Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67407
Volume:
10 |
9 |
Sep 2026
Pages:
1-7
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Commerce
Gujarat University
Commerce
Shree Narayana College of Commerce
People usually open YouTube to watch a video they have chosen. The advertisement is an interruption, so it has only a short time to give the viewer a reason to stay. This paper looks at how much YouTube advertising viewers in Ahmedabad are willing to accept. The analysis uses responses from 1,009 adults who use the free, advertisement-supported version of YouTube. Frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations were used to examine acceptance, duration, placement, format and skipping behaviour. Almost half of the respondents (49.75%) found YouTube advertisements unacceptable. Short advertisements were strongly preferred. A total of 69.18% chose six to ten seconds, and 83.95% chose ten seconds or less. Pre-roll was the least preferred placement (13.78%). Nearly half (47.37%) said they never watched a skippable advertisement in full. When viewers did continue, entertaining advertisements were selected most often, followed by educational and social cause-related messages. Bumper advertisements were the leading format choice at 66.50%. The pattern is simple: viewers will give advertising some attention, but they expect the message to be brief and worth the interruption.
KEYWORDS
The respondents were willing to give YouTube advertising some attention, but not much time. Almost half found the advertisements unacceptable, nearly half said they never completed a skippable advertisement, and most wanted a message of ten seconds or less. Pre-roll was the least preferred placement. Bumper advertisements were selected most often, while entertaining and educational messages gave viewers more reason to continue than information alone. For advertisers, the lesson is practical rather than complicated: get to the point quickly, place the break sensibly and give the viewer something worth watching.
Banerjee, S., & Pal, A. (2021). Skipping skippable ads on YouTube: How, when, why and why not? In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. Banerjee, S., & Pal, A. (2023). I hate ads but not the advertised brands: A qualitative study on Internet users’ lived experiences with YouTube ads. Internet Research, 33(1), 39-56. Belanche, D., Flavián, C., & Pérez-Rueda, A. (2017a). Understanding interactive online advertising: Congruence and product involvement in highly and lowly arousing, skippable video ads. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 37, 75-88. Belanche, D., Flavián, C., & Pérez-Rueda, A. (2017b). User adaptation to interactive advertising formats: The effect of previous exposure, habit and time urgency on ad skipping behaviors. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 961-972. Belanche, D., Flavián, C., & Pérez-Rueda, A. (2020). Brand recall of skippable vs non-skippable ads in YouTube: Readapting information and arousal to active audiences. Online Information Review, 44(3), 545-562. Campbell, C., Thompson, F. M., Grimm, P. E., & Robson, K. (2017). Understanding why consumers don’t skip pre-roll video ads. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 411-423. Cho, C.-H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet? Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89-97. Frade, J. L. H., de Oliveira, J. H. C., & Giraldi, J. de M. E. (2023). Skippable or non-skippable? Pre-roll or mid-roll? Visual attention and effectiveness of in-stream ads. International Journal of Advertising, 42(8), 1242-1266. Goodrich, K., Schiller, S. Z., & Galletta, D. (2015). Consumer reactions to intrusiveness of online-video advertisements: Do length, informativeness, and humor help (or hinder) marketing outcomes? Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1), 37-50.
Publication Date
9/22/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...