Facebook to debut auto-play video ads in 2013 | Hacker News Reader

Facebook to debut auto-play video ads in 2013

theregister.co.uk

42 pointsdenniedarko46 comments

These are the most annoying kind ads. Not only do I have to make sure my sound is off (if they implement it like that), they often times are REALLY loud and annoying. I make it a habit to ignore any company that has these kinds of ad offerings and shop a different brand on principle. Depending on how this is implemented, it could really be the final straw for me with Facebook. When Yahoo implemented those ads where it covered the entire screen and you couldn't click anywhere until that ad was exited, I quit using Yahoo. This would be the same level of annoying for me. There has to be other ways to get peoples attention than video ads with sound. Regular video can be ignored, although can still be distracting and annoying. I really hope they avoid defaulted sound or have a way to shut it off with a setting.

This is a shitty pattern that news sites(huffpo, espn etc.), especially, have bought into. You open a series of news stories across a half dozen tabs expecting text stories. You get auto-playing videos across tabs accompanying each text news story.

Just for this reason I am for a browser-level default block on auto audio/video playing. Let me unblock it at the domain level(ie. youtube).

I had to install flashblock after scrambling to find the source of audio/video on Techcrunch. Ugh.

The sad thought that we will have to run HTML5-video-and-audio-block soon enough just hit me.

Or even just click to play every time. YouTube is much nicer when you can open multiple tabs and not have them start autoplaying in the background.

As a Facebook cynic, I welcome this development. Finally Facebook is introducing some changes, that do not only touch those of "us" with privacy concerns, but contribute to the improvement of the Facebook experience for the whole family.

Autoplaying video has made me abandon sites I had visited for a long time.

Facebook will not be an exception if they implement them. It's simply unacceptable to me. There is no compromise for me on this topic.

This is a short term revenue grab from Facebook, but one that will probably harm their long term position with the media agencies that buy their inventory.

Autoplay videos have been widely criticised by advertisers and agencies over the past few years. While the interruption is a bad user experience (yes, advertisers do care about that), it's the results that are the issue. Publishers started reporting ridiculously high completion rates, just because the video auto-played and then the user scrolled down.

The result in a lot of markets is that the major media agency groups have stated they will not buy autoplay. What will be interesting to see is if the same groups can say no to Facebook. While I would say most will happily support the move to not buy autoplay, I would fear that most advertisers are so frothy on Facebook that they don't care if their ad interrupts and irritates the user.

The challenge for Facebook (and the leverage the advertisers and agencies will have) is that they need the major advertisers and agency groups. As opposed to text-based ads, you can't rely on the long tail for good-quality video advertising.

(Disclosure: I work for one of the major media agency groups.)

The lack of imagination coming from Facebook today in terms of the monetization of their products is disappointing.

Is there really no way that they can make money without pissing of their users? It seems like at that scale there should be new ways that they can try to make money other than simply following the tried and true method of shoving adds down everyone's throat.

I'm fairly sure they could make big bucks charging for their developer API. They'd roll in cash and users wouldn't experience much of an implact.

There would be an impact on users, I assure you. Just not directly predictable.

The "send real world physical gifts" seemed pretty imaginative. Apart from that, I totally agree.

Well, a lot of people browse facebook at work when they should probably technically be doing something else.

Auto playing video ads would definitely be a detriment to that.

One of my most memorable "oh shit" moments was being in the office, googling for something programming related and landing on someones hacked blog. I got 301 redirected to some porn site with autoplaying live jasmin popups.

Maybe not. My firewall at work prevents a lot of video from playing.

> Smartphone users with bandwidth-capped data service are likely to be particularly annoyed by this, given that Facebook plans to roll out the video ads to both the browser-based version of its service and its mobile apps.

I'm one of the most ad-tolerant people I know but this is a terrible idea.

I still use FB, but less and less, and the day they serve an auto-playing ad with noise is the day I quit.

Unfortunately, most people don't care. That's why we have stupid "punch the monkey" and "free pointers" etc ads.

The day they do this is the day I delete my account; I've already come pretty close as I've gotten tired of scrolling through the sponsored crap.

Join us on Google+ -- it's like the Python of social networks.

http://xkcd.com/353/

I'm already on Google+; unfortunately, most of my friends and family are not. And if I want to stay in contact with them, I need a facebook account.

However, I'm only willing to put up with so much before I just delete my account and revert to email alone for that group of people. Video ads would only make my decision to do that immediate as opposed to coming very close to it everyday.

Because Google will never rely on ads to monetize a product?

Now would be a good time to build The Next Facebook(tm)

I'm really excited to see it.

I think you need to try VK.com first

The way the original article[1] describes them they sound very much like the adverts[2] Youtube uses. They're at the top of the page playing in the background and you're given the option to hover over to activate the sound of the video. They're not wonderful adverts but they're not too inconvenient. All I wish is that Facebook (and any other company that uses adverts) would allow me to pay a fee to hide the adverts. Facebook doesn't mean enough to me to put up with annoying adverts but it means enough that paying $5/m to have a "good" experience when I do use it is something I would do.

[1] http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-preps-bring-video-...

[2] http://i.imgur.com/O0SvF.png

As long as there's no auto play audio I'm absolutely fine with this.

Seriously giving thought about moving from Facebook over to Google+... just a series of shitty updates with Facebook that I cannot be bothered giving time to think about how they effect me.. it's becoming such a cancer it needs to be excised from my life. Currently as it stands the only reason I have it is to stay in touch with family oversea's and my D&D group etc... but I ask myself now.. is that reason enough..

Why O Why do the browsers even allow autoplay of video?

Because it's not up to the browser when the video is embedded using Flash?

That's up to the browser, too. Doesn't Firefox already block Flash from auto playing, or is that one of my add ons that I forgot about? Every time I go to a site with Flash, there's a big gray square with a play button in the middle of it. Good for Firefox, I say.

Autoplay does have some legitimate, non-spammy uses.

No, it doesn't.

If you're posting here (or even reading this) then I'd guess you have nothing to worry about. Facebook is targeting the 99% of the population who doesn't care about ads and wouldn't know what to do about them anyway. You'll likely be able to block the ads and go about booking faces and whatnot to your heart's content.

Ah this is going to kill my mobile usage of the site, which is the main way I use the Facebook, website version not the app. Theres no way I'm going to incur bandwidth and annoyance of the sound of ad's playing on my phone. Bandwidth would be the key factor since I have a limited mobile trafic cap. But any sites that make noise without me interacting with them annoys the hell outa me.

Other than mobile usage I check the site about 1-2 times a week on my laptop which doesn't have flash installed (I use Chrome for Youtube/flash content sites) so hopefully the ad's aren't html5.

Is there a Chrome extension that blocks flash/html5 video on certain websites? That would certainly solve the annoyance.

If browsing facebook is critical to you you can always use perl. http://qscripts.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/post-to-your-own-face...

That's it. I'm killing my Facebook account, the very instant that these appear.

Once again, if you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold.

adblock them away.

I logged in to Facebook on a friend's computer the other day and was shocked how it looks with ads. I don't know how anyone can use it like that.

I know this will probably spark nerd-rage, but adblock? C'mon man. Adblock is you, unilaterally reneging on the deal you make when you visit a website.

Suppose they, out of the blue, charge your credit card for your access? You'd be incredulous.

It's good to know that I'm not the only person out there who has mixed feelings about adblock.

The fact that online advertisements are actually code that runs on my computer removes the moral qualms, for me. We live in a safe world now, but reading about how intelligence agencies, communist international, and the like operated between the end of WW1 and the cold war really drove home the fact that you do NOT want human beings building a dossier on you, and that fighting for privacy is not a matter of paranoia.

But you don't care enough to stop visiting the sites themselves? As if the "dossier" can't be built without ad code?

I can't think of any good reason to forcibly separate a website from its ads. Any arguments against the ads are just arguments against the website, and I think attempts to argue otherwise are just trying to have your ad-free cake and eat it too.

Somebody paid and is paying for your visit. For the website itself. It's somebody's labor. If they didn't want ads, they wouldn't have put them there. Clearly you've gone to some length to convince yourself that you're justified in your actions, but you're not. You're taking something for free that the creator intended to be paid for.

Sites are free to block me from access if they detect I am using adblock, there will be no hard feelings.

This is a flawed analogy in its magnitude, but not its spirit:

"Stores are free to block me from access if they detect I'm stealing, there will be no hard feelings."

Ok, but it's still wrong to steal, isn't it? Somewhere there's somebody actually paying out of pocket for whatever website you're using.

The difference is that stores can't preemptively detect I'm going to steal something and bar my entry. Websites can.

As far as I'm concerned anything you send to my web client I can display or choose not to display in any way I want. If you don't like that then do not send it to me - block me. Is it also "theft" if I am blind and use a screen reader?

I also take issue with your use of the word "steal" in the same way people equate piracy to theft it is flawed.

Where do you see "I agree to watch your lame ads" between "GET /" and "HTTP/1.1"?

> Adblock is you, unilaterally reneging on the deal you make when you visit a website.

I never made any such deal.

I understand that ads pay for such sites, and that if everyone used adblock such sites would not exist. I am OK with that.

Meh! Another reason not to use Facebook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com