I hate Ads Before Videos: What do we do?

[Judgement101]

Deal with it, the escapist needs some way to make money.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I hate this mentality so much. People who are unwilling to watch ads before videos are the reason that Hulu now has most of the good shows locked away for everyone but Hulu Plus subscribers. Commercials are not a bad thing, they're what keeps content free for the viewers. Without commercials, we'd be buying Pubclub style subscriptions to every site we wanted to make use of.

Nonsense, Hulu does that because Hulu is a money-grubbing whore. Netflix provides ad-free services for a comparable price with a much greater library. Hulu gets away with its business model precisely because it runs a crappy version of itself as "free" to introduce people to the service, otherwise I have no doubt Netflix would crush it. Again, the price is about the same and Netflix provides more value, especially for movie watchers.

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/netflix_vs_hulu_plus_who_deserves_your_10_month

Okay, better example: UK TV licenses, paid in addition to whatever fees the cable companies charge, Vs. US style commercial supported TV. In the US, if you don't want cable, you don't have to pay a dime over the cost of your TV set. In the UK, you're paying a fee for it regardless.

Wow, that sucks. I really like that I don't have to pay for cable if I don't plan to use it. Between DVDs, video games and free online video content (like YouTube), plus real life (little things like school and relationships), I hardly have any time to watch regular ol' TV anyway.

Re-reading that, it's a bit confusing. In the UK, there's a fee for over the air TV, which is separate from any fees incurred with a cable company. If you want cable, you pay both. If you don't, you just pay the one, but it still costs more than the free over the air stuff available in the US, which is free to the viewer because it's ad supported.

 

[Adam Galli]

Suck it up. The ads are not that big of a deal. If you don't like the ads, don't watch the videos.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

It's not that bad. I mean, they're giving you free content, it's the least you can do. Like others suggested, buy a PubClub membership if they bother you that much.

They're like 30 seconds, stop being such a baby. I swear people today are so goddamn impatient nowadays.

Better than being so goddamn rude...

Oh no, I told someone to suck it up and wait 30 seconds instead of whining to the internet about it. I'm such a jerk. /sarcasm

 

[BrownGaijin]

I always thought that the video was as the ad played. Either way I'm a patient man.

-Sawy

 

[CrystalShadow]

Since The Escapist already makes quite a sum of money from ad revenue in the banners all around the website and the ads before and after videos (plus the recent introduction of features like captcha that make contributing to the site harder and more annoying), I fail to see why disabling ads is a service worthy of payment.

It may not be worth it to you, but basically, it's a trade-off. The removal of all ads from the site. (both banner & video ads) means they lose all advertising revenue from anyone that actually pays for the site.
(Not that there aren't some other minor benefits, but you're right, they're mostly not worth mentioning - There was a video series we got to see in it's entirety all at once that everyone else had to wait while they were released one at a time, and we get better quality videos, HTML5 playback as an option, and download links for the videos too.)

But whatever, if you don't think it's worth it, that's fine. I find it preferable to dealing with buggy and intrusive ads, and the other stuff is a nice bonus.

I hate this mentality so much. People who are unwilling to watch ads before videos are the reason that Hulu now has most of the good shows locked away for everyone but Hulu Plus subscribers. Commercials are not a bad thing, they're what keeps content free for the viewers. Without commercials, we'd be buying Pubclub style subscriptions to every site we wanted to make use of.

Nonsense, Hulu does that because Hulu is a money-grubbing whore. Netflix provides ad-free services for a comparable price with a much greater library. Hulu gets away with its business model precisely because it runs a crappy version of itself as "free" to introduce people to the service, otherwise I have no doubt Netflix would crush it. Again, the price is about the same and Netflix provides more value, especially for movie watchers.

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/netflix_vs_hulu_plus_who_deserves_your_10_month

Okay, better example: UK TV licenses, paid in addition to whatever fees the cable companies charge, Vs. US style commercial supported TV. In the US, if you don't want cable, you don't have to pay a dime over the cost of your TV set. In the UK, you're paying a fee for it regardless.

Wow, that sucks. I really like that I don't have to pay for cable if I don't plan to use it. Between DVDs, video games and free online video content (like YouTube), plus real life (little things like school and relationships), I hardly have any time to watch regular ol' TV anyway.

Re-reading that, it's a bit confusing. In the UK, there's a fee for over the air TV, which is separate from any fees incurred with a cable company. If you want cable, you pay both. If you don't, you just pay the one, but it still costs more than the free over the air stuff available in the US, which is free to the viewer because it's ad supported.

Yeah, except while that might seem to make sense, there's also ITV and channel 5, both of which have lots of advertising...
And even the BBC, which clearly gets most, if not all the licence fee money has ads if I'm not mistaken. (it's been a while since I've watched any actual TV.)
Speaking of which, there's some fascinating loopholes in the licence fee rules.
The BBC Iplayer doesn't count, so if you watch that, you don't need a TV licence.

The rather confusingly worded TV licence conditions say: "You need a licence if you watch programs as they are being broadcast"

So, a live internet stream (of something also being broadcast on tv) would require a licence, but the Iplayer and similar 'on demand' services which don't put up any content until after the broadcast has ended are exempt.

Oh, for the simple logic of Australia, where 'free to air' TV is actually free. (even if the ABC is funded by the government.)

 

[realslimshadowen]

There's a part of me--the part that thinks people really should break out in hives whenever a marketer uses the term "consumer" within earshot--that thinks it's really kind of depraved to have to watch an ad in order to watch an ad. Why aren't companies paying for the bandwidth their ads use?

In-depth stuff, original content, long videos, reviews, and so forth--that I can see. Drop ads on me all you like. I consider that sort of thing one of those "endure discomfort to find nice stuff" proverb moments, and when I see a new one once every month or so, I can get enjoyment from that too. But that I have to watch one company's commercial to watch another company's commercial (i.e. full-length trailer) is one of those "You're fuckin' kidding me, right?" moments.

Also, as the OP suggested, using those thirty seconds to preload the video would be useful. I don't need it, but it would be helpful for those who don't have my awesome connection.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

The ads at first didn't bother me since I know that the reason they are there are for revenue, but now that I've been watching more videos online, it's damn annoying.

I like your idea though, but I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.

My solution is to just do something quickly while that ad is playing and get over it. Not a whole lot I can do about it.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

The other which even if you are a member of the pub club id suggest is adblock plus.

SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I have absolutely zero idea what this "adblock" is, it's probably full of cooties and failure, but you're not supposed to advocate its use

 

[tthor]

I hate this mentality so much. People who are unwilling to watch ads before videos are the reason that Hulu now has most of the good shows locked away for everyone but Hulu Plus subscribers. Commercials are not a bad thing, they're what keeps content free for the viewers. Without commercials, we'd be buying Pubclub style subscriptions to every site we wanted to make use of.

Nonsense, Hulu does that because Hulu is a money-grubbing whore. Netflix provides ad-free services for a comparable price with a much greater library. Hulu gets away with its business model precisely because it runs a crappy version of itself as "free" to introduce people to the service, otherwise I have no doubt Netflix would crush it. Again, the price is about the same and Netflix provides more value, especially for movie watchers.

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/netflix_vs_hulu_plus_who_deserves_your_10_month

Okay, better example: UK TV licenses, paid in addition to whatever fees the cable companies charge, Vs. US style commercial supported TV. In the US, if you don't want cable, you don't have to pay a dime over the cost of your TV set. In the UK, you're paying a fee for it regardless.

they force you to buy cable?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I hate this mentality so much. People who are unwilling to watch ads before videos are the reason that Hulu now has most of the good shows locked away for everyone but Hulu Plus subscribers. Commercials are not a bad thing, they're what keeps content free for the viewers. Without commercials, we'd be buying Pubclub style subscriptions to every site we wanted to make use of.

Nonsense, Hulu does that because Hulu is a money-grubbing whore. Netflix provides ad-free services for a comparable price with a much greater library. Hulu gets away with its business model precisely because it runs a crappy version of itself as "free" to introduce people to the service, otherwise I have no doubt Netflix would crush it. Again, the price is about the same and Netflix provides more value, especially for movie watchers.

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/netflix_vs_hulu_plus_who_deserves_your_10_month

Okay, better example: UK TV licenses, paid in addition to whatever fees the cable companies charge, Vs. US style commercial supported TV. In the US, if you don't want cable, you don't have to pay a dime over the cost of your TV set. In the UK, you're paying a fee for it regardless.

they force you to buy cable?

No, that post was confusingly worded. They force you to pay a fee for over the air TV, in addition to what you pay for cable. If you don't want cable, you still have to pay the OTA fee, unlike the US, which charges nothing for OTA transmissions.

 

[tthor]

I hate this mentality so much. People who are unwilling to watch ads before videos are the reason that Hulu now has most of the good shows locked away for everyone but Hulu Plus subscribers. Commercials are not a bad thing, they're what keeps content free for the viewers. Without commercials, we'd be buying Pubclub style subscriptions to every site we wanted to make use of.

Nonsense, Hulu does that because Hulu is a money-grubbing whore. Netflix provides ad-free services for a comparable price with a much greater library. Hulu gets away with its business model precisely because it runs a crappy version of itself as "free" to introduce people to the service, otherwise I have no doubt Netflix would crush it. Again, the price is about the same and Netflix provides more value, especially for movie watchers.

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/netflix_vs_hulu_plus_who_deserves_your_10_month

Okay, better example: UK TV licenses, paid in addition to whatever fees the cable companies charge, Vs. US style commercial supported TV. In the US, if you don't want cable, you don't have to pay a dime over the cost of your TV set. In the UK, you're paying a fee for it regardless.

they force you to buy cable?

No, that post was confusingly worded. They force you to pay a fee for over the air TV, in addition to what you pay for cable. If you don't want cable, you still have to pay the OTA fee, unlike the US, which charges nothing for OTA transmissions.

either way, still, that sucks. frankly, i have very little urge to ever get something like satellite or cable, but if I had to pay just to get the basic local channels, even the news, i would be pissed..

 

[GeorgW]

Thing is, for me I have to buffer the ads... Not only is that extremely annoying, but your idea won't work. I think every site should do as the escapist and let you pay to avoid them, it's a great system.

 

[RabbiiFrystofsk]

The last time i posted my response in a thread like this i got a caution.
But by god does it do me wonders when watching videos, especially those VEVO one's where everybody complains about the ad's. I didn't even realise it had any ad's because it's so good.
However someone else has recommended it in the thread so go look.

 

[Goofguy]

I guess it all depends on your personal level of patience. As was stated previously, I just wait it out by reading the content in an other one of the tabs I have open. The one time it did annoy me was when the commercial took a really long time to buffer (either my internet was being crap or the site was having issues, I don't know) and what was supposed to be a 30 second spot took 2 minutes. I did swear at it a little but alas, it didn't fix the problem.