I think the content-advertisement blend tends to oscillate. That means that things like infomercials are successful only until people realize that they are being flooded with information they would rather not have.

Once viewers become aware that they are viewing an ad, they feel misled by the provider: tricked into watching an add. At that point, negative sentiments toward the provider, something that the provider wants to avoid.

At that point, structures like Google SERPS, where the advertisements are separated from the content, and clearly marked as "sponsored" become pleasantly successful.

I suppose that the complexity of the internet enables a blend between content and ads in ways that wasn't possible before. That could push the metrics in a way that would enable ads profitable in more situations.

But I don't think it will become an unmonitored variable.

This isn't new. Have you ever gotten those 5-page newspaper-looking flyers that say the name of the newspaper on the top, but are only advertisements on the inside for remodeling, real estate, etc.? Washington Post has been polluting my mail and killing trees by doing it DAILY for over 10 years (that I can remember) and it is now on the web. They use their name and brand to fake endorsement and squeeze money out of advertisers.

I don't think they will ever be linking to things in their content, nor will any other respectable newspaper website, just like they don't endorse products in their editorial content in their paper (unless that is what the article was written for).

On the other hand, due to the rise of DVR and FFwding through commercials, I think you will see a lot more product integration into TV shows (like movies do now). I read a good article in NY Times about how TV stations are putting contests in the middle of their commercial breaks to get people to continue watching their commercials. (Think of Deal or no Deal "pick the lucky number") That means to me that they are losing their viewing numbers. Sorry to get off-topic, but I thought it was relevant.

There's a difference between crowbarring in an ad in the content of a major media bureau news story, and popping in an adword sponsor in the corner of a video - esp. If the videos show up in the SERPs organically - like PDFs. In that scenario, I think it's a relatively reasonable thing, especially knowing all along what Google's plans are for financial growth. There's a balance with Google and advertisements, and I'm not convinced that this is going to be that scary.

Like Bryan said, this is not new especially not in the education vertical. There's an important distinction in lead generation strategic relationships versus straight out SEO for ranking. They're married, and part of a larger strategy, but this sort of content integration is all about the lead. Take a look at almost any localized tv or newspaper site and you will already find this sort of thing.

In some cases you get some ranking, but mostly you are just mooching off site traffic like you would with any other form of online advertising.

newspapers have always had classifieds or "lead generation" sections. i don't see how newspaper websites generating leads is much different than my local paper accepting want ads.

Did anyone notice Google switched back to their old design (the blue bar instead of silver bar) yesterday? I've noticed the video ads aren't appearing either. Also, check this out: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush&btnG=Search

Looks like maybe they're having some problems? I see two sets of the new links that came along with Google Universal (Web Images News Music Video Groups): one at the top of the page and one in the blue bar.

i think At that point, negative sentiments toward the provider, something that the provider wants to avoid.
http://www.evision.com.pk