> Why do news websites want to shove autoplaying videos on people's throats so much, what's wrong with playing at any time when you want?
There was a bubble awhile back when advertisers were being told that video had better metrics, and all of the news sites jumped on higher-paying ads. That seems to have tapered off as advertisers noticed poor returns and learned that Facebook had been massively misrepresenting the metrics (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/advertisers-alle...) but it’ll take years to de-pivot everyone’s shiny new toys and the staffing invested in producing low information density content.
We may never be free of it; it's gone on long enough that there's a whole generation that's grown up thinking it's normal to get information by watching a five minute video that conveys the same information as five lines of text.
People that choose 5-minute videos over 5 lines of text probably aren't doing it because they can't do the latter. They do the former to fill time. Popcorn for the brain, if you're bored.
I often wonder, why are people so bored? I'm fighting off doing my typical "old man rant" but I often hear people dream of a life where they have no responsibilities, but then I notice that most people fill their time with fluff -- because they are bored. I do it myself, even!
Fun fact: I'm on HN posting this post, not because this is what I want to do, but because it was the easiest thing I could think of starting to do after I finished up some work. If only it were easier to aim at stuff that I actually want to do... Hmmm...
Commutes and jobs are soaking up more time, most people live in places with increased travel times to anything, and there’s never been more opportunity for easy distraction - why spend 40 minutes round trip driving somewhere to do something when you can watch Netflix on the couch?
Most importantly, though, are smartphones: you didn’t used to have so much just a second away anywhere you went. There’s an entire industry building entertainment for people in lines, on transit, walking to their car, etc. so I don’t think it’s as much that distraction is replacing previous big activities but filling in lots of space throughout the day.
decades probably, I still have people insisting on getting their meta keywords right is of top tier importance. i blame libraries keeping old online marketing how to books from the 90's on the shelves.
It won't de-pivot, advertising techniques are a ratchet and they all become yet more products or options that agencies & sites provide. We'd still be getting popunder Netflix ads from Zedo if browser makers hadn't shut that functionality down.
If advertisers aren’t seeing returns, they’ll eventually shift spending since video ads are expensive to produce and place. I wouldn’t bet against them finding something even more annoying, however.
Of course they're going to come up with new and exciting forms of interruption, but "shift spending" is extremely malleable, and agencies will still provide the feature for a price. Also, it's my understanding that there are no "returns" per se on brand advertising (vs. product advertising), regardless of medium.
No “returns” in directly measurable sales but all but the most unconcerned companies are going to look at interactions and ask whether they’re getting enough versus the cost, especially since the Facebook measurement scandal got a lot of attention.
There was a bubble awhile back when advertisers were being told that video had better metrics, and all of the news sites jumped on higher-paying ads. That seems to have tapered off as advertisers noticed poor returns and learned that Facebook had been massively misrepresenting the metrics (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/advertisers-alle...) but it’ll take years to de-pivot everyone’s shiny new toys and the staffing invested in producing low information density content.