Many have argued that online video will satisfy the world's advertisers in ways that traditional television never could. With online video, the pundits proclaim, channels are infinite, and you can choose whatever you like whenever you want it. That means advertisers know exactly what you're interested in - and they can serve you …
We've been through this before. Boring.
It's pretty well proven now that everyone will not turn to the Internet as their major source of information. They will not click on the ad's as much as people want and doing things to encourage clicking discourages visits, and Internet marketing isn't cost effective for big brands (as noted in the article). It's not worth their time/trouble/money to create special ad's for "Bob's Linux World".
The Internet sucks for making money. It's basically a pork generator for government and a silly toy to keep otherwise boring people out of the pub. Huh. Maybe it's not so bad after all.
Any ads on videos online would be embedded within the video itself, in a similar way to TV ads. No clicking, and harder to avoid.
You've like prawn!
Alright, people. We need an unconventional advertising strategy... 2.0, ASAP! We will show those billions of possibly-potential customers lots of ads they can relate to. The teenage-boy footlover, let's see, candy, ambien and kleenex. That Dax kid, we'll place Ritalin and Men's Warehouse ads. What about those almost-worthy content providers, hmmm, what-to-do what-to-do. We have to SOMEHOW ride on their coat-tails. I know, self-help ads, especially weight-loss and beauty-tips.
Seriously, what ads can you place on content that is either ripped from TV, or supplied by M Night Shamalama-Ding-Dong wanna-be's? It's not like we have quality content on Youtube worth mentioning.
But that will not stop any of those suits to try and milk it for what it's worth, if they can reach an agreement with the companies that the average user steals the music, video, or the whole content of. And judging by the writer's-strike, you can expect this to get interesting.
There's a disconnect?
What are you, a twat?
The obvious implication...
"With online video, the pundits proclaim, channels are infinite, and you can choose whatever you like whenever you want it."
The caveat to this is that you can choose not to watch ads.
Sure Brain, there's an ongoing arms race as the advertisers try to find new, innovative ways to force me to watch what I don't want to but they always seem to lose. Commercial zapping for TV, stream extracting, the fact is more choice means I'm not going to watch your ad. Its as simple as the paradigm introduced 25 years ago by the remote control - when an ad comes on one channel the impatient viewer changes channels. On the internet the diversions are endless so even without technical means I'm going to avoid your embedded ad. Think you're tricky? You're going to make your ad window stay-on-top? Amateur. Doomed to failure.
The difference being...
Yer regular telly shows one program at a time to (hopefully) millions of people. Internet tat might only be seen by a mere handful of people and probably not all at the same time (could be over a period of months or even years). I think the advertisers are baulking at having to tailor their content to that degree and having to ensure that a video tagged to go with a certain program is valid at the time of viewing.
The other side of this is that we could both be watching the same program but might be receiving different adverts based on what we have previously viewed.
Makes me glad I don't have a telly and that I don't feel too much urge to watch low grade low quality programs online either.
what,the industry needs is
advertising that is customised to be relevant and interesting to the individual end user
but not done the way Phorm try to do it.
aha that's what it's for
now I finally know what the 'off' button on my computer is for