Well, I couldn't have seen this coming if I had a Deep Throat at Google… In a test, Google Video will serve ads for about 2,000 videos from 8 providers. Advertisers will select the videos on which to advertise their products through a combination of banner ads and 15-second video ads (at the end of a video). Google will split advertising revenue with the content owners, but no percentage has been identified yet. For full details see this PCWorld story.
So why do we care, and why don't we care?
- We care because this is an interesting model. The way ads are served is interesting and non-intrusive. More importantly, the bidder's market (which is how Google sells keyword inventory) is very clever.
- We don't care because amateur content is not included in the pilot. According to Adotas, the test will include videos including The Charlie Rose Show and Mr. Magoo. For the online video viewers that were born after 1960, these shows are both about a senile old man who can't see.
Here's the thing that has me scratching my head like Magoo. Is the bidder's market sustainable (beyond a pilot) for the HUGE amount of content with rapidly changing viral video content? Imagine the media person working for the advertising agency that has to surf each day's content and decide whether to bid. Aside from the fact that I want that guy's job, that doesn't seem very practical. I would imagine Google Video would offer other solutions to advertise on sporadic, amateur content.
Bidding prevents an advertiser from being associated with objectional content, but it's also a lot of work.
I've been contacted by such content scouts, but the financial transparency isn't clear so I haven't done anything.