There are good reasons (including myriad of others) that google does not allow adsense ads next to videos. . . . no one looks at them . . .
Peter Rip
· 3 years ago
Auren:
Don't confuse novelty with durability. New forms of advertising on the Web always have high initial CTRs. This was true when Animated GIF were introduced in banners, when java ads were introduced, etc. However as viewers get inured to the novelty, they quickly learn to screen them out.
It doesn't make sense that in-line ads on YouTube would be so compelling, long term, as to have unusually high CTRs while we TiVO users use the 30 easter egg to skip ads.
I'd like see the CTRs 18 months from now. My guess is they will be no better, and perhaps worse, than equivalently targeted text ads.
Go back to the perusasion research of the 1960's and 1970's in social psych. What you'll see is that reading is a high involvement medium and broadcast is low involvement. Low involvment media are less persuasive -- 1970s speak for CTRs. Streaming video is lower involvement than text.
Peter Rip
· 3 years ago
A simple point of clarification. I am not suggesting text ads next to videos will be as effective as video ads in-line. I am suggesting that from the advertisers' POV, the efficacy of streaming video ads in videos will likely resemble the efficacy of banner ads on text web sites. Perhaps lower, because they require less cognitive involvement to process than reading text. If so, they will require more exposures to achieve equivalent levels of awareness, retention, and action. Hence, lower efficacy per $1 of ad spend.
Scott Milener
· 3 years ago
I don't think video ads are about click throughs. They're about impressions and branding, something the traditional media understand and why the appetite for pre-roll or post roll will be huge. BTW: I predict the best form will be what I'll call "MID-roll." If you watch part of the video, you're more likely to sit through an Ad to watch the rest, where Pre- is a blockade and Post- gets ignored.
Saar
· 3 years ago
It depends who the advertiser is. If you want to generate a user-action from the ad, as many direct response advertisers do, post-roll (or a combination) can be more effective. In post-roll the user has already consumed the content that they originally clicked to see and are then "finished" and "open" to a new experience. Branded advertisers are best for pre-roll and mid-roll because users are often focused on watching a video and unlikely to link out of the experience and create an action.
Tessema
· 3 years ago
Regardless the YouTubes of the WWW will still need to control the Bandwith Cost, the only solution is bandwidth on demand. Plus the revenue generated from a click through is not enough to offset the cost of bandwidth for the average video clip that is show on YouTube. This is an issue that seems to be neglected.
All Comments
Don't confuse novelty with durability. New forms of advertising on the Web always have high initial CTRs. This was true when Animated GIF were introduced in banners, when java ads were introduced, etc. However as viewers get inured to the novelty, they quickly learn to screen them out.
It doesn't make sense that in-line ads on YouTube would be so compelling, long term, as to have unusually high CTRs while we TiVO users use the 30 easter egg to skip ads.
I'd like see the CTRs 18 months from now. My guess is they will be no better, and perhaps worse, than equivalently targeted text ads.
Go back to the perusasion research of the 1960's and 1970's in social psych. What you'll see is that reading is a high involvement medium and broadcast is low involvement. Low involvment media are less persuasive -- 1970s speak for CTRs. Streaming video is lower involvement than text.