Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google To Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the youtubers-is-the-strangest-word-ever dept.

Google 55

sufijazz writes "Google has announced its intention to allow advertisers to monetize the contents of YouTube videos. 'The ads accompanying the outbound YouTube clips won't be in a video format. Instead, they will appear as a graphic straddling the video or as a link along the bottom. Google won't be pulling clips from YouTube's entire library ... The material sent to other Web sites will be confined to video from providers who sign consent forms. With the new twist, Web sites participating in AdSense now can sign up to specify the kinds of YouTube videos they want shown on their pages.' Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently. Both the creator of the video as well as anyone that embeds it on their website will receive a share of the profits. The company has yet to specify the percent each party gets."

cancel ×

55 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AdSense is nowe a very broad church.... (5, Informative)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910359)

Interesting that the AdSense medium (along with its counterpart, AdWords) now supports diverse charging models CPM/CPC/CPA as well as all these different media. I'm a bit of a YouTube skeptic, but maybe G will make it a little more grown-up and useful with things like this!

Glossary: http://www.publisher-world.com/read.php?12,10879,10879#msg-10879 [publisher-world.com]

Rgds

Damon

Re:AdSense is nowe a very broad church.... (1)

MePhuq (941622) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917143)

i've said this will happen here on so many occassions as more and more of what i say happens, and i continue to get no points, only points to the fact that technical are nothing without creatives. sure the inertia of knowledge makes it appear like your doing something, but really, your not. My clip called Pay Per Bit or Subscription will reference Miracle On 34th St as the ultimate 21st century content management program, basic reasoning, sure no one wants to pay for anything, however frequent downloaders with brains are the only ones who can truly appreciate the occasional need to Have to pay for Some things, the content creators just have to realize this and we'll be on our to understanding downloading as nothing more than integral advertising in the form of promo material, the barter system in the form of testimonials is going to surface, Radiohead's idea for the new album won't backfire, it's just going to make being a consumer more difficult for a change and sophisticate people, who let's face it, overall, need that.

Re:AdSense is nowe a very broad church.... (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917567)

... and maybe advertisers will grow up and realise that pissing off your potential customer base is bad for business. No, I didn't think so either.

Monetize? (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910373)

Submitter using his thesaurus without really understanding the word? 'Commercialize' perhaps, but not 'monetize'

Re:Monetize? (5, Funny)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910513)

No, it's market-speak. Since this is marketing, I find the use of the word perfectly cromulent.

Re:Monetize? (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910777)

Actually, its spell "kromulant".

"Cromulent" is of or relating to the god Crom, who doesn't care about your spelling.

Re:Monetize? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911183)

Re:Monetize? (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20917557)

Hmmm...I didn't think there was a real spelling. Crom still doesn't care.

Re:Monetize? (2, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911435)

No, it's market-speak. Since this is marketing, I find the use of the word perfectly cromulent.
Google is embiggening YouTube by monetizing content!

Re:Monetize? (1)

vyruss000 (525644) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914001)

We need to synergize backward overflow.

Re:Monetize? (2, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910547)

Monetization may also refer to... charging for something that used to be free or making money on a goods and services that were previously unprofitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetize [wikipedia.org]

http://smoke.rotten.com/bird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20910567)

Perhaps the submitter of the story was distracted by the bird perched on his manhood.

Re:Monetize? (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910803)

It's a damn simple mind that can't make a word mean what he wants.

Calvin and Hobbes said it best: (2, Informative)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911787)

"Verbing weirds language" [wikipedia.org]

Re:Monetize? (1)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | more than 6 years ago | (#20912133)

Everytime I read the word "monetize" it makes me think of Bill Hicks:

"By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself.

Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourself.

Seriously, though. If you are, do. No, really. There's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, okay? Kill yourself. Seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No, this is not a joke, if you're going: "There's going to be a joke coming." There's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked, and you are fucking us. Kill yourself, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself. Planting seeds.

I know all the marketing people are going: "He's doing a joke." There's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations."

Re:Monetize? (1)

MePhuq (941622) | more than 6 years ago | (#20979785)

everyone loves bill hicks, but like everything, things evolve, his opinions of the limited definition of advertising would have as well, i would imagine. advertisings online isn't like advertising offline, you can be as fair or not as possible. imagine this, a person goes into the library and xeroxes an article, (xerox wasn't always a verb like google or youtube, where a service is a pronoun)anyway, the article is 5 pages .25 cents a page, the dollar twenty five is divided between the xerox company, the library, the publisher and the author, the user is given a discount for their research effort. why can't this happen online? whats the problem, its advertising, its also a recontexualized content promotion, by default. no one intended it, therefore its not trad adverting, it post relevant contextualizing combine with creative commons to generate revenue, transitively.

nigger (1)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910377)

fuck you

In other words... (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910455)

Emebedded videos from YouTube will now be accompanied by ads, as long as the original video creator/poster agrees to having said ads? The summary sounds like it was written by Mike Tyson.

Re:In other words... (1)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910493)

Ah, thanks for clarifying this.
I stumbled to my shoelaces while trying to decipher the summary.
I understood the "I could get paid for my videos if someone would be interested about them", but the "how?" part was bit of a mess.

Re:In other words... (2, Insightful)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911085)

It seems to go one step further: YouTube videos with these ads will be automatically placed on websites depending on keywords, etc. So not only does a website creator have automatic ads on their site, they have automatic YouTube videos on their sites as well.

Re:In other words... (1)

myz24 (256948) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911269)

Is that October 9 2007 or September 10 2007?

Re:In other words... (3, Funny)

PurPaBOO (604533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911361)

10 September 2007, unless you're a 'merkin.

Re:In other words... (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911541)

October 9. I'll change it. And yup, that means I've had it less then a day.

Confusion (1)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910519)

Ads straddling the videos? Just what I needed... even more stimulation for my brain. How long will it be before the ads are videos themselves?

Re:Confusion (1)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910847)

Already have those, they are called commercials.

Re:Confusion (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20913975)

Not [youtube.com] too [youtube.com] long. [youtube.com]

AdSense's future... (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910521)

I wrote about this a year ago in terms of YouTube being a great monetizing (that's AdSense-speak) product for all involved: Google, the publisher (website), and the advertiser. Flash-based videos are hard to "ad-block" plus people are more likely to actually notice an ad if it is discretely placed and doesn't interfere with the video. I think this is a great idea.

I like AdSense, it provides a reasonable enough income (although nowhere near 30%) for the sites I edit and host, but I think it is time that Google moves into a more targeted direction.

The amount of information that AdSense ads sends to Google is astonishing -- which is one reason most geeks probably block ads. I'm a fan of blocking ads if you don't have any desire in the advertisers, and I openly support it on my sites (some of them even provide a link to ad-blocking software). For me, interested parties who click ads make me more money than uninterested parties that accidentally click ads. Win, win, win.

Yet since Google has such a vast supply of information on people who don't MIND ads, why not start putting up ads that might be of interest to the user? If "John" goes from a site about gambling to a site about sports, Google knows it -- why not start displaying ads for "John" that combine all of his possible interests? The YouTube ads can be the same -- they know where you've been, so why not combine those keywords into ads that MIGHT be more interesting to you?

Sure, it's a privacy breach already, but that's what pays the bills for the sites you're visiting freely. Not many of us are going to pay for a subscription to a site (although I pay for many), so advertising has to be what it is -- it can just get better.

I'd also like to see a user-configurable plug-in that lets a user "vote" on ads. I'm sick of seeing certain ads on certain sites, so we should have the ability to tell Google "Don't show me these anymore." The content publisher (website) may prefer those ads because they pay CPM (pays per visit, not per click), but if the visitor doesn't want to see them, isn't it in the advertiser's and the visitor's best interest to turn them off for that user?

Re:AdSense's future... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910965)

Yep, if I have to see adverts I'd prefer to at least be able to choose a category of advert to see.. for example MSN comes up with random movie ads, some dodgy sex chat type ad, and some ad with a large hairy male nipple on it, I mean wtf.. I don't need to see that while chatting to my friends (but I like using custom emotes on MSN X( )

I am sorry, what? Hard to block? (0)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910967)

We are talking about flash based video players right? First block, don't install flash. Second block, do NOT allow the url that server the player to load. Third block, do not allow the video to be loaded.

I am not familiar with browser based blocking, but the last two are trivial with proxy software. My current favorite is privoxy but you might find bfilter to your tastes as well. Hell, if you are really ambitious you can use squid to send all web traffic through several filters. The only effective way to put an ad on the web that cannot be blocked BUY COCA COLA is to make it part of the very page, even then it can be filtered out.

If you are talking about an ad that is part of the video you want to watch. Well even that is not impossible. It would require someone with a knowledge of flash but this might work.

Create a player similar to the google player, but make it just get the video and NOT overlay the ad. Could that work? I very much doubt that at the moment google is doing anything too complex with their player and just passed the required information to get the video straight to the plugin. Filter the required part out, disregard the ad part and voila.

They could offcourse re-encode the video with the ad, but that would take tons of storage for all the different versions and the ad would scale badly if you play it fullscreen.

But I like the bit about being able to vote on ads. Just a small link beside the ad "This ad is so offensive that not only will I never buy from you, I will kill the first I see who buys from you and laugh all the way to the electric chair".

Tsk, the solution is even simpler (2, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911027)

Most likely the flash player send two requests to the server, one for the video and one for the flash ad. Just have the proxy return an empty ad, and voila, no ad.

Re:AdSense's future... (2, Interesting)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911129)

I think this is a great idea.
It allows for more choice for website owners and advertisers, but this sounds absolutely dreadful to me as a website viewer who actually displays ads (when displaying such ads doesn't compromise my security/privacy). Google was always hailed for ONLY producing non-obtrusive text ads. They've since moved to graphical ads and so they're one big advantage has been lost. Google is now no longer any different from any other advertising agency.

I'll certainly be avoiding all websites that make use of these obtrusive ads in obtrusive ways.

Re:AdSense's future... (1)

ianalis (833346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911287)

Yet since Google has such a vast supply of information on people who don't MIND ads, why not start putting up ads that might be of interest to the user? If "John" goes from a site about gambling to a site about sports, Google knows it -- why not start displaying ads for "John" that combine all of his possible interests? The YouTube ads can be the same -- they know where you've been, so why not combine those keywords into ads that MIGHT be more interesting to you?
Hhmmm... let's see... what if I'm a goat lover and I also happen to like viewing pr0n, what ads should I see?

Re:AdSense's future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20911941)

Hhmmm... let's see... what if I'm a goat lover and I also happen to like viewing pr0n, what ads should I see?

Sounds like a great demographic to target Democratic Party campaign ads at!

Re:AdSense's future... (1)

InterruptDescriptorT (531083) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914069)

Hhmmm... let's see... what if I'm a goat lover and I also happen to like viewing pr0n, what ads should I see?

You might find a lot of references to that sort of this on this site [slashdot.org] ...

GOOGLE! (2, Funny)

tlacuache (768218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910543)

OMG! Go0gle is teh ev1L!!!11!

Re:GOOGLE! (1, Flamebait)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914033)

As the "google is now evil" posts go, that ranks as pretty intelligent.

Re:GOOGLE! (2, Informative)

tlacuache (768218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914723)

Agreed. My intention was to mock most of the "google is now evil" posts. (I'm actually not that retarded.)

Everyone sees a cut (0, Redundant)

damonlab (931917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910557)

"Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently." Except for the viewer that doesn't want to watch any advertisements.

Re:Everyone sees a cut (2, Insightful)

borawjm (747876) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910775)

Or, perhaps, you are able to watch those videos because of the revenue generated by the ads.

The viewer has his cut... (2, Insightful)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#20912301)

He gets to watch the video. What's not cut-y about that? Not only that, he gets to choose which videos he wishes to watch, and can therefore choose not to watch any ads at all. So yes, everyone sees a cut in this plan. It's just that before now, Google was missing out somewhat.

monetize youtubers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20910571)

It's almost like English! But, no.

Privacy consernes (1)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910797)

I am concerned whether someone is allowed to see what ads do I get. Sure, if google will publish my search terms or any other private information, it will be illegal. But is it legal for google to tell e.g. government agencies about the ads I get? Not a tinfoil hat fan, just curios.

Re:Privacy consernes (2, Interesting)

grand_it (949276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911167)

But is it legal for google to tell e.g. government agencies about the ads I get?

That's the point in the short novel "Scroogled" by Cory Doctorow. http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/09/google_fiction_evil_dangerous_surveillance_control_1.php [radaronline.com]

In brief: DHS outsource border bacground checks to Google. Scary...

Percentage revealed (2, Insightful)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 6 years ago | (#20910851)

A certain percent is split with the video's creator(s). What percentage? Zero!

Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20911127)

Ah, now there's an interesting way to get around AdBlock: push your advertising inside a proprietary runtime (Flash) which is also required to view the content. There's no alternative Flash runtimes and no plugin mechanism, so unless/until someone reverse engineers it you have to watch the ad.

Sounds Wrong (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911679)

>Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers

That sounds like it ought to be illegal under local anti-pimping ordinances or some such.

Copyright Issues first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20911889)

I post a cam'ed movie of rocky 16, it's popular, gets flagged and advertisers gain revenues from illegal stuff...

Safest route would be to include known sound tracks.

Barmy old AdSense (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911895)

In my experience, Google just makes up any old numbers for their AdSense sheets. It's little wonder they didn't release solid percentage values... they could give them in 2d4 style notation.

So...more ads? (1)

dontspitconfetti (1153473) | more than 6 years ago | (#20911971)

There are already ads on YouTube along with promo videos for certian companies (i.e. deodorant companies, whatever crap movie is coming out). This will just further "Google-ize" YouTube into an Adsense, commercialized machine it was going to turn out to be anyway.

damn it (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 6 years ago | (#20912109)

I used to really enjoy youtube, but the day I see ads on the videos I can't block is the day I never go back there.

Good for them! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20913091)

...because I was just thinking the other day, if there's anything that'll improve Leave Britney Alone, it's Leave Britney Alone with an ad for vaginal hygiene products scrolling across the bottom.

How long until myspace band youtube again? (1)

illectro (697914) | more than 6 years ago | (#20913741)

It seems to me that ad supported content is now the way to go. Of course, I'm now waiting for myspace to ban youtube again the moment they start displaying ads in their embedded player, I don't think myspace ever unbanned revver or imeem - despite changes to their players and business models (imeem is too much of a threat to myspace's music fan market, revver is just a small fish and easy to intimidate)

640x360 - 320x240 - 160x120 (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914037)

Once we marvelled at 320x240 MPEG downloads. Then Lucasfilm revolutionized the web with its groundbreaking 640x360 trailers. Then Goo Tube shrunk it back down to 320x240. Now with crawlers, we're down to 320x200. Soon 160x120 will be the new breakthrough. At least the Goo videos will have something readable on top of all those shaky, blurry, camera angles.

we need to bust these bastards for these threats (-1, Offtopic)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20914275)

is there nothing anybody can do but keep them from threaten all GNU/Linux vendors livelihood? With public claims of patented materials in GNU/Linux and OSS, Microsoft is damaging every GNU/Linux developer and hardware vendor and this should be illegal. I mean there are laws for libel and slander.

Can't a cease and desist letter be send to Microsoft? Or a letter asking them to list the materials or stop the threats immediately as it is harming business? Just one customer saying that they are holding back on OSS because of Microsoft's threats should be enough to show damage from these threats. Don't care if it's a $50/hr support call, if it provides monetary damages, it should be legal to ask them to show proof. If they refuse legal requests then that should be publicized also.

The can not be allowed to keep doing this without proof.

LoB

Do they lose protection of the "safe harbor" (1)

pcause (209643) | more than 6 years ago | (#20920263)

YouTube has use the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA to protect them from liability under the DMCA. However, I believe that if you make money from copyrighted content you lose this protection. Since much of the content uses copyrighted material will this increase Google exposure to lawsuits? One supposes that they will argue it is all "fair use", but a lot of the use on YouTube is clearly outside a reasonable definition of fair use. Google, of course has a history of deciding to ignore copyright laws that it find inconvenient to obey and is happy to spend the legal $$ in court for years to wear out the other side. It will be itneresting to see if this brings on more suits.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?