Facebook planning to sell video ad space in 2013

How do sites like Facebook and Twitter make their money? Advertising, plain and simple. They aren’t the only sites that do this either. Neowin relies on advertising, as well as member subscriptions. There’s nothing sinister about these methods, but sometimes users can be inconvenienced by them, depending on how they are presented.


This is the way current ads are offered

So what if Facebook were to up their advertising, offering users video ads into their news feeds in addition to the static images already offered? That’s what is being planned in an attempt to take a large chunk of the millions of dollars of TV advertising money that’s spent each year.

So, what do we know so far?

  • Facebook is still debating the product features
  • Will launch by April at the latest
  • Facebook hope to cap videos at 15 seconds in length
  • Ads will ‘Autoplay’
  • Users will see the same add up to three times a day across all browsing mediums
  • Ads will expand out of the news feed(s) into the main webpage
  • Traditional Internet browsers and smartphone and tablet apps will all be targeted

Advertising agencies buy hundreds of TV spots a year and have been looking to expand their portfolio to the web. But TV-like inventory on the web is rare and ad rates at Hulu are high because of this.

At the moment, Facebook do offer adverts to the user, but they need to ‘Like’ a company’s brand to get the advert presented to you. But Ad Age executives that were interviewed have predicted that ads will be able to target users regardless of their relationship with the advertised brand/product. One of the executives said:

The assumption is that these would be widespread campaigns. They are looking to grab big chunks of money ... millions of dollars.

But there has been little word from Facebook around how the ads will be charged and whether there has been much demand for them to implement the video features. The general consensus is that advertisers have been waiting for Facebook to open up its platform to video advertising.

But it all comes back to the user at the end of the day. Would they be happy for adverts to be forced down their throats in this way?  Some of the Ad Age executives don’t think so.

There could be serious outrage.

Facebook have been contacted by Ad Age, but they are refusing to comment, for the moment at least.

Source: Ad Age

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rumor: Nokia to unveil tablet in February at MWC 2013

Next Story

Microsoft under the EU microscope again

10 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

lolz another reason to not use facebook... and adblock is pointless as the ordinary person doesn't have a clue what that means or is.

I am against anything auto-playing.... I can't stand it when I go to a website and sound starts coming out. I don't always keep my sound muted...

AdBlock and STFU.

Love when people bitch about advertisements when there are very easy options out there to block them.

necrosis said,
AdBlock and STFU.

Love when people bitch about advertisements when there are very easy options out there to block them.


How dare people demand solving a problem at its roots.
Oh, and just about everyone loves browser addons. /s
Oh and no, they don't slow you down! /s

GS:ios

The only addon I use on my chrome is adblock plus and it does not slow me down, just saying.

Also, what's new about these type of things? Facebook is a profit company not a charity to try and help you feel better or keep on going. If they had to sell your soul they would, unfortunately that's not possible, at least yet.

Lucas said,
The only addon I use on my chrome is adblock plus and it does not slow me down, just saying.

[...]

It does. Not by much maybe, but it does.
If you add an instance of processing between requesting info and displaying it there always will be a delay and you're adding possibly more crash proneness.

btw: my point is not that a site bloated with ads will be faster than an add-on powered stripped down version.

Glassed Silver:mac