There are times when advertisers need to be careful their message is not too overbearing or too frequent. If it is, they risk alienating their customers. I will use a recent example to illustrate this.

The live video broadcasting service ustream.tv has been around for quite a while. I’m a 24/7 broadcaster - I have a small number of viewers, but what I lack in numbers I gain in loyalty. As with many online services, ustream offer a free ad-supported service and a paid-for white label service. Good as their service is, I find myself wanting to switch provider.

The search for a new broadcasting platform was prompted by a recent change in the ustream advertising format; going from a small overlay to a full frame 30 second ad - I feel it is too frequent and obtrusive for me and my viewers.

Of course, data and servers cost money to run - especially video - but their white label service is excessively expensive and I am thinking the ad supported model might be causing them some problems. Allow me to explain my thinking.

As a broadcaster I applied to participate in ustream’s revenue sharing programme. I reasoned, I am the content provider and they provide the platform… good enough for them to place 30 second ads on. If ustream were making little or no money from my content - which I accept is quite possible - then I beg to ask why they would even bother with the ads? - scrapping the bottom of the jar for every little bit? I asked ustream to explain their criteria for revenue sharing but they declined and the ads persist.

It could be ustream are simply shaking the tree to see what falls off, I’m not sure. But I think it’s useful to remember, when we’re bringing together two parties, in this case content providers and advertisers, things could be better by being more transparent and less self-serving.