» A quickly growing tally: With Google’s quickly-growing advertising prowess, the company is constantly looking for new ways to monetize content. And with YouTube, it offers a lot of opportunities to build upon the $5 billion in revenue it makes each year from graphical ads (many of which run alongside YouTube videos). The level of uploads and views is quickly growing, too: A year ago, the company had 48 hours of video uploaded per minute back in May, and the level of overall video views jumped by 25 percent from eight months ago.
mbimotmog says: Not really sure how this “crosses a line”…did the Union Leader create new ad space just for the purpose of allowing Obama to advertise or did the Obama campaign simply buy the biggest placement that the UL offered?
» SFB says: To explain, the problem we see with the Obama ads is that they’re so large that they overwhelm the rest of the content, which means that it’s having an adverse effect on the journalism. It feels like the financial gain overtook the ethics in this case. It’s not as bad as the DM Register, but it’s clearly intended on counteracting the news. When an ad is that large, the lines between advertising and editorial start to blur — which is less of a problem when the ads aren’t political. But in this case, the ads are very much intended to counteract the news of the day. Obama should be free to spend wherever he wants. But the newspaper should know when to say no to an ad request. — Ernie @ SFB
» Wikimedia’s best year ever: More that 1 million people donated to the Wiki-cause, a campaign that draws a bit of parody over the somewhat in-your-face nature of the fundraising calls. Honestly, they seemed a little bit more in your face in 2011 than 2010. Do you think Wikipedia should just start running modest ads? As one of the largest sites on the internet, they could easily hit the $20 million mark with some text ads. It’d be a lot less in-your-face, that’s for sure.