our blog

The big news of today (yesterday?) is that Google added banner-like ads system to YouTube videos.

So, OK, I fully understand that somehow, they had to get back all that big bugs they invested in YouTube - and the only possible way (and easiest one too! instant cash anyone?) was to add CPM ads… But my question is where is the “legendary” google ads relevancy here?

What happened with the company that wasn’t so happy to add advertisement to the early stage of their search engine because they said it’s not good for the users? Is “not being evil” translated now into “well, you don’t have to be good to your users - just don’t be REALLY evil, otherwise the world is your oyster!”?

Oh, and the last one - I wonder when  someone will figure out somehow how to surpass those ads. Because I’m 100% sure it will happen eventually - just like with any other form of ads out there. People HATE ads, and they will do anything they can to remove them from their life, TV, magazines, websites etc. - unless, such ad have some VALUE for them (like, ironically, Google sponsored links).

And what’s the value in YouTube ads? Next to none? Right. Make sense now.

Today TechCrunch posted a note saying that after they (and lot other blogs) criticized Google over their Google Video markeplace shut-down refunds, the company admitted their error and decided give users full refund via credit card (and not Google Checkout as it was previously announced) and allow them to watch purchased videos six month longer than it was originally said.

“Well done, Google” - but is it really done well enough? If you buy a notebook, and they find that your battery might explode - do they take it away from you without saying anything? (”sorry”). NO - they replace it free of charge, without forcing me to sign-up to Google Checkout or any other system. THEY failed, so THEY take all the costs - its that simple. (BUT as they did take all the cost and fix my notebook - I still like & trust them. Sometimes, I might even like them MORE because I KNOW now that I can really trust them and that they genuinely care about their customers).

Why couldn’t Google figure out that they owe people full refund free of charge in the first place? My guess is - its all about  money. Refunding subscriptions is costly exercise. So if you say “we will refund you but only through Google Checkout” - you can be sure that some users wont bother, and eventually they will not have to be refunded. But then hey! Google isn’t actually the poorest company out there, is it?

Next time, Google, please take a look at print industry and how they sort out subscriptions. They can’t just close a magazine and say to 1mln subscribers “sorry - we are closed now”. Either they keep a magazine up and running (even if it bring loses - thats why everyone knows long before which title is going to die soon) until all the subscriptions went out OR they refund all of them free of charge (and don’t request people to sign-up to Google Checkout, PayPal, magazine’s bank branch or whatever else…).