At a time when the wisdom of of pinning the UK's economic fate to the fortunes of the global financial sector is being questioned, it's good to know there are people in government concerned with how to encourage innovation - via the monetisation of thousands of hours of poor quality web video. The government has given a £1.5m …
i have an idea - lets get the government to pay for a scheme that will, in no way what-so-ever, help society. in fact this kind of shit will detract from society (anyone else sick of seeing adverts everywhere?)
wtf are they playing at?
Can't be skipped...
"MirriAd successfully takes the concept of product placement, the only advertising format that CAN'T BE SKIPPED BY THE VIEWER...."
This says how much regard advertisers have for their audience. People are skipping your ads? No problem, we'll stick them all over the bits they're watching so they can't be so horrible.
This might be a weird concept, but, rather than pissing people off by forcing them to see ads they don't want everywhere they look, wouldn't it make more sense to try and make ads that don't piss them off, and that they DO want to see? Or is that not Web 2.0 enough?
Much as people like to think that everything should be offered to them for free, this crap does actually need funding to continue (and there is actually some useful stuff on YouTube. Not much, but some). This seems like quite an unobtrusive way of going about it.
My only criticism would be the comparison with AdSense. AdSense works by (hopefully) generating click-throughs and, ultimately, sales. I don't see anyway of generating useful click-throughs with this system - other than embedding URL-ified images within the video - but that kind of defeats the whole "unobtrusive" bit and would piss people off.
But if I search YouTube for a vid on how to upgrade the memory on, say, a Sony Vaio laptop, and that video happens to contain official Sony product placement - even though it's a home-grown video - I can't see why I would care. I'm still getting a video that shows me how to do the upgrade and I'm still not paying for it.
Is this the same thing as...
I was at a machine vision conference a while back where people were demonstrating a product which would change the label on a bottle someone drank from to add a brand name.
Could it be that soon all those youtube spanking videos have anne summers logos on the paddles?
Tesla you say?
Yet more unbearably cynical advertising practices. Although I am interested in seeing a practical use of nVidia's Tesla.
...I recall that in the UK there are very strict rules on ad placement for broadcast TV; hence fake-generic brands in many programs and logos fuzzed out in others (usually Yankee imports).
Internet video is often considered broadcast TV (hence why you need a license for BBC iPlayer).
So is the government funding a technology which, if used to provided video to a viewerin the UK, would be illegal?
@ By Bassey
"I'm still getting a video that shows me how to do the upgrade and I'm still not paying for it." - erm? £1.5M from OUR Pockets going to fund this. WHY????
Surely it will work the other way ... ... ?
As soon as this technology looks as though it works, there is the opportunity to spot logos, placed or otherwise, and obliterate them. I can imagine the project registration at Sourceforge already!
And if it works for advertising (placing it or removing it), why not all other content within the video. I think that this would be a technology that Winston Smith could have found most useful. Am I being a little too cynical in thinking that this might be the real reason behind the Government's backing of this venture??
So more marketing bombardment :(
"Much as people like to think that everything should be offered to them for free"
That is a straw man argument. (i.e. an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position). Not everyone expects everything for free. I have no problem paying for content or products.
If I want something, then *I choose* to look for it, to buy it. What I don't want is endless attempts to brainwash me into wanting to buy something. Plus endless attempts to brainwash me into thinking a "well know brand" is the one and only brand I should buy etc..
I know marketing & PR tactics only too well and like a lot of people, I am utterly sick of them. Plus as psychology and neuroscience gets ever better, then the adverts are going to get ever more intrusive. Enough with the advert bombardment. If anything, its driving me away from media that has lots of advertising/product placement etc... etc... I'm utterly sick of the marketing tricks.
(Plus I hate the idea, I pay taxes, so this company can get some of the money, to then make me suffer more adverts! ... that is adding insult to injury).
Copyright and "user-generated" video sites.
>"If the technology takes off, people who surrendered their copyright to "user-generated" video sites can therefore look forward to corporate logos being daubed on their creations."
I'm not sure about that. I thought you couldn't assign or transfer your moral rights as an author, and that one of your moral rights is the right to govern the presentation of your copyrighted material?
@ "Copyright and "user-generated" video sites."
Have you looked at the T&Cs for YouTube recently?
damn red tape
I wonder whether this technology could be applied to speech? So that when someone says "MP", "Government", "Gordon Brown" etc it automatically replaces the words with "Parasite", "Waster" or "fat headed git".
I'd be more inclined to watch the TV news if this took effect and would save me the trouble of shouting over the top of the presenter.
"Internet video is often considered broadcast TV (hence why you need a license for BBC iPlayer)."
Ah ah, it's not unless you're watching it at the same time it's broadcast, which is why you do *not* need a license for BBC iPlayer (apart from that small amount of the service which is broadcast live).
Where's The Add Going?
It will be interesting when the 'product placement' accidentally covers a 'key' part of the video (home videographers not allways being known for standard framing). Think 'laughing man'. Or better yet when it starts to cover one product name with another. "Take your pack of mentos <insert tic-tacs logo> and pour into a bottle of coke <insert pepsi logo>". Actually, that last I'm not going to be so concerned about now that I think about it but it could get funnily confusing. Perhaps an Asus logo over the Sony laptop logo in a video on how to change its memory. Might make you trust the video instructions less.
Paris Hilton - Because her internet movies could end up with some interesting product placement.
@ where's the add going
if I rember the previous story on this the point of this is it searches for "whitespace" and the fills it in with a "revlent" logo or add so if your film is about a man wandering down the street drinking a beer the sky might get a duff beer logo
More corporate vulgarity
The zeal of marketing types never ceases to astound ion their endless quest to make sure no piece of high or low brow popular culture becomes the equivalent of a lamp post after a dog has pissed on it.
Bill, cos even he's above marketing types on the 'total wanker' scale.
Shooting yourself in the foot.
I really can't wait for this to be developed.
I'll wait with baited beathe for the first ingenious hacker to insert appropriate logo's into every web vid of the politicians stupid enough to ok this tech.
Not too sure if its really worth my tax money for it though?
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Three offers free US roaming, confirms stealth 4G rollout