YouTube Advertising Should Return To It's Original Philosophy

In a testimony to the US Senate 9/7/2007, David Drummond stated the following

In our experience, our users value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content because the ads help connect them to the information, products, and services they seek. Simply put, advertising is information, and relevant advertising is information that is useful to consumers. The advertising we deliver to our users complements the natural search results that we provide, because our users are often searching for products and services that our advertisers offer. Making this connection is critical. In fact, we strive to deliver the ads that are the most relevant to our users, not just the ones that generate the most revenue for us.

This philosophy and advertising policy what has really made Google such a wonderful success. While most companies were working hard to deliver more obtrusive advertising, Google spent its time to find ways to deliver RELEVANT advertising. Google realized that you don't keep a visitor long when you have frustrating pop-ups, obnoxious flashing web banners, and misleading links and other schemes to increase revenues. Instead, Google developed a system of relevant, unobtrusive, text ads. The result was one of the most successful advertising programs in history, named AdWords.

Clearly, Google needs to monetize YouTube and other video services. Since the videos themselves are the focus of the viewer, side ads are not likely to succeed. This means that at some point, the videos themselves will need to contain the advertisement. And it appears that they are now rolling out "InVideo Overlay Ads." This new advertising move represents the exact OPPOSITE of the philosophy that served Google so well in its AdWords program.

InVideo ads represent, in many ways, what viewers HATE about television: the constant bombardment of disruptive advertisements. Some have become so frustrated, that they have chosen to completely rid themselves of television in their homes. InVideo ads are also reminiscent of the obnoxious advertising schemes that plagued the internet in its early years. Could anyone explain how a video of mountain bikers has anything to do with a new BMW 3 Series? You can see this garbage in action at: http://www.google.com/ads/videoadsolutions/demos.html

Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that YouTube should host videos for free without any revenue. In fact, I believe that displaying ads on the videos is quite a reasonable and legitimate means to support YouTube. However, the InVideo overlay ads are far from reasonable, and very VERY agitating to the YouTube audience. I submit that if YouTube continues this approach, it will see its viewership drop dramatically. Is this simply a complaint without a suggested alternative? No.

If you visit Google's Video Ad Solutions page, linked above, you will notice another version of the ads: text ads. A text ad is displayed in the bottom portion of the video window. Now THIS, is quite a good start! While you watch a video of mountain bikers, you see a text ad that suggests nearby places for you to go mountain biking. Simple. Relevant. WOW. This kind of advertisement is not annoying or disruptive; in fact, this is something visitors would WANT TO CLICK! Simply brilliant.

Are Google's video text ads perfect? No. They are still rather obnoxious, but could be easily improved for a great overall experience. Consider the following changes that would appeal to the viewer while still retaining effectiveness for the advertiser. First, the size is too big. 20% of the viewing space is overkill. 10% seems more reasonable. Second, the overlay is too strong and opaque. 25-50% opacity would be less obrusive, while ensuring that the content can be read. And third, the 'slide in' approach to delivering the ad is annoying, as well as the 'flickering' as playback continues. Why not a simple 'fade in' effect?

In short, the best way for Google to preserve and expand the YouTube audience, while implementing an advertising system, is to stick to the same philosophy it has always used. Delivering relevant advertisements is not only something the viewers will tolerate, it is something the viewers will value.

Ron Paul: Fox News is FAIR and BALANCED

It has come to my attention that there is a concern that Fox News may not be what they claim. I have decided to perform a simple test to determine if this allegation is true.

We will test the reporting of Fox News regarding the presidential candidates to determine. At this time, there are four remaining candidates, so we will use these four as our test.

Democrats
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama

Republicans
John McCain
Ron Paul

For this test, I accept common definitions of their slogan "fair and balanced"

Fair: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception
Balanced: being in a state of proper balance or equilibrium

To be fair, Fox must show similar discretion for each of the candidates. For example, if they choose to write about the platform of a candidate, they should write similar articles for other candidates. Or if they choose to compare candidates, each candidate should receive a similar portion of the article.

To be balanced, Fox must show a similar volume on each of the candidates. A similar volume of content on all candidates is balanced; while a disproportionate volume between candidates is not balanced.

To test, visit fox news website and do a search for each candidate name in quotes.

Result:

---

Hillary Clinton: 2360 results. For the first ten listings, one of the articles had the name(s) of a different candidate (Obama) in the title.

Barack Obama: 2430 results. For the first ten listings, one of the articles had the name(s) of a different candidate (Clinton) in the title.

John McCain: 2240 results. For the first ten listings, none of the results had the name(s) of different candidates in the title.

Ron Paul: 715 results. For the first ten listings, five of the results had the name(s) of different candidates (McCain, Clinton, and Obama) in the title.

Findings:
The fairness test. We see that for the first ten listings, Clinton, Obama, and McCain only have a single result with a title that references a competing candidate. Ron Paul's results differ greatly in that HALF of the listings reference a competing candidate in the title. In fact, one listing references two other candidates in the title.
--result: FAIL. Fox News did not provide fair reporting.

The balanced test. We see that Clinton, Obama, and McCain all received a result volume within 10% of each other. This would be considered a balanced volume. However, Ron Paul's volume is less than one third the volume of the other candidates.
--result: FAIL. Fox News did not provide balanced reporting.

Lets take a look at another common definition.
Fraud: Fraud is economic crime involving deceit, trickery or false pretences, by which someone gains unlawfully. An actual fraud is motivated by the desire to cause harm by deceiving someone else, while a constructive fraud is a profit made from a relation of trust. Synonyms: Swindle, deceit, double-dealing, cheat, and bluff.

Fox news claims themselves to be 'fair and balanced.' However, as we have just observed, Fox does not provide fair OR balanced reporting, therefore it DOES meet the definition of fraud.

Resolving the discrepancy:
Based on the evidence thus far, Fox News has two options to resolve this issue.
1) BE fair and balanced. It is a perfectly reasonable request. One should be what one claims to be.
2) CHANGE the slogan. By using the 'fair and balanced' slogan, Fox News is defrauding its viewers. One possible slogan: Fox News: We defraud our viewers