PetaPixel

Ads Coming Soon to a Photo Near You

You’ve probably seen in-video advertising, but how about ads placed in images? A company called Image Space Media wants to make sure you do.

Established in 2008, they’re the first and leading provider of in-image advertising on the web. This means relevant advertisements are placed in an overlay that appears over a portion of an image or photograph, just like the advertisements YouTube places at the bottom of most videos.

While you might hate this idea as an internet user or photographer, this may be a glimpse of what’s to come in terms of online advertising.

Now here’s a question: If Flickr started running these in-image ads for non-pro accounts, would you still use the service?

(via TechCrunch)


 
  • http://twitter.com/ryanneufeld Ryan Neufeld

    Would I continue to use flickr if they started putting ads over my images?

    That would be a resounding NO! I can't type larger than capital letters, but I would if I could.

    Ad makers are walking a fine line between good ads and being obtrusive.

  • http://mugglesdontscareme.com/ Theresa E.

    It might be one thing if they put ads over photos for people who weren't logged into a Pro account. But I pay for my pro account and would be absolutely annoyed at having to look at advertisements that way after paying for it.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Right. I don't think any service would tack on ads like these to a premium account. Especially since one of the benefits of being “Pro” on Flickr is to have no ads.

  • http://twitter.com/pauljimerson Paul Jimerson

    It's difficult to walk a few feet without being assaulted by advertising. There comes a point at which we have to say NO NO NO. It's truly sickening how Corporations have taken over our lives, our brains, our souls. Advertising is mind control, and pervades every aspect our lives. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. no

  • http://twitter.com/mikemccaffrey Mike

    I totally wish that I could subscribe to “pro” accounts on more websites. I'm sure that I would pay more money to avoid ads than they are being paid to show them to me.

  • Dave K

    Actually I generally don't use YouTube anymore because of the Ads.

  • Jon_Alper

    Why *anyone* posts their content to sites like Flickr and YouTube baffles me. In exchange for the illusion of access to an existing audience you let some massive corporation exploit *your* content. If you get an audience on YouTube or Flickr you did something OTHER than just 'post' it to get the traffic you got. You don't need to HOST your content at the sites to access their audiences.

    If you can get the traffic, host it yourself and sell your own adds or not. Have your own business model, or not but YOU determine how your content is presented and in what context on a page. There are lots of hosting providers. I use Dreamhost and if you sign up via this link, yeah, I get a kickback : http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?128851 but you have THOUSANDS of choices some absurdly inexpensive and easy. Control YOUR content, host yourself and scrape traffic off the social networks by LINKING to the real content on YOUR site. Our own beloved PetaPixel has this figured out beautifully.

  • Jon_Alper

    Why *anyone* posts their content to sites like Flickr and YouTube baffles me. In exchange for the illusion of access to an existing audience you let some massive corporation exploit *your* content. If you get an audience on YouTube or Flickr you did something OTHER than just 'post' it to get the traffic you got. You don't need to HOST your content at the sites to access their audiences.

    If you can get the traffic, host it yourself and sell your own adds or not. Have your own business model, or not but YOU determine how your content is presented and in what context on a page. There are lots of hosting providers. I use Dreamhost and if you sign up via this link, yeah, I get a kickback : http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?128851 but you have THOUSANDS of choices some absurdly inexpensive and easy. Control YOUR content, host yourself and scrape traffic off the social networks by LINKING to the real content on YOUR site. Our own beloved PetaPixel has this figured out beautifully.

  • flickruser

    I would be ok to have ads on my images as long as I would have a remuneration everytime an ad appeared on each of my images. That would be not bad. By the way, people can always close the ad “window” or whatever. I don't like ads, but they're everywhere. Some sites use the flickr photos, they don't put ads directly on the image, but put them anyway somewhere else on the page, so, some sites are making money already with a little or big help of flickr images, so, it would be good for a flick user to receive something directly for giving these sites the chance to use their content. It's kind of a license, you use my content, you advertise on them, and you pay me for the clicks, not for the eventual sales. That would be cool!

    BUT, if it's just for advertising and the photographers get nothing, so, of course this would be ridiculous!

  • sacredgeometry

    I would be searching for an alternative photography hosting site too.

  • http://twitter.com/danmiami Danny Garcia – Miami

    If you are a pro and making money from your pics, then yes, that would be a problem. If you are an amateur and simply want to be able to share your pics with people for “free” – remember there is a price for everything.

    Also, keep in mind that Flickr is mainly comprised of other photographers. So, if you expect to use your Flickr to make money from your photos, it just isn't going to make it for you. If you want to try and sell photos, join SmugMug (http://bit.ly/9cT4ni) and learn how to drive traffic to your site.

  • rilobilly

    It would probably just convince me to actually pay for a pro account. It would be useful if they offered you access to a Pro account for a period of time in exchange for putting ads on your photos. Idk if it would work, but its just an idea.