Comments for Poll: Why is there no advertising with YouTube videos?

Poll: Why is there no advertising with YouTube videos?

2007-03-15T10:14:24Z

In yesterday's post about Google, a follow-up to this week's interview with Matt Cutts, we wrote that Google is still searching for a way to measure relevancy for video - and by extension a way to automatically insert contextual advertising around its YouTube videos. We think that the lack of an adequate "VideoRank" is the main reason that Google is not putting advertising around YouTube videos.

However Mark Cuban left a comment onto the latter R/WW post, saying that he thinks relevancy has nothing to do with it. He wrote:

"The lack of ads has nothing to do with relevancy. It has to do with copyright laws. If Google doesnt have a license from the video owner, they cant show ads.
If you do a viewsource, you will see the ad tags which define a user id, along with category and demographic info. If the user id reflects an uploader that Youtube has a deal with, you will see ads. If not, not."

And, as is Mark Cuban's custom these days, he finished with a none-to-subtle dig at Google:

"In terms of video search. There needs to be a differentiation between internet video search, and website video search. Google only does indexing of video on their owned sites.

Maybe they think they can host all the worlds videos ?"

We think Google is indeed scared of the copyright laws, but that the real underlying problem is that Google hasn't found an adequate technical solution to inserting contextual advertising next to YouTube videos.

So who do you think is right, the billionaire or a bunch of uppity tech bloggers? ;-) Here is a poll to find out...

Comment from Dave on 2007-03-15

2007-03-15T15:52:10Z

Revolt of YouTubers Not Surprising

Comment from Zach Katkin on 2007-03-15

2007-03-15T17:15:00Z

Mark Cuban is right and makes some good points. But, once Google is able to find an adequate system for indexing and monetizing videos by serving up relevant ads and it is repeatable, they will either license the technology to others, or provide the service free of charge with some kind of profit sharing involved, as Google currently does with AdWords/AdSense text ads.

In a recent blog post Dick Costolo, Founder of Feedburner, talked about something similar... Quantum Hidden Barriers to Entry, where it might seem fairly easy to jump on the bandwagon, but it's not. Effective video indexing is hard, and creating a streamlined system to incorporate quality truly targeted ads must be even harder.

I am currently working on such a project and would love if Google had some kind of drop in solution as they do with text search.

Comment from Ty Graham on 2007-03-15

2007-03-15T17:39:34Z

I love rare blog posts like this..

It's really simple, both Mark and R/WW are RIGHT!!!

Mark is right because people/companies with the $$ to sue or 'get mad' about ads from google attached to the stream of their video will 'fight back' or move to another service. It's like someone's landlord coming into your apartment unannounced to do some repairs/stuff when you know by law they have to give you 24 hour notice unless you call yourself.

R/WW is right because Google hasn't realized that a user-initiated advertising service could explode into a viral social media marketplace that lifts all boats.

I understand this market and have been watching people trying to figure it out but no one has gotten it yet, I still have the patent pending for the solution. It doesn't matter tho... soon everyone is going to get blipd!