Mr. Angry's revenge (or why I still like my idea)

Mr. Angry had a good response to my YouTube monetization post, and I wrote a long comment response. So long, in fact, that I decided to delete my comment and turn it into a post.

Here's what the angry man wrote:

I think you're glossing over the viewer experience a little. Pre-roll ads would kill the popularity of YouTube (or any video service). I think YT might actually be close to a successful model - featured commercial videos.

Your idea generally could work well but I think the type of inserted advertising is critical. Maybe a return to the old "brought to you by" days is in order - companies could buy popular personalities to shill for them. I know I'd sell out for about a buck fifty.

My thoughts on pre-roll ads... depends how they're done.

If there's a separate ad that streams through, and then you have to wait for the content to load, that's BS.

But with advertisers actually bidding on content, you could just embed the pre-roll in the video.

Also, as I mentioned in my post on the AP/AOL poll, I don't think the numbers right now support the general panic about viewer experience. When you're talking widespread adoption, people generally feel that advertising is a fair trade for good content.

And the bidding aspect of my plan also serves as natural selection - so you don't get ads on really bad or stupid content. If it has an ad, you know it's going to appeal to at least some people.

My personal favorite advertising method is embedded logos, which we're all used to seeing on TV. But exactly what kind of advertising should be sold is not the point of my post, nor is it what we should be thinking about.

The bottom line is that the advertising that works is the kind that's going to sell the most of whatever's being advertised. That factors in user experience, brand exposure, technology, everything.

So I'm not so focused on finding the right way to advertise - I'm focused on finding the right way to place advertising.