Ryan,

I wanted to thank you for the research you provided us on both of the studies you cited in this article.  When I read both of the articles in their entirety, however; it became apparent that you have generalized the choice of "no ads please" to all viewers of short form video.  As I understand it, we would only be talking about 1/3 of viewers in this comparative statement.  

In the scientific community, when study conclusions are derived from comparing two different endpoints from two different study populations, you are usually labeled a shill.  I don't see you selling anything here, but wonder what the point of your story is now?  Or is that what you call in the business "A hook?"

Beau - You're right, of course. I'm comparing two separate studies and two separate conclusions. However, I find the contrast startling. One study states that viewers have a great interest UGC, which I think is pretty well documented. It's interesting though, that in the second study users say they're not interested in seeing ads against that content.

If you were running a UGC site, what would your key takeaway be?

Ryan,

Thanks for the opportunity to continue the dialogue.  The critical point you were driving is very relevant, but also very specific.  As I understand it, Adam Wright points out in the MOTION study, "the one content type that may be the exception is amateur video content. Just over half (52%) of consumers age 12+ who have downloaded or streamed a video online say they would find it “not reasonable” to have advertising embedded within free amateur or homemade video offerings online." So, for accuracy's sake, a headline could read "Majority say NOT to UGC Ads!"  I took issue with you including professionally produced content like music videos into the short form group.  As you know, there is a two-thirds acceptance to ads here.

The subject mater, however; is fascinating, as this situation actually cuts both ways.  Not only do the UGC creators say "No ads please", but major advertisers are concerned about their placements.  In the July 9th Wall Street Journal, Kevin Delaney pointed out, 

"Most advertisers are still testing the waters on YouTube," says Sean Muzzy, media director at Neo@Ogilvy, a digital ad agency owned by WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather. Some big advertisers, he says, haven't been comfortable that their ads might appear next to amateur videos. Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has acknowledged that the company hasn't yet found the best formats for video advertising." 

If I was running my own site (backed by investors that expect a return) that catered to the "home-made mash-up", I believe a reasonable takeaway or founding principle would be this:

"UGC and Mad Men...can't we all just get along?"  

It is my belief, as syndication models continue to emerge as a viable new frontier in web advertising, that the walls of opposition to online commercialization will crumble when the revenue is shared between the "interruptor" and the "inconvenienced." Or maybe, just maybe, we could opt-in for specific type of advertising for our amateur content.  The best ads I could envision would be for content to be matched for relevancy.  I would love to see "Dude crashes skateboard into side of house", brought to you by Memorial Hospital."  Yep, I'd pay to see that!