The verdict on the Italian YouTube court case verdict seemed pretty clear: sentencing Google execs to jail time for an invasion of privacy in a video posted (by someone else) on the UGC site was, well, “absurd,” as we said two weeks ago.

But some new evidence is coming out that may just justify at least the “guilty” verdict from the Italian court—since that’s all the Italian judge released (i.e. he didn’t publish his reasoning). According to TechDirt, there are now reports that Google may have ignored a takedown notice on the video.

…Oooooor not. While Google Translate is woefully inadequate in translating the Italian article intelligibly, it appears that the takedown requests in question (if they exist) might actually be from users—i.e. people without legal standing—via the site’s feedback form. Although that could certainly alert the company that inappropriate content had been submitted by a user, it’s a far cry from an official legal filing.

It’s also hard to tell because Google hasn’t apparently responded adequately to requests from the prosecution to provide copies of any legal takedown notices (although I believe the article says they have provided a copy of one such filing: “Google Inc. has sent not only evasive replies on the comments made [on the video page] but also on removal requests (having produced only one on that SB)”). Furthermore, the EU has no guidelines on what constitutes a sufficiently fast response to a legal takedown notice (or even a clearly defined process for filing takedown notices).

Still, it hardly makes sense to sentence executives who probably never saw any takedown notices (whether or not they were filed), didn’t abuse the child in question, didn’t tape said abuse and didn’t post the video, to jail time for invasion of privacy. TechDirt points out a fine for ignoring (or losing) a takedown notice would be a far more appropriate penalty.

What do you think? Did Google receive a takedown notice? Who should be punished, and how?

And it’s time for everyone’s favorite non-Olympic sport: YouTube Valuation Speculating! Come one, come all, this is not a spectator sport. If you’ll recall, last year we had valuations from Credit Suisse and Ramp Rate, working with a $240.7M revenue (CS foresaw a $470M operating loss; RR predicted only $174M).

Now CitiGroup has thrown a hat the ring—with much better news for YouTube. This year, they predict, YouTube will see gross revenue of $945M (net $614M), and next year they’ll bring in $1.1 billion (net $737M). Either way, that’ll be almost enough to break even with even the most pessimistic estimates of operating costs.

However, CitiGroup based their revenue estimate on MySpace’s CPM price. Does that even make sense?

Pretty graphic of the comparisons:

In other news, YouTube is expanding its accessibility. Back in November, Google announced that some select universities and other partners would be receiving automatic closed captioning on their videos. Now YouTube is spreading the love—all videos where the audio is clear and in English will soon have captions.

YouTube recognized their captioning isn’t perfect: “[Google software engineer Ken] Harrenstein took time to point out that the captioning isn’t perfect, showing how the words ‘SIM card’ got transcribed to ’salmon.’” Users will still need to check the captions on their video for accuracy. (But hey, I’ve seen worse in TV closed captions, so perhaps the Deaf are used to it.) And at least some Deaf students are enthusiastic about the offering as-is:

(…So the biggest benefit is that they’ll be able to understand music videos better? That’s the best example YouTube could show them?)

What do you think? Will captioning help boost YouTube’s popularity? Is MySpace’s CPM a good measure to estimate YouTube’s revenue?

Ah, Hulu. How we made fun of thee. How we love thee now. Unless, of course, we live outside the United States—then we kind of hate thee for not letting us watch your shows. Although they planned to launch to the British Isles in September 2009, that has been delayed until 2010—and naturally, that vacuum is being filled. Competitor SeeSaw is set to open in beta tomorrow with three content licenses in place.

Hulu’s plans to expand into the UK and Ireland were slated to include their American content as well as content from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. ITV now almost certainly will not participate (yet). Licensing agreements with American networks originally kept the service from expanding; rumor has it that Hulu’s demands for exclusive content licensing with British networks have been a major stumbling block. Channel 4, for example, has already licensed its content to YouTube and SeeSaw.

Since we made fun of Hulu’s name (and it is silly), we may as well take a look at this one, too. Although the name SeeSaw conjures up playground images, it may be far more accurate for a video site than just about anything else we’ve seen, considering it contains the verbs “see” and “saw.” (And hey, isn’t video the playground of the Internet?)

Of course, it’s now Americans’ turn to pout: SeeSaw isn’t available outside the UK. (Is the Republic of Ireland just screwed, so?)

Now the onus is on Hulu: they must get these content deals sorted out and fast, or SeeSaw could corner the market. Hulu would still have one hope in a SeeSaw-dominated world: the draw of their American content. SeeSaw’s current catalog is pretty limited—perhaps Hulu could bring more UK and US content to the British Isles.

What do you think? Will Hulu be able to get content deals in place in time to unseat SeeSaw? Will Hulu’s American and expanded UK content be enough to draw away soon-to-be-SeeSawers (SeeSawyers?)?

And thus concludes probably the only time in my life I’ll intentionally quote Top Gun.

Yesterday, YouTube released a Speed Dashboard to clock how fast your video downloads are coming through. In addition to displaying your Internet speed, the dashboard also offers comparative data. For example:

The comparative data comes from not only other customers of your ISP but other YouTube users in your neighborhood with different ISPs—in case you wanted to know just how fast the Joneses can watch the latest Weezer single.

Says YouTube:

The goal with this dashboard is to give you insight into what your YouTube speed looks like compared to the YouTube speed of users in other regions and different ISPs. We may also list the YouTube speeds for users in you neighborhood but with different ISPs. The speed numbers are calculated by measuring the speed at which YouTube video is received by the browser. This is then averaged over the previous 30 days provided you’ve used the same browser during this time period.

It’s always good to check up on your ISP and make sure you’re getting Internet speed in the tier you’re paying for—and to compare other ISPs if you want a faster connection. But speed isn’t apples to apples when it comes to Internet subscriptions: YouTube doesn’t tell you how much they’re paying, what else they’re using their bandwidth for while viewing videos, or how much bandwidth they’re paying for

What do you think? Will YouTube help people to switch, or ISPs to speed up the Internet?

YouTube conducted its first test of a video rental service last month with five independent films from Sundance Film Festival. In the ten days of the test, the rentals received a total of 2684 views, according to the New York Times. At $3.99 a pop, YouTube brought in $10,709.16.

If YouTube could sustain both of those rates on rentals at large, they’re looking at more than $390,000 a year in revenue. That’s close to offsetting waaaay off the largest loss estimate from last year and more than enough to turn a profit if even the more conservative loss estimates.

The original blog post announcement doesn’t say how much of the revenue, if any, will be shared with the independent filmmakers. The additional exposure may be worth the money to the filmmakers, of course.

But to expand the program with large studios, YouTube will doubtlessly need to share revenue, cutting into their profits. YouTube first has been rumored to be discussing rentals with major studios (or free showings) for months. They already have a number of content deals in place with studios including Disney, MGM, and Lions Gate.

As always, we’ll end with the question: Do you think this is the way YouTube will make the big bucks?

Today, YouTube is rolling out its video rentals program (maybe it’s a good thing Blockbuster is already closing all those stores!). And just in time for the Sundance rentals, YouTube is trying out another stripped-down version of its video viewing page.

The most noticeable improvements are in the video player. The player now offers more viewing options, including viewing with a larger player (without going to full screen) and multiple resolutions. Also, if you search while watching a video, the video continues playing in a small left-side panel, while search results are listed in a larger right column

Last month, YouTube experimented with the “Feather” layout for video viewing—and there are a few marked similarities. The new layout is opt-in (via this link), just as the “Feather” layout was. Like that layout, this one removes a lot of the features from the video viewing page and rearranges some of the page elements (without JavaScript). Mysteriously, despite the quest to cut down on clutter, both layouts include the comments.

However, there are many improvements as well. YouTube says the related videos feature will be smarter now, taking into account how you came to this video (just check out the “Search Results” box in the upper right of the main screen shot). They’ve moved the description from the right-hand side where it usually sits to right underneath the video with the stats. Actions like sharing, rating and blogging videos have been grouped together into a single “button bar,” and the ratings system has been simplified into a “like/don’t like” option (since most YouTube users gave either 1 or 5 stars to videos).

YouTube is asking for feedback on the new design through a survey or in the comments to their blog announcement.

I think it’s great that YouTube is taking user feedback into account. It looks like they took feedback from those using the Feather layout and worked to improve that model.

What do you think? Will you want the stripped-down player? Will it stick?

YouTube is always on the prowl to find ways to make money off the gazillion gaziggawatts of video that it already has and is always collecting. As with most online services this quest for revenue is an ongoing battle that requires considerable creativity as well as a lot of experimentation. On Friday YouTube will roll out its online video rental option as one of those attempts to add to Google’s coffers.

The Wall Street Journal tells us

Google Inc.’s YouTube said it will begin testing a new online video service on Friday, entering the rental turf of other technology giants such as Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Netflix Inc.

YouTube will begin testing the service with five movies from the Sundance Film Festival, the company said Wednesday in a blog post. It plans to later expand its rental selection to a range of health, education and fitness categories, a company spokesman said.

The disclosure marks one of YouTube’s first major pushes into delivering paid video rather than supplying videos that can be viewed for free in exchange for watching ads. YouTube is hoping that the new payment option—which allows a content supplier to set the price per rental—will draw more professional content, including offerings from major film and TV studios, to its site.

I am probably the worst person to be talking about video rentals because in my house there isn’t much room for art in between the Dora the Explorer videos my three year adores (and the rest of us simply tolerate) and other things vying for our attention. In other words, I may be in the market but until this service is more mainstreamed I will be on the sidelines.

YouTube is trying to differentiate itself from the competition like Amazon, Apple and Netflix by presenting a flexible pricing option for video offering.

Media companies could be enticed by the more flexible business model YouTube is offering. Unlike Apple’s iTunes Store, which has set tiers of pricing for rentals of movies, Google is allowing partners to set the price that it will charge consumers and how long they want the rental to last.

Consumers must pay through Google’s payment service, Google Checkout. Google and the content supplier will split the revenue, with the partner getting the majority, a YouTube spokesman said.

The first five films, which will cost $3.99 to rent from Friday through Jan. 31, will include “The Cove,” a documentary about the dolphin fishing industry, and “Homewrecker,” a comedy about a locksmith.

Personally I find stories about companies trying to monetize their offerings vs stories about innovation pretty much the same thing no matter who is trying to generate revenue. It’s just another business saying “If you really like our service we’re going to make you pay …….. someday, some way.”

Yesterday’s rumors have proven true: dominant Chinese search engine Baidu has officially announced their entry into the online video market in China. In fact, they’ve confirmed almost all of the rumors floating around yesterday: Baidu is involved, it’s a partnership, they’ll be soliciting content licensing agreements from professional content producers, it will be free with ad support (like Hulu), and Yu Gong, former China Mobile exec, will head up the site. Only Providence Equity Partners’ participation wasn’t confirmed.

As mentioned yesterday, the Chinese video market is lucrative—worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in Q308, according to Analysys International. It’s little wonder that Baidu is eyeing the market (even though the Chinese search market is valued at 2B yuan [$293M], with Baidu controlling around two thirds of the market). China also faces piracy problems that seems more serious than those in the US, where a site with a similar model has enjoyed unexpected success at Hulu.

With all these concerns, the Chinese video market looks even less appealing in light of another point from Reuters: “J.P. Morgan analyst Dick Wei said most video sites in China were still making losses but Baidu had the added advantage of being able to offer more targeted advertisements given its search technology.”

Baidu didn’t say whether the new venture would feature UGC, with the additional content and IP problems it can pose, but even without that, they could face not only competition but content theft from video pirates. The Chinese video market is highly fragmented online, so there’s a definite possibility that Baidu could emerge as the leader (and winner) in this arena—but will they?

What do you think? Can Baidu succeed in two areas? Will China receive a Hulu of their own?

paidContent reports today that private equity company Providence Equity Partners, one of the backers of Hulu, is rumored to be joining up with Baidu for a Chinese equivalent of the popular professional video content site. While China is the largest Internet population (350M) and a huge market for ad dollars in just about every online arena, it’s little wonder both the Chinese search giant and the American investment firm are interested. While Providence declined comment, other sources told PC the deal was already closed.

Reuters reports that the new video site would launch in the first quarter of this year. Providence will back it with $60M, while Baidu is fronting $10M. A recently-departed China Mobile executive is rumored to be the CEO of the new site.

Analysys International reports that the Chinese online video market was worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in the third quarter of last year—again, little wonder these two companies are interested in the market. On the other hand, this is considerably less than the well-established US video advertising market, of which Hulu controlled some 10% (and commanded similar ad rates to TV). Could a Chinese Hulu take over the same proportion of the Chinese ad market (to the tune of $9.5M)?

Hard to say, of course. Before Hulu came along, it seemed doubtful that a site with such a model could succeed—but now it does appear to be successful, as well as a major source for online video content. Naturally, Providence and Baidu would need Chinese television stations and studios to sign on to create the professional content. And while the US isn’t the best counterexample here, China has a reputation for rampant online video piracy that may diminish the appeal (and the restrictions) of a site like Hulu.

What do you think? Can Baidu expand its empire successfully with this? Or is China just not the market for another Hulu?

Just a week after Google launched its URL shortener, Goo.gl, it’s premiering another one, this time for YouTube. And because we can’t stand to learn yet another URL shortener name, they’re going with youtu.be. To use the new shortener, you just append the video ID to youtu.be/, so http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKOTClyVrIc become http://youtu.be/PKOTClyVrIc.

Shall we count them together? That saves us 13 15 whole characters. Now, in a limited-capacity message, like Twitter, those 13 15 characters might come in handy (“no rickroll!!”). Clearly, youtu.be is not intended as a full-featured URL shortener: it won’t work for other domains, there are no custom options, and it’s not as short as possible.

In the YouTube blog post, they say that this integrates with the AutoShare features of account holders to link up with Google Reader and Twitter. However, if you haven’t enabled AutoShare, or are not a signed-in member, and you want to just Tweet from the Share menu below the video window, they haven’t put youtu.be into action yet. In fact, a lot of the time, if you want to use it, you’ll have to manually remove the other parts of the video URL.

The feature does have its good points: as the blog post points out, when you see a youtu.be link, you know you’re going to a YouTube video. Its integration with Twitter allows developers to show thumbnails, embed directly or track stats in real-time.

What do you think? Will you use youtu.be?

When will the "top blah, blah list of 2009" madness stop?

I’m thinking that once Wolfram|Alpha releases its "top mathematical equations of 2009" list, we’ll know that it’s time to move on.

In the meantime, YouTube is taking great delight in telling us the kind of junk we all enjoyed watching online. If this is any indication of our what we watch on the web, I’m pretty sure that TV networks don’t have to worry about online video cannibalizing their audiences:

Most Watched YouTube videos (Global):
1. Susan Boyle – Britain’s Got Talent (120+ million views)
2. David After Dentist (37+ million views)
3. JK Wedding Entrance Dance (33+ million views)
4. New Moon Movie Trailer (31+ million views)
5. Evian Roller Babies (27+ million views)

Most Watched music videos on YouTube (Global)*:
1. Pitbull "I Know You Want Me" (82+ million views)
2. Miley Cyrus "The Climb" (64+ million views)
3. Miley Cyrus "Party in the U.S.A." (54+ million views)
4. The Lonely Island "I’m On a Boat" (48+ million views)
5. Keri Hilson "Knock You Down" (35+ million views)

If I were Susan Boyle, I’d get cracking on a cover of a Miley Cyrus song pretty darn quick!

I’ll leave you with my favorite from the list:

When we shared Google’s first TV ad for its Chrome browser, Marketing Pilgrim’s had mixed opinions about it: some hate it, some loved it.

OK, so now we have a new series of TV ads out of Google’s UK office. What do you think of these?

My take? I grew up in England–and our UK readers can will relate to this–but the ads look like they were directed by the creator of Bagpuss!

(via Mashable)

Just days after unveiling a streamlined, cleaner homepage (so much for the magic 28 words), Google unveils a stripped-down version of YouTube pages, too.

Called Feather and now in beta, the new layout removes much of the clutter (or features, depending on how you see it) from YouTube’s typical video viewing page.

You’d probably assume that the first thing to go would be the comments—the one part of YouTube 99% of us could probably do without. But you’d be wrong. They still display the ten most recent comments (not to be confused with the “top ten” rated comments, as Download Squad reported). Also missing from the pared-down version:

• Sharing options under the video
• Playlist options under the video
• Statistics and data (and its menu)
• Video responses
• Embed custom options
• More from this user
• More related videos
• More comments
• Comment ratings
• Post comment box

If you’re looking for a way to simply watch videos, Feather may be a great option for you. However, if you want to socialize or explore on YouTube, you’re better off with the current layout.

What do you think? Do you prefer Feather or plain YouTube?

Google announced that closed captioning is coming to YouTube. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know it was already there in many videos where the creators took the time to add the subtitles for the hearing- or speaker-impaired. But now, for selected participating partners (mainly universities), YouTube itself will be adding the captions.

The captions will be machine generated and automatically timed to match the video (and still be readable, I hope). Just like any dictation program, I suppose, they’ll listen to the audio from the clips and transcribe it. Now, normally, you know I’d be in there making fun of all the hilarious errors a machine makes when transcribing the participating partners’ clips (because, hey, even humans don’t always do a good job of captioning)—but as I write this, they’re actually not doing it yet. Sigh.

Google rightly points out that this will enhance search within YouTube. Previously, only the accompanying text of a video would be searchable; now the actual content of the video would be indexable as well.

Google has actually been indexing the content of selected videos’ audio for over a year through its GAudi project. However, even after the elections of last year, they continue to focus on political news only in that project.

Also, the new automatic caption timing feature will make it easier to manually caption videos, for nonparticipating partners. You know, the rest of us.

What do you think? Are you excited for captions on videos from partners like Duke (IN YOUR FACE, FRANK AND ANDY—welcome to basketball season!)?

via

Facebook just keeps chuggin’ along doesn’t it? While everyone talks about the latest in this or that, the next greatest innovation in the next greatest thing since sliced bread and all the other fixings that go with Internet marketing and social media hype Facebook just gets results.

Sure there are the occasional misfires on how they handle making changes in policies but in the end there is little or no effect on a few pretty important factors: the number of people actively using the tool AND the increasing number of people coming on board.

One of the results of this continued growth and maturation is the fact that Facebook is now the third most popular place to view video on the web as reported by cnet based on the latest Nielsen VideoCensus numbers. Considering how much video is ingested by Internet users, that is saying something that is actually pretty astounding. Here’s a pretty chart for you

While not a threat to YouTube (it’s actually a bump to YouTube since much of the video is from there to begin with) Facebook is basically cleaning the clock of major media outlets on pure volume of vides viewed.

Now what is not considered in these numbers are the types of video viewed. Many folks on Facebook are not there for hard news so if the content of these videos was sliced and diced I am sure these numbers would look different. For Internet marketers that targeting will mean more about where dollars are spent than just shear volume.

Nonetheless, Facebook is becoming more and more of a force while avoiding the drama of other Internet players like Google, Yahoo et al. The numbers speak for themselves.

According to Nielsen, the “total time spent viewing video on Facebook” grew by 1,840 percent year over year. The number of unique viewers grew 548 percent over the same period. Total streams increased by 987 percent year over year.

“Facebook’s rapid growth in online video during the last year illustrates the site’s evolution from simply a communications focused tool to a media portal,” Nielsen Vice President of Media Analytics Jon Gibs said. “Social networking sites are evolving from a venue for catching up with friends to a platform for personal expression, allowing consumers to share their experiences in the full variety of content formats available online.”

Enjoy your weekend watching video. We know Facebook will love it.

While there is always some information to discuss about how the news will be consumed via the free model online or through a myriad of paywalls another area of the news industry is changing just as rapidly. News reporting is still the domain (for the most part) of the professional journalist but the amateur news reporter is becoming more and more desired. YouTube recognizes this and is offering a service to help get the amateurs and the pros connected.

The New York Times reports

YouTube has signed up NPR, Politico, The Huffington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle for YouTube Direct, a new method for managing video submissions from readers.

The new feature, (formally introduced) on Tuesday, is a tool to make it easy for YouTube users to submit clips that news media companies can choose to highlight. The site plans to sign up other media partners.

“We’re trying to connect media organizations with citizen reporters on YouTube,” said Steve Grove, the Web site’s head of news and politics

.

How it works is that when a visitor goes to a one of the subscribing sites they will have the ability to upload a video to YouTube that will be flagged for review by the sites editors and powers that be. Pretty straightforward and direct. We like that.

It seems like a good way to manage or even create a process that didn’t exist before or, if it was in place, was hacked together thus inefficient. With news agencies needing to cut back on staff and not being able to be in all places at all times any way this can create a new model that will be a supplement or complement to the existing news environment.

Always thinking about where the next dollar is Google explains that the service is not just for the news set.

YouTube also envisions uses beyond the day’s news. The site suggested in a blog post that businesses could use the tool to solicit endorsements and that politicians could “ask for user-generated political commercials.”

Nice move in my opinion. Any organization that can provide some form or shape to the ‘wild west’ of user generated content will be helping everyone in the long run. What usually happens is that when you create something that actually helps people then the revenue will follow. Right, Twitter?

Last year I consulted with a local TV affiliate that wanted to build a localized social network. Part of the plan was to equip citizen journalists so that they could record and upload videos of news stories relevant to their town or county.

We would have killed for the new YouTube Direct tool just launched by Google.

Built from our APIs, this open source application lets media organizations enable customized versions of YouTube’s upload platform on their own websites. Users can upload videos directly into this application, which also enables the hosting organization to easily review video submissions and select the best ones to broadcast on-air and on their websites. As always, these videos also live on YouTube, so users can reach their own audience while also getting broader exposure and editorial validation for the videos they create.

Of course, this is not just limited to news organizations. Any business, blogger, or nonprofit that wants to solicit user-generated video is going to find a way to use YouTube Direct. In fact, Google reports that ABC News, the Huffington Post, NPR, Politico, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post and WHDH-TV/WLVI-TV in Boston are already using YouTube Direct.

What you need to know:

• Built on the YouTube API, this 100% open-source solution provides you with an easily-integrated audience engagement platform for your website
• The customizable interface allows you to tailor the look and feel of the tool precisely to your audience
• Visitors can answer your call for content by uploading their videos to YouTube via your site without leaving the page
• A moderation panel enables your editors to review and approve/reject all submitted videos, deciding which ones meet your organization’s editorial criteria
• All videos approved by your editors include a link back to your site when viewed on YouTube

You can also learn more from this YouTube video–how appropriate:

The NFL is an interesting study in how social media can be your best friend or your worst enemy. The NFL is a media savvy, marketing powerhouse and is now the center of the sports world with baseball gone and other leagues just getting under way. Thursdays and Sundays belong to the NFL and there is a lot of talk in between as well.

So what’s different this year? Social media. There is a lot of talk about how players can or cannot use Twitter. Well known teams like the San Francisco 49ers have just started their official Facebook page. Everyone is talking about the NFL. That can be good and that can be bad. What happened yesterday, however, with the owner of the pitiful Tennessee Titans might have been just an urban legend a 10 or so years ago. A few drunken fans could reminisce that they were there when the owner, Bud Adams, lost it a bit. Evidence would have been their blurry memory. Now the blessing of ubiquitous video is a curse. Here’s why. Cover the kids eyes, please. Apparently Mr Adams, who is 86, was directing this show to the Buffalo Bills sideline. Call it the heat of the battle I suppose .

Wow! I think we know how he feels! What does the NFL do about this one?

Microsoft has announced several new features for its rebranded search engine—I mean, “decision engine”—Bing, including the rollout of Bing Videos, a partnership with Wolfram Alpha and a new hover preview feature.

Bing Videos

Yesterday, Bing announced a new video site that will take over the old Microsoft Video (yeah, I’d never heard of it, either). In addition to MSN videos, Bing Video will feature content from Hulu, ABC and YouTube.

While it’s unlikely that Bing Videos will challenge YouTube in a major way, I think it’s a good idea for them to launch their own site, if their goal is merely to increase time on site, and make Bing even more of a go-to resource.

Partnership with Wolfram Alpha

A searchable database of information, Wolfram Alpha announced APIs this summer in the wake of rumors of a deal with Bing. The APIs seemed quell the gossip—but now the two really are teaming up.

The partnership is limited to the area of diet and nutrition (I’m guessing as a test run for a possible wider deal in the future). Bing says this partnership will help its users make decisions about their food choices. When you search for a food on Bing, nutrition information from Wolfram Alpha will appear in a tab on the SERP.

This will also include tools like a BMI calculator.

Advanced Hover Preview Feature

Bing is also bringing and advanced hover preview feature to their SERPs. The press release states that this feature adds:

• An actual snapshot of the Web site in question
• A link to the customer service number (where appropriate)
• Deep links, the most-often-clicked links on the site
• A search-within-this-site box that allows you to scour the site to find what you’re looking for.
• Facebook page previews, from which you can view a person’s picture, see who is in their Facebook network and send them a message or friend request.

Conveniently, this preview only shows up when you mouse over a plus-sign on the right side of the screen, rather than every time you mouseover a link (like Snap Preview, which I find so obnoxious). Microsoft made a video so you can see it in action if it’s not on your SERPs yet (warning, it autoplays):

Interestingly, this does showcase some feature that have long been a part of Google’s SERPs, including deep links to the most popular pages of a site and a search box to use the site’s internal search.

What do you think? Which of these features will you be most likely to use?

Online ads might be working well for news sites, but YouTube is always looking for a bigger piece of the online video advertising pie. As of today, Google is testing skippable ads on YouTube, as part of its ongoing search for the “right” way to monetize the most popular video site on the web.

The test will run with videos from content partners who have opted in to the program. The preroll ads will feature a link to skip through the ad and go straight to the video content.

MediaPost says that this test will provide Google with a demographic break down of their audience for high quality ads:

The test that determines if and when people watch the video clips will provide Google with insight into the type of person who may skip an ad, what type of ad they might skip, and what piece of content does better than another. Google also will look at whether some ads are skipped in a specific portion of the session. Does the person skip the ad in the first video versus the third during a 30-minute time slot while on YouTube?

This information could be assembled into another ad method: “The model is cost per engagement, where advertisers would only pay for opt-in engaged views of the ads.” Phil Farhi, product manager at Google’s YouTube, mentions that the promoted videos model is another example in this area, and in the future, there could be a model where advertisers only pay for complete plays of their ads.

They’re also comparing TV ads vs. video ads created specifically for online audiences. Generally, television ads take 30 seconds to make sure viewers get the message, image and contact/purchase information (call to action). Online, the call to action can run along side the video, in accompanying text that remains after the ad is over, they can use direct links or other methods.

What do you think? Will you skip ads on YouTube? Could this finally be the way to monetize YouTube?