Hallelujah, right? I mean, that's part of what we're all doing here at ReelSEO, video online for advertising and marketing. So it's good to know that our target demographics aren't angry about it. Our erstwhile pals over at eMarketer (I'm not really sure if we're pals or not, but I like to think so) did some research and found out that younger viewers mind ads less then us old stodgy types.

The Majority of Web Video Viewers Have No Problem With Ads 117012 300x328 Well not quite the youngest of the young, more along the middle-demographics who are more tolerant. Of course, those age groups are probably also more pragmatic and understand that without ad support a lot of online video wouldn't be so free. I mean it's the main reason I am tolerant of it most of the time, especially when it's very short or I can close it before it's done.

The 18-24 demo in both genders found ads more acceptable than their younger and older counterparts. They also differentiate between them and TV ads more than the age groups around them, but not by much. The least tolerant of online ads? Old men, little girls and young women. A strange combination if you pooled them all together. It makes me think that something is wrong with that research somewhere really. Granted what do the 8-17 year-olds really know about advertising aside from the fact that it's holding them back from their favorite Miley Cyrus video or keeping them from seeing some porn. Seriously, the Internet was made for porn, not video ads...right? (It's Friday...give me some slack).

ALSO ►  Beyond YouTube: Why MCNs are Looking to Other Video Platforms for New Opportunities

The Majority of Web Video Viewers Have No Problem With Ads 117010 300x207 Overall, about 50% said that online video ads are just as acceptable as their TV counterparts. Makes sense doesn't it? We all need that quick run to the toilet or the fridge, or the toilet then the fridge before the action commences once again in our favorite video stream, so ads help in that regard.

Only 7% said they are more acceptable (a surprisingly large percentage if you ask me) and 22% simply couldn't be bothered to form an opinion on the matter. Well, at least that's only half as many that couldn't bother to get out and vote.

Check out this quote from the report:

comScore reported a "sweet spot" of online video advertising of about 6 to 7 minutes per hour, significantly more ad time than the current norm of about 4 minutes per hour shown against online TV content.

Of course that doesn't add up to quite as much as the 20 minutes per hour we tolerate in television. Hell, if I could get the TV at the same time or slightly after it was aired on broadcast, and was forced to sit through 10 minutes of ads, even that would be a bonus I think. How's that for pragmatism? It's still the same content with half the ads...sounds like a winning TV streaming site slogan to me. All the caffeine, half the adverts.

  • Beageo

    "I am tolerant of it most of the time, especially when it’s very short or I can close it before it’s done."

    Well said C.Rick. So that rather sums up why advertisers shouldn't bother. What a waste of money. And what a tragedy for content providers who rely on advertising.

    There is technology that will ensure the C.Ricks of the world pay attention. And assured attention will actually lead to fewer ads.

    • Christophor Rick

      The fact of the matter is that much of the video is available in a variety of places, some have ads on it, some don't. Why should people be forced to watch an ad when they can see the same video elsewhere without it? That's like paying for something that's free which is just stupid.

      I've looked up your profile George Bear and it seems you're just our resident troll, doesn't it? Haven't got a damned thing worthwhile to say do you?

      No technology will ensure my attention. I will simply click away from it and search for it elsewhere...or not see the content at all which is always a viable option. I won't die if I can't see some video on YouTube.

      If advertisers managed to make short yet interesting ads, then it wouldn't be an issue, but when they're both useless and obnoxious there should be no reason I can't simply click past it.

      Additionally, most ad networks are now using cost-per-interaction, cost-per-completion or else some % of the video must play before it's considered an impression. So advertisers aren't really wasting their money now are they?

      • Joesmith

        Online ads are garbage...I don't watch them on tv, why would I watch them online? I have not willing watched a full commercial in years. I live in a land where they don't exist. My mind and body becomes irritated when they come on. I watch all tv on pvr to avoid them, I tab out, mute or just close the window if I get forced to watch an online ad. I see them as only a good option if you are a type of person that is open to purchase from a commercial. Becoming archaic if you ask me. I am going to buy what I buy based on need, based on reviews, based on research. Never from a "new and exciting" commercial.