With Google introducing video units you can now consider preselected, channel based user generated content as something that can also generate money for the AdSense Publisher.  I'm not sure how I feel about that – because I'm wondering if Google is passing some of the money back to the creators of the content.

In other words, if I put a video of my dog barfing (I don't have a dog) and it gets into a "channel" and ends up on someones' site as a content and they watch it….would I get paid for that?   Under what terms would someone be paid?

The issue gets "skirted" around by saying it's an AdSense partner – meaning it's something produced (ie: I guess, an Ad …which I probably don't want to see, BTW) for a specific channel.

Here's a video that explains the new AdSense "Video Units" offering :

YouTube is experimenting with Transparent Video Overlay Ads as a solution to high abandonment rates on PreRoll Ads; also pageviews might be further de-emphasised and replaced with Video Streams that are monetized instead. 

The information and details are contained in a Search Engine Land Post titled - YouTube Initiates Monetization Strategy With Transparent Video 'Overlays' :

"..Here's how the new overlay approach works, according to Google:

• 15 seconds into the video, an overlay ad appears on the bottom 20 percent of a video
• The overlay animates for up to 10 seconds and is 80 percent transparent
• The overlay then closes automatically
• A user can replay ad by clicking button

 

If the flash ad is clicked, the video stream stops, a "picture within picture" window is launched and a full video ad plays (no specified duration). After the user finishes viewing the ad, the window closes and the primary video resumes. Google will be reporting click-throughs to advertisers and the duration the accompanying ad plays. "

I'm assuming all of this was announced at Search Engine Strategies which is taking place right now in San Jose.

My feeling about this approach is that I'm unlikely to click on any of these ads unless I'm really interested – which is probably good for the advertiser.  On the other hand, there may not be that many viewers that are going to click on an ad, which means that you should not count on large numbers of visitors from this type of advertising.   I'm guessing this new form of Video Advertising will work well for "Buzz" type events like the opening of a movie, but also might work well for Geo-Targeted or Interest based advertising – esp with the Google-DoubleClick acquisition – and Google's Search and Web History – it will be possible to funnel that information into the likelihood visitor X would be interested in ad Y and then serve up the ad in the right moment.

And that brings up a whole can of worms – not all bad, but still, worms.  Here's why:  As Advertising becomes more sophisticated, more subliminal, more fine tuned you not only get more relevant ads, but you lose more and more "noise" that might protect from getting sucked into buying stuff you don't want.  

Can we imagine in 5 or 10 years, maybe less, when every ad we see is so good, so perfect that we have to make a decision about it right then and there?  Sure, it's hard to imagine that today …. but as Google gets better and better at this ….. what's to say that you won't see ads that are so compelling that you'll always be tempted to want to click on them and consider the offers?  Then, we'll have to evolve more ways to tune out this advertising – which starts the whole cycle all over again.

Which reminds me…. one of my readers, Justin Jones, had suggested, back a couple of weeks ago in a post I did titled Google Manifest Destiny, that  Google DoubleClick is really about massive profits that Google stands to make next year; I have no way to verify this but the reader said this:

"…A friend of mine at Google actually said that the DoubleClick acquisition is moving along smoothly.  All this 'chest-beating' from members of congress is for show only.  Apparently behind closed doors, they have actually let it be known that they have no problem with the acquisition.

So once congress has had its mock session, then Google will also be revealing the fact that DoubleClick is now expected to help boost 2008 revenue projections by an additional 50% beyond the current forecast.

Now I trust this friend quite well and I seriously doubt he would lie to me about such information.  So any chance you can verify any of these details through any back channels?"

I don't know the answer put it plays in with the idea that Google is trying to be so good at being bad that it will try to find a way to sell us anything, even things, maybe, that we'd be better of without. 

In other words, I think if we eliminate all "noise" in advertising, and get the perfect Ad Delivery System, we're going to need to have a way to tune or turn off that system – because we're used to having things not be so fine tuned that we have to work hard to reject them (the offer, the ad, the person, etc), there's usually an easy way to decide not to process something, not to go with it.  But if you get the offers to be so good, so tuned, it's harder to tune this stuff out – and we also need to be able to do that.
 

Well… I suppose it's an excuse to write a metrics piece on User Generated Content on Political Campaigns, like the one B.L. Ochman brought to my attention tonight in Raunchy User Generated Video Sure to Horrify Both Political Camps.

Actually, I haven't keep up with the creativity here – it's actually quite good.

First – Here's the Video, and then I'll give you a YouTube Metric that's useful – sites where the a video clip is embedded.

YouTube gives the top 5 sites that embedded the video and how many times it was played… and I think it's time for YouTube to make all the links to a clip available for anyone that wants to see them, not just the top 5 links.

Sites Linking to This Video:

14081 clicks from http://www.barelypolitical.com/feature/

4785 clicks from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/16/first-on-et…

4760 clicks from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/obama-…

2913 clicks from http://www.obamagirl.typepad.com/blog/

1696 clicks from http://barelypolitical.com/feature/