This site is so invasive with in-lined video ads, I stopped watch the site. I won't even link to it, because it's that bad. It's about 9 minutes of film, and then a 50 second ad. And then when it returns to the film, the video stops even though the audio keeps going. You can reload the site, but then you get the ad again, and the site won't let you fast forward.
Your site does no one any favors. Here's the issue, nobody wants to watch ads. Nobody wants to watch THE SAME AD over and over, making possibly erroneous stereotypes about Kentucky and their cult-like following of basketball, and ad made by some financial institution. With stereotype banjo-picking because we all know people from Kentucky are hillbillies who follow sports because their lives are pathetic and uneducated. Well, you think that. Your ad certainly gives the impression that rich white people don't know shit about Kentucky, and while there may be a lot of basketball fans in Louisville, Kentucky is a diverse and vast state of various different types of people. But you're a huge bulge bracket investment banking and securities firm, I am sure you see most of Appalachia as a bunch of barefoot, big-toed, overall-wearing inbred hicks who, and I quote you directly, think "basket ball is a religion." So when I am forced to listen to your sponsors who are pretty much the antithesis of the documentary I was trying to watch about non-profits arising from corruption, I don't even know if anyone is awake on your site that decides who ads to play. How about showing porn ads? I heard those are popular. Wait, I hate watching those ads, too, which is one of the top reasons I don't watch porn on the Internet.
I understand you need paying sponsors. But other video sites do it better. There is a certain ad-to-content ratio mix that can work well for both sides. But some people don't get it. Marketing executives who drank through college make poor decisions. The 50% who graduated with an MBA below average GPA say PUMP ADS DOWN THE PEOPLE'S THROATS. They don't get it. They don't get how smart and savvy we are, so they try and be more invasive. There are people out there who think if they show you an ad long enough, over a repeated period, you are guaranteed to buy it. And most of it is smoke and mirrors. Nobody really knows for sure if an ad works half the time.
The basic, most fundamental premise behind an ad is to make people aware a product is available to buy. "I have a widget for sale, wanna buy it?" Then you get to the next level, "I have a widget for sale, here's why you want to buy it." This leaps from exchange of needs to trying to foster a need. If that need is not created, the ad fails. Some think it's because the ad wasn't convincing enough, or that the person missed it the first time. Idiots will just keep blasting these ads at you.
Here's an example: the iPhone was pretty revolutionary. It broke new ground in personal computer assisted devices. Lines formed, people went nuts. Supply was low and demand was high. iPhone ads were "this is where you can get one." Then you had Android smart phones. They were pretty gray because most of what they do is, "we're like the iPhone." Oh, they may claim better networks, processing speed, and may actually be a better product. But their ads are trying to create a need, because they haven't done much different than an iPhone. Nothing an Android phone does is vastly different than an iPhone. They came in second. Then you have Windows phones. Not only were they third, but their products are shit. At least Android is like an iPhone for the most part. Microsoft screwed up, even though they blasted the media with tons of ads. Look at at the Zune. I mean, sure, they do have the #1 desktop operating system and the X-Box is a pretty good setup. But Microsoft proved they don't know how to do anything really revolutionary since Windows 95, which was really a copy of Mac's Operating system, who stole the idea from Xerox PARC in 1973. How did Xerox lose out on that?
So now PBS finally ran out of funding. Their worse-than-annoying quarterly beg-a-thon pledge breaks didn't work. As a kid, I hated those months where they held the channel hostage. I would have preferred the ads, personally. And so when I got cable, I watched the Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, Travel Channel, and mentally blocked out the ads for shit I didn't need. PBS lost. They didn't do anything revolutionary anymore. Their sponsor bumpers got longer and longer. And they were funded by companies I, nor 99% of the viewers, would never be involved in a purchasing decision. The Chubb Group? Who the fuck were they? I made puberty jokes in my head when I saw those, and I had to look them up just now to see they are some large property insurance group. Like I'd *EVER* buy Chubb stuff. Exxon/Mobile I had heard of, but generally gas is gas, and I just buy whomever has the cheapest price that day. I don't know many people who are dedicated to a brand, and those that are, well... are a little nuts frankly, for other reasons where passing a Shell station because they don't have a Tiger logo is just a symptom of a deeper OCD issue. [Disclaimer: I currently prefer Shell because they are next to my house and of their ties with reward points with Giant saves money, but if I was low on gas, and all they had nearby was a Chevron, I wouldn't lose sleep over getting gas there]
Then you have companies like Coca Cola, where their marketing is so ubiquitous, it sort of goes into new territory for the privileged few companies that dominate daily life. I am not sure if they think people would jump to Pepsi products if they reduced their ad budget by 25%. Look at the image in this entry. I makes you think of a cola doesn't it? Just the color and font are enough to jog your memory.
Ads are a slippery slope. Once you start driving people away because of them, you lose revenue, and then you have to compensate by having more ads, and that drives more people away, until you just financially collapse in a shitty heap like MySpace did.
More is not better.