Comments on: Why Block YouTube Ads?

By: Pieter

Pieter — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:09:18 +0000

Little FYI: “ad” is short for advertisement. Since you don’t write advertisement with two D’s it’s “ad” and not “add”.

I have never experienced a lag because of the ads, but if YouTube does lag on your computer with ads enabled, you have another good reason to disable them.

By: sean

sean — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:23:04 +0000

i block the overlay adds and the adds on the side because the computer i primarily watch youtube with lags when the adds pop up or when a flash add appears on the side. if they could just stick to non-animated adds i would be happy to let them appear but i just cant if it lags the video.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:16:55 +0000

I actually agree with you. I haven’t turned the ads off, but they are starting to get really annoying. Mostly because they’re just text ads that often are poorly targeted in the video. And it’s too bad that they don’t make the ad slide down after like 5 seconds.

By: Pieter

Pieter — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:14:13 +0000

A few weeks ago I turned off Adblock on YouTube, and the pop-in ads really annoyed me. It covered part of my video and was trying to sell me an expensive ringtone subscription. The ads annoyed me so much that I re-enabled Adblock. I’ll check back when YouTube revises its ad strategy. For example, I wouldn’t mind a 5 second pre-roll ad.

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:18:30 +0000

I didn’t mind them so much when they were irregular, but now that so many users are putting them in their vids, I too am actively searching for ways to block them. I’m also looking for viable alternatives to Youtube… shame, really, as I love youtube, but the ads are now more intrusive than not.

By: Angry Youtube Viewer

Angry Youtube Viewer — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:26:48 +0000

To put it simply: When a youtube video finishes, a google advert covers all the links to related videos. :-< Why?
Very seriously stupid!

By: Uncle Slam

Uncle Slam — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:53:25 +0000

I’m sorry but the ads take up slightly more than 20%. It is more like 30%. It’s been getting more and more annoying for a while now too. In fact, after watching a video just now, I’m finding myself blocked from being able to click on related videos by an ad that is taking up exactly 50% of the window (Ads by Google). This was the last straw and I am now looking for ways to block them permanently. Sure, TV shows have similar ads (the Ghost Hunters one on Sci-Fi channel sure is annoying, two guys walking on screen with flashlights is highly distracting and sucks you right out of your show) but at least they don’t play through the entire show. Just imagine if they did! I understand a websites need for revenue, but at the same time they need to understand that running a business on the internet is very competitive and I don’t have to use their site at all. Is it really worth making your users irate over ads that almost nobody clicks? Seriously stupid.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:31:20 +0000

Well you missed the mark on this one. People click on videos for content not for 2/3’s of a video but for the full video. If I wanted that crap on the bottom of the video I’d go looking for it. Think about it overlays have been possible on regular TV for sometime but there has been very little interest in it. Do you know why? Because of the massive backlash the advertisers would get. Youtube has been a top site for some time. One of the reasons for this is that the service has been so good that people never had any reason to look elsewhere. You talk about google’s need for revenue what happens when these adds drive people to other sites? Lastly I never thought about ad blocking software till this crap kept poping up now I’m blocking them all.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:34:19 +0000

When I’m on youtube, I clicked through to see a particular video, not an ad from something I don’t care about. If I’m constantly having to click an ‘x’ to get rid of something, I’m going to grow tired of that very quickly. I’m even at a point right now of considering unsubscribing to people who have opted for these ads just to make a point. I don’t want to watch their content if it’s going to have ads in them I’m clicking out of all the time.

Traditionally speaking, Ads have always occupied their own space on websites. This crosses the line.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:03:45 +0000

For starters I've heard now that Google is letting publishers opt-in to the advertising program. If the video developers don't want these ads to show up on their movies, then they won't be there. So if you see them now you know it isn't YouTube's fault, because they weren't the ones who ultimately made the decision.

Adam wrote:

I know that overlay ads are probably the best way to get click-throughs, and we’ll probably all get used to them in time (they’re so much like regular TV ads, anyway), but I think they are unnecessarily obtrusive.

I think that they are far less obtrusive than the ones that you are forced to watch before a video will start playing. I find these 100 times better in that I can close out the ad.

shlozzy wrote:

Even better that YT pay a % to the vid in question being played - Fair play.

I'm with you on this one. I think this is completely fair.

KylesCove wrote:

The ads don’t bother me a bit. If YouTube can stay free to all with these ads, then I’m more than happy to put up with them :mrgreen:

Amen to that!

DKong wrote:

Also, I block ads globally because I never click on them to begin with, so why waste time loading them?

You don't have to click on all the ads in order for sites to make money and for you to therefore support the sites. Many ads (even ones being served here) pay out just for the ad getting displayed. So even though you might not be clicking on them, by blocking the ads you're still doing more harm than you may realize.

Pieter wrote:

But what about the DoubleClick ads (I wonder why they haven’t switched to Google Ads yet, though. Maybe because the whole acquisition thing.) on YouTube.com? Don’t they bring in enough revenue?

I've actually been wondering the same thing, but I'm not sure if the acquisition has been 100% completed yet.

Tinhed wrote:

1 million a month is nothing for google.

Well, it would be more like $3 million a month by this point. Sure it may seem like nothing for Google, but there has to be something in it for them as well.