Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Google unobtrusive video advertising

7 replies [Last post]
memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12

What do you think about the advertising style described here? I think it's especially interesting considering that it will possibly be on Google phones where the service may be completely free but advertising supported.

I am a believer that it is possible to support a lot of things with advertising that isn't obtrusive and is yet still sufficiently effective. If users don't mind it and the advertising doesn't go overboard I think it's fine. I didn't see this yet, but.. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

What do you think?

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

dylunio's picture
User offline. Last seen 11 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2005-05-08
It seems preferable to the

It seems preferable to the pre-roll advertisements you often see on such sites as it's not as obtrusive and seems not to lose 'customers' in the same way. I don't know if it'll be possible to fund something such as a google phone with this as it requires people to spend time at such videos sites, and not do things such as phone one another.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
I think the ads will be on

I think the ads will be on the actual phones, maybe video commercials showing on them before or after the calls or something.. I doubt playing ads in audio before a phone call would ever work though.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
why not?
libervisco wrote:

I doubt playing ads in audio before a phone call would ever work though.

Why? It's not as bad as playing an ad during a phone call Smiling . Although having to wait for an ad to finish before you can dial 911 (or your local equivalent) would be even worse...

I think the only kind of ad that would work on a phone would be the equivalent of a text link ad, using a small part of the screen and a special button for quick access or something.

User offline. Last seen 11 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
I don't know... I've seen a

I don't know...

I've seen a LOT of people ditch Windows in place of GNU/Linux simply because it is gratis. If you've ever seen the movie "Idiocracy" you'll understand EXACTLY why Google thinks giving people things for free with tons of ads works.

I think a LOT of people would put up with a 15 to 20 second ad every call if it saves them a nice chunk of change.

Of course, it would be MUCH easier to just stick messages in your voicemail inbox, so if you wanted to hear your messages you had to wade through ads. Smiling

911 service will not require an ad to call. Of course, if Mama Bell-oogle is running the phones, 911 might need to hear a few to answer. Smiling

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
It may also be acceptable to

It may also be acceptable to play a silent video ad (no audio) before, during and after the call, or just before and after. This doesn't really disrupt the call itself and lets the user of a phone decide whether to look at the ad and act on it (if it asks to) or not. The interface could be framed in a way that would allow the ad to play without disrupting the controls for answering the call or hanging up, or other menus. For example it could play in place of a phones background image.

I don't really know what are the official rumors yet, but since they're only rumors it doesn't matter that much. We'll see, but I hope that Google understands the issue well enough not to be too imposing on users. In that case I would agree with their strategy on this particular issue.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 31 weeks 4 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
You're probably right, but I

You're probably right, but I don't think this would really last long (people putting up with 15-20 second ads for every call), despite the phone service being free. People's expectations would sooner or later include a service that is free and still comfortable, not just free and constantly interrupted.

Besides, technology allows for bandwidths and communication throughputs so high that they should really be quite cheap everywhere, whether for internet access, web hosting or phone services. Industry keeps charging more simply because they can. Rarely do people know what exactly are the costs so they put up with the prices. In my country for example I'm sure prices could be a lot lower. If they can do it in the rest of Europe why not here? Of course, because they can, because the market isn't liberated (de-monopolized) enough for operators to be forced to go way down with prices.

Bottom line, they can cover their costs with advertising that is not overly imposing, without charging for anything else except perhaps some additional premium services.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
libervisco wrote: Besides,
libervisco wrote:

Besides, technology allows for bandwidths and communication throughputs so high that they should really be quite cheap everywhere, whether for internet access, web hosting or phone services. Industry keeps charging more simply because they can. Rarely do people know what exactly are the costs so they put up with the prices. In my country for example I'm sure prices could be a lot lower. If they can do it in the rest of Europe why not here?

A LOT of that stems from the answer of "Who laid the foundation?". In many countries or local jurisdictions, the internet is now viewed as a "utility" like working sewers, electricity and gas for heating and cooking (or electricity for such). In the same ways, the government offers money to keep the system in place, regulates it and adopts use of it themselves.

In other places, the laying of the lines was done by companies from the beginning (in terms of residential access, not academic). The US is rather poorly connected in comparison to places like Japan, Korea and China where the governments embraced the net as gateways for their citizens.

Initial costs are high, maintainance costs are low. Where the government offsets those initial costs, internet can be delivered cheaply to many people. Where companies took that expense, they control who, where when... Not exactly out of evil monopolistic agenda, but like ALL businesses, it's stupid to spend money offering a service to someone if you're not going to make a return on it.

I'm truly hoping to change that mentality here and elsewhere and I think that message is piggybacked on the philosophies of Free Software.

libervisco wrote:

but I don't think this would really last long (people putting up with 15-20 second ads for every call), despite the phone service being free.

Oh, you're certainly right. I suppose I had taken something as a given fact... Google is an internet company that sells advertising. If they can't sell advertising, they sell LACK of advertising. Smiling Sure you can get GPhones for free with ads. But at $20 a month (with only text ads) it would STILL be (in the US) the cheapest mobile phone service.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.