtube ? Making the ad full screen doesn't eliminate the association of the brand with the show. When the Super Bowl had the clothing malfunction advertisers were pissed .

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#12

Post by threeseed »

jbob2000 wrote: post #5

This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad. What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placemen…

It seems like you're advocating pop up/under advertising which is universally hated.

People aren't on YouTube to watch ads they are there to watch videos. The ads need to be as unobtrusive as possible. The current approach is the only solution.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#13

Post by theartfuldodger »

eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#14

Post by theartfuldodger »

eh, it's not a real problem to solve, the large new buyers in the digital video space just are avoiding the complexity of intentional targeting and placements. The measly 100k-250k I spend on video ads on YouTube can be monitored and controlled to appear exactly where necessary. The large media buyers just didn't feel like doing the work.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#15

Post by 627467 »

Much prefer decent native/immutable adversiting. I don't care for 'smart' ads. I don't want ads following me around the web, because they tend to advertise things that either I already know/have or decided that I don't care for. That's how 'smart' algorithmic advertising has been working. I never got influenced into clicking that Amazon product ad that followed me through dozens websites or that crowdufing product that's on Twitter/Facebook. If a brand wants to reach me, they better find a good narrative and publisher that gets me to manage the relationship. Not plant some cookie and try to guess my taste based on pages I've been to.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#16

Post by throwaway2048 »

DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

quite right, its not a first amendment issue, but it is certainly censorship.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#18

Post by greglindahl »

threeseed wrote: post #12
jbob2000 wrote: post #5

This could just be a UI problem. When you see an ad on YouTube, it's right under the video's title, so there's some subconscious association from the video's content to the content in the ad. What if YouTube ads worked more like TV commercials, where you're taking explicitly out of the content (maybe to another page to view the ad?), and then returned to the video? Would this ease advertiser's concerns about placemen…

It seems like you're advocating pop up/under advertising which is universally hated. People aren't on YouTube to watch ads they are there to watch videos. The ads need to be as unobtrusive as possible. The current approach is the only solution.

I see pre-roll ads on YouTube, is that what you mean by the 'current approach'?

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#19

Post by gwright »

DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind.

I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

Re: YouTube Advertiser Meltdown: An Opportunity for Startups

#20

Post by snoman »

DavidSJ wrote: post #10

Strictly speaking it isn't censorship when Youtube removes a channel for being politically too extreme. Not to distract from the larger point, but this isn't true. The definition of censorship says nothing about the government being the one suppressing the content.

It sounds like you're making the implication that, in order to not be classified as censoring, YouTube is required to host anyone's content, regardless of how it is perceived by their stakeholders. That seems fishy.

Revoking a service is not the same as censoring, I would argue.

Post reply on HN