So the NextUp YouTube winners are in NYC right now… receiving loads of love from Google/YouTube. It made me happy seeing the next generation of amateurs… and to see that Google/YouTube still encourages them even while commercial content is on the rise on the world’s second-largest search engine.
I was invited to speak to the 25 of ’em, and here’s my presentation. If you were one of the wanna-bees, don’t fret. I asked if they’d be picking a new crop 3 times until I got the answer I wanted to hear… yes.
After I cranked this presentation out, I realized I’d been billed as the marketer. So this deck actually represented only half my time. During the rest I decided to play the role of an amalgamated product director, and I replaced my “Nalts” hat with a blazer. I asked them to pick a product (they said Coke), then I proceeded to explain my goals, hidden agendas, beliefs about YouTube and my understanding about product placement and sponsorship. I couldn’t help but point out that Coke gives out free products on the streets of NYC but no swag to people that have hundreds of thousand views daily. Hmmmm.
I told them I wanted to sell more Coke so I could become Chief Marketing Officer, and that I was mostly concerned with reach, frequency and single-minded proposition. I wanted to leverage emerging media, but I deferred YouTube spending to my media agency. And I wouldn’t know how to begin to tap YouTube creators… frankly I’d be scared they’d harm my brand (as a product director, of course, I wouldn’t realize I could review/approve any sponsored videos).
Lots more detail in my free eBook or Beyond Viral, which you really should just go ahead and buy. And dont find any thpelling erars.
It’s true that ad units generally decrease on interaction rates as people get used to them. The article cites a .09 percent click thru rate, but I’d say that’s being quite generous. It’s also worth noting that some ads are measured not by clicks but by recall rates (and how they improve as measured by surveys).
The piece does have some nice pointers about making ads look less junky (and, duh, relevant). The more flashy and obnoxious, the more they’re ignored. As Brad Aronson (author of Internet Advertising, Wiley) told me… The best color for an ad is the same color as the website. When an ad looks like editorial it gets more attention.
In my experience reviewing eye-tracker studies there are lots of learnings… And the vast majority of ads are “impressions” that make no impression– they literally are never seen by an eye.
The nice thing about video ads (especially mandatory preroll) is while they’re somewhat intrusive… The recall rates are generally far better.
As Hannibal used to say on A-Team, “I love it when a plan comes together.”
One of the most rewarding things about participating in online-video campaigns for big brands or network shows is seeing these launch simultaneously with television and print advertisements. We call it “integrated marketing,” and it’s easy in concept and difficult but wonderful in fruition. Okay, I like the payments better, but integrated marketing is still rare enough to be a pleasant surprise… especially when it involves “new media” and social. Of course, it’s difficult for a marketer or agency to time precisely a campaign’s “peak” in various mediums, given paid “insertion orders” (formal booking of space in media) often requires months of lead time. Likewise the “books” (magazines) can require months of advance notice.
The very week these YouTube videos launched, I noticed a prime print advertisement in Entertainment Weekly, a NYC “out of home” component,” and some “earned” media uptake (PR). Furthermore, the YouTube “branded entertainment” video series were wrapped with display and InVideo ads.
I like these “organic” YouTube campaigns that don’t force the brand in the webstar’s videos, but let the creator carry the campaign theme in their own way. The comments I’ve read are largely positive (a contrast from campaigns that require sponsored YouTube videos to have a branded slate at the intro, which is so forceful as to scare people away).
What can producers, networks, agencies and YouTube do to make these campaigns work even harder? A few ideas, but they all have executional nuances so it’s a bit unfair for me to “Monday morning quarterback.” Again- I know nothing more than what I’ve seen as a Dr. Who fan (and the very simple directions got via YouTube to make my video).
Cross-link the videos so Dr. Who fans (I know you’re out there because many of you noticed the picture on my son Charlie’s shirt) would be able to move through them without having to leave YouTube (only a few percent of people leave a YouTube session for an ad, and that’s when there’s a strong reason).
I would suggest the digital agency also run paid-search ads for related keywords (even though I doubt there are loads of people searching “time machine” and “ifihadatimemachine” the cost of that inventory would be minimal). I’d certainly be buying ads for those people searching for “Dr Who, BBC America” and related terms, which would help get more eyes on the campaign website: “TimeMachineTales.” Buzz drives search, and it’s a shame to see Amazon books rank higher than the 2011 version of the timeless show.
Take advantage of YouTube’s “live” programming to augment the April 23 premier with something real time (perhaps one of the webstars watches the debut and invites interaction with fellow fans). If MysteryGuitarMan said he was going live on YouTube on the evening of April 23, I imagine hundreds of thousand would follow.
Recognize that the YouTube aspect of the campaign is valuable far beyond the campaign. For instance, my Fringe promotions have accumulated significant views long after the debut. There’s a perpetual nature to these programs. As Hitviews CEO Walter Sabo says, “Campaign Duration: Forever.” The 105 videos his company has delivered for brands have accumulated in excess of 30 million views.
Finally the real way to “break the fourth wall” is to allow a television show’s cast to interact and collaborate with prominent YouTube creators. This can be difficult, but possible. In the case of my “Meet the Fringe Cast” video, I simply learned the cast was at ComicCon, and I convinced the sponsor (Fox) to allow me the same access the network/producers gave to professional media. In another example, we saw V’s “Anna” (Morena Baccarin) appear on YouTube’s homepage with a custom message for YouTubers, and that was a “bar raising” move. Now imagine iJustine mingling with Mark Sheppard, which would carry as much weight as a local media tour to promote the show. iCarly’s Freddy Benson (Nathan Cress) met with YouTube’s prolific “ShayCarl/Shaytards” in a casual meeting that I would have paid to facilitate if I was Cress’ manager or iCarly’s promoter.
Lastly, and this is really difficult, it would be great to find ways to permit clips from the show intermixed with the YouTube videos. For very good reasons this is rare. Often the network promoting the show doesn’t have the rights to use the content in promotion. The benefit, however, is you can give people a contextual teaser of the show’s actual content… as I did with “Fringe is Scary.” These clips were approved by the producer (JJ Abrams’ Bad Robot) for use with media, and I even snuck in some very tiny snippets beyond those in the media library.
I’m sure it was not part of the campaign that Elisabeth Sladen died this week (she’s the British actress who played intrepid investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith throughout the classic BBC series’ 30-year run). But only one Guy calls those shots, and he’s not much of a marketer (thank God).
It’s been a while since I’ve summarized some of the most important factors to getting your videos seen. This post is based on my own YouTube creator experience, my work with big brands, and my book (Beyond Viral). I’ve also written a free eBook called “How to Get Popular on YouTube Without Any Talent (version 2).”
I’m sure I missed some current best practices so please add your own thoughts below!
1. Hook viewer in first 10 seconds (teasing highlights)
2. Keep it short. A one-minute video will almost always trump a 3.
3. Encourage interactions- get people commenting and, like Facebook, your YouTube video will rise higher. Controversial questions to viewers can jolt views.
4. Personalize it. Look at camera as if it’s a friend’s eyes and don’t assume your viewer knows you.
5. Include real laughter. Laughter induces laughter like yawns influence yawns. Get a sidekick who has a contagious laugh.
6. At the end, provide something unexpected or bedbug. See how you didn’t expect the word “bedbug” there?
7. Include animals. We humans like animals more than humans. Babies are clinchers too. Giggling baby with an animal? Golden.
8. Take the “road less travelled.” Sure, boobies get views but if you base your video on something already seen, your video is less likely to break through clutter. Show us something we’ve not seen (or rare to see) and people will share.
9. Real trumps script. Almost all of my top videos are not scripted bits but real, candid moments.
10. Appeal to heavy video viewers. Teenagers drive significant views, and even adolescents and Tweens (Annoying Orange). Test your video on this audience and note when they laugh or get bored.
11. Post regularly. The most popular and most-viewed YouTubers post daily or on a predictable schedule. Fresh outsells good.
12. Flow with current events. Selectively parody topical news or “Memes” and you’ll be topical and more relevant.
13. Take the title, tags and description very seriously so your video can be found easily on search engines like Google (and don’t think YouTube isn’t a search engine). You can even transcribe the video and add the text. Important terms: “how to,” “why does,” “who is,” “when is…”
14. Watch top creators for new ideas. For instance, most top web stars are providing thumbnails of other videos at the end of their video. This keeps a viewer from wandering off to “related videos.”
15. Post at right time. Stay away from weekends and Friday afternoon (when there’s a lot of viewing but heavy competition). Mornings are good and Tuesday is a heavy consumption day.
16. Someone once said a new blogger focuses on their blog, but a seasoned blogger is roaming. Likewise you want to appear in videos by people getting more views. The kind plug by PrankvsPrank for my recent “Itchy Butt” prank drove more views that from my base of 250K subscribers.
17. Chill out on “subscribers,” which is as meaningless as “likes” on Facebook. 100 fans are more valuable than 10,000 subscribers that accidentally subscribed from the stupid “box for box” feature (where if you subscribe to one channel you can passively subscribe to their friends.
18. Jump start views on other social-media channels like Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr and Reddit (watch out for being seen as just tooting your own horn though).
19. Listen and talk back to your audience. When a creator acknowledges a viewer comment a bond is formed that is the lifeblood of a recurring audience.
20. Go for quantity not obsessive quality. I could never have predicted which of my 1000 videos would get tens of millions of views, and there’s a lot of power to trial and error. There’s almost an inverse relationship between the time I spend on a video and the views it gets.
Finally don’t judge success by total views alone. Whether you’re a marketer or entertainer, not all views are created equally. Focus on engagement, comments, view duration, and getting to the right audience. A niche show meeting an unmet need is going to work more effectively than trying to please broad audiences.
What did I miss? Obviously the most popular videos are those involving dancing, music, comedy, satire, politics, sex, babies and animals. Don’t underestimate the power of the thumbnail (image representing the video) too. But any general tips I missed?
That video I shot Sunday for MSNBC Small Business (see MSNBC/Amex site) is going on television not the web (glad I didn’t quite realize that when I shot it, or I might have gotten nervous).
It airs this week 3/20/11 at 7:30am EST and will re-air Saturday, March 26th at 5:30am EST. This timing should work well for small businesses and entrepreneurs since they never sleep. And the YouTube peeps? They’ll still be awake from the night prior.
In the meantime, you can check some of the tips I shared with AOL small business, or buy Beyond Viral (Wiley) at your local bookstore or Amazon. And tell your friends at ABC and CBS they should book me. 🙂
Oh- I made an epic mistake on the video that I’m hoping people think was intentional because it’s so blatant. Be the first to notice it and comment below, and you get a free piece of cheese (and maybe an autographed copy of Beyond Viral if I actually remember).
Our friends at ReelSEO revealed the Pew data showing viewer’s surprising willingness to pay for online-video content. Until recently, I’ve been nervous about the notion of any subscription or pay-per-view model because it’s likely a “deal killer” for most viewers watching amateur creators. Sure I’ll pay to license/buy The Guild or Dr. Horrible, but less so for vloggers and amateurs (love ya, Charles Trippy, but “Internet Killed Television” is working quite well as free).
I’ve long maintained that the marketplace depended on advertising revenue since YouTube viewers are accustomed to free content. I believe the vast majority would protest a fee-based model — whether a token “pay-per-view” or modest subscription charge. Still, some would pay to avoid ads and access “extras.” But let’s try to avoid the dreaded but inevitable “one-two-punch” models ($7.99 Hulu plus– where the “plus” stands for ads) that subject viewers to both a subscription and advertisements. I’m still sometimes perplexed why I pay for CableTV and get subjected to advertisements. Then again, it worked with magazine subscriptions.
Note: this post is me sculpting fog, and is subject to errors in logic. I hope you’ll comment so we viewers (and advertisers) can “crowd source” a solution.
A solution to the free vs. paid debate can be simple to the viewer, but certainly has nuances. The trick is that the model can’t be black or white, or binary. We need to provide viewers with options based on the proven success of “freemium” in software. “Freemium” refers to a trial version with limited functionality that is free, coupled with a paid premium offering (usually offering more stuff we value) that sustains the provider’s economic needs. This differs from the loathed “paywall” model that suddenly restricts content access to paying subscribers, a model that would certainly flop in the democratic and entitlement era of YouTube. Here’s what I propose:
FREE CONTINUES: Maintain free content for everyone with pre-rolls, Invids, banners, and Ding-Dong Fat Mamas (I made that last one up, but it’s not far from real terms like “takeovers” and “Fat Boys“).
PAY MODEST FEE TO ENJOY “AD-FREE” VIEWING: If the ads become intrusive, the viewer could chose to “opt out” 0f ads by paying a token fee (but volatile and difficult to preemptively set). A small fee today could easily offset the majority of paltry per-view payments that YouTube and the Partners receive from advertisers. The ad prices are now artificially low since the medium is new, and the media market hasn’t yet realized video’s impact. The problem, of course, is that fee is based on the advertisers perceived value of the particular audience. But common… if CableTV figured it out, so too should Google.
VIEWERS SUBSCRIBE BY VOLUME?: It would be difficult to offer a “subscription” fee at a channel-by-channel level. So this might better work as a comprehensive volume-based subscription. I imagine few Partners would have much luck creating an individual channel paywall. I’m one of a growing number of viewers, however, who would rather pay a few pennies for preroll-free videos and temporary “advertising immunity”… Those repetitive, unstoppable prerolls are what I find especially intrusive. In a great act of hypocrisy, I reluctantly subject my viewers to them because they’re far more profitable than InVid ads or penny-auction surrounding banners. To keep the solution fair, the user might purchase a bulk number of ad-free views in a beta (sufficient for a month’s worth of views, for instance) and continue if they wish.
PAYWALL WITH EXTRAS: Another model, albiet more complex, would offer subscribers additional “value adds” such as higher quality content, earlier release dates, or “extras.” This undertaking would depend on the percentage of the audience that would be willing to pay, and that segment that would certainly be small at first (thus decreasing creator motivation to produce extras). While I can’t envision more than 5 percent of YouTube viewers currently opting to pay, it might qualify them as “super viewers,” and I’d expect most YouTube Partners and YouTube to find ways to reward them fairly as VIPs.
The reason YouTube and other platforms ought to experiment with these models is that this: The noble attempt to earn money to encourage more creators and generate site profitability is, I believe, beginning to create “audience fatigue.” These ads are, currently, generating only a fraction of what preroll ads are likely worth. They’re also diminishing in value to brands if the frequency gets excessive per viewer. So I encourage YouTube or a smaller site to conduct a trial with viewers — giving them a choice, and ensuring that the “holdouts” don’t feel unfairly deprived (for instance by having their video quality diminished from what they’ve grown accustomed).
A few tips, since this hasn’t been with success in web video yet (for some valid reasons):
This would have to be done carefully. As I mentioned, it would also be difficult for a viewer to select what “channels” to which they’d pay to subscribe sans ads– due to the varying individual tastes of viewers and the volatile quality/style/frequency of YouTube Partners. Unlike the relationship between network shows and fans, these relationships are less predictable. We also don’t want to create an awkward hierarchy among Partners (especially in a community forged with democracy and sharing). Again, if only one group (TheStation) created a perceived or real paywall, it would go over like a fart in church. Viewers resented when the comedic duo, Smosh, started moving viewers to Live Universe (alive?).
The most practical and turnkey approach would involve a website (YouTube) allowing viewers a generous monthly number of ad-free views to those who paid a very modest flat fee. I acknowledge that the “devil is in the details.” The worth of an ad-free view varies tremendously based on the perceived value of the Partner’s audience to an advertiser. Due to advertiser’s particular desire for certain demographics (not content, or your perceived quality of it), a view of ShaneDawson or Annoying Orange might command a radically lower CPM or CPC than, say, Mediocrefilms or Blame Society. So a pricing model would be difficult to set based on the viewer. I may be stretching here, but there’s a potential “self healing” solution: presumably wealthier, affluent individuals are worth more to advertisers (and perhaps more prone to paying). Teenagers can sometimes be worth less at a CPM, so they’d pay less or just suffer the ads. Yes I realize we’d all change our YouTube profile age to “born 1989” to “game the system,” but Google owns Doubleclick, kids. Don’t think it doesn’t know what you had for breakfast.
Finally, it would have to be as easy as buying a show via AppleTV or iTunes. If I’ve got to remember my Paypal and input a credit card, my price sensitivity changes drastically.
Thoughts? How much would you pay to skip a pre-roll or avoid them completely? Or have you grown immune to their presence? What if suddenly advertisers wanted to pay more than you would to avoid them? How would you propose YouTube and other platforms adjust to balance the needs of two important constituents: we viewers and the brands seeking our hearts and wallets?
“YouTube’s future is being held back is the typical innovator’s dilemma, or rather, billionaire’s dilemma,” writesAshkan Karbasfrooshan is CEO of WatchMojo.com. I included some of Karbashfrooshan’s pieces in Beyond Viral, and he’s one of the authoritative writers about the online-video industry and media monetization.
Indeed YouTube is but a toy kiosk in the Google “Mall of Americas.” Before I provide my 2 cents, here are some important highlights of his recent piece (with my comments in italics). His article was spawned, in part, by a “Video Forecast 2011” piece by AlphaBird’s Alex Rowland.
Google is generating way too much money from its “traditional” search business ($30 billion) to care about radically owning the new video space (which is a small portion of the $2.5 billion Google counts as “display”).
While YouTube commands 45% of the video streams in the U.S., it is unlikely that it will generate $600 million from video ads in 2010 (or 40% x $1.5 billion). (Hulu, he says, did $240 million… and with a tiny percentage of streams).
YouTube correctly identified ad agencies and Fortune 500 marketers as those who would turn YouTube into a billion-dollar business. However, since Google had little experience in selling to ad agencies before it acquired YouTube, growing video revenues took a lot of time to scale.
But instead of allowing content partners set prices based on actual market dynamics (demand and supply), YouTube implemented a set of obstacles and requirements that have made selling one’s YouTube channel all but impossible. YouTube did this, I believe, in an attempt to thwart content producers from owning the relationships with media planners and buyers. After all, if YouTube opened up its site, it would lose contact with advertisers and become a mere dumb pipe. (Indeed Google has been known to dismiss the role of the media buyer as somewhat useless intermediary… however the “dumb pipe” of Google’s paid-search network isn’t so dumb).
Now the WatchMojo CEO is a YouTube content provider, and has reduced the percentage of his company’s own inventory via YouTube from 45% to 15% in just the last past few months (by expanding his distribution beyond YouTube, since his YouTube audience has not contracted). He says YouTube is creating an “opening for others to win the bigger ad dollars,” and names DailyMotion, Metacafe and Facebook as potentials.
Now my thoughts: this isn’t a lone voice. I’ve heard this or similar perspective from content creators, advertising agencies, industry watch dogs and even some variations from YouTube/Google employees.
I would contend that Karbasfrooshan is more correct than controversial, and that Google is perhaps even “strategically ignoring” online-video’s near-term growth potential because it has far more critical business “levers.”
Google has a cash cow in search-engine advertising, and is broadening into other mediums especially mobile. I expect YouTube’s growth to continue (it’s usually the case with the market leader), but its share of online-video display dollars will decline dramatically.
Still, YouTube will continue to flourish via the middle market, lower maintenance, and “self serve” portion of the marketplace. This is almost certain without a significant “course correction” that does not appear imminent or within Google’s DNA.
If Facebook begins to display video and share advertising revenue with content creators, I would imagine most — from Discovery to Annoying Orange — would start posting on Facebook quickly, migrating their audience, and even staggering/delaying content to YouTube (the way some providers like The Onion and College Humor do… first posting on their own sites, then weeks later posting on YouTube).
Just as I don’t think my own content cannot survive and flourish outside YouTube (at least alone, hence my signing with Next New Networks), I do not believe Google is poised to grow or even maintain YouTube’s share of the online-video advertising budgets even remotely in relationship to its percent of video streams.
The exception will be small companies and middle markets, or advertisers who are prone to buying via Adwords. Currently the vast majority of YouTube advertising dollars (with the exception of individual campaigns and homepage takeovers) are almost entirely driven by Adsense Adwords. You heard me correctly, and that’s a sad statement about Google/YouTube’s ability to sell direct to brands and/or via partners and agencies.
Large content creators and brands will and should want a strong platform partner which puts the audience needs and preferences first, but theirs at a close second.
So the answer to this post’s title is “yes… Google is squandering YouTube’s potential right now.” It is almost inarguable truth that YouTube is not leveraging the strength of Google and its global salesforce, and not winning the hearts and minds of Madison Avenue. It follows, therefore, that the stewards of large digital media budgets are now seeking — and will continue to pursue — alternative online-video advertising options for innovative programs beyond prerolls.
I’d expect to see AOL and Yahoo, if not Facebook, knipping away at Google’s online-video Achilles heal. Google, after all, is not a media property at heart… it’s a sleuth of engineers producing innovative change. Given that identity, Google can’t be underestimated as a bold market force that will continue to shake the online-video industry in ways far more interesting than hundred-million-dollar media buys, which are akin to vending-machine revenue at a casino.
In the meantime, content creators should:
Ask YouTube to facilitate and encourage them to prevent agency buyers from feeling YouTube’s thorns. Likewise they need to aggregate to achieve sufficient strength to command the interest of digital buyers unless their niche is remarkable.
Maintain good relationships with YouTube people, recognizing that many of YouTube’s shortcomings are out of their control.
Diversify their distribution to include some of the smaller properties… especially those that grow. YouTube’s incentive to innovate for advertisers depends on market competition.
Derive income directly via sponsorships… which is no longer discouraged by YouTube, a video platform.
Pay close attention to what Google is doing with online video that has far greater potential than YouTube or any individual media property alone.
While our fat asses watch five hours of television a day, our average time on YouTube is just 15 minutes. With an alleged one preroll per 7 minutes, that’s not a lot of advertising revenue. Can GoogleTV change it? Here’s my take on the question. Yes, yes and yes. Why?
1) Comfort lengthens consumption time. It’s a fact. Give me a couch and an AppleTV and I’m a veal. So by the very nature of offering web video conveniently and intuitively, we’re off to a good start.
2) “Related videos” increase online-video binges like cows sell food products. Nothing drives a session like being handed another food trough when yours is empty. That’s why we’re all using the last few seconds of a video to visually tease more content. It’s irresistible. Of course the minority of viewers make it to the end so I imagine MysteryGuitarMan will start teasing his next video at the midpoint not the end.
3) Nobody has cracked in online video what Amazon has done with “you may also like,” and nobody’s come up with an auto-curator tool, so there’s loads of upside. What do I mean? Screw the most-favorites and most-viewed. I want to know what my friends are laughing at because I’m likely to laugh too and the shared laugh is the ENTIRE reason things viralinate. We want — no we NEED — shared experiences. A good shares moment is better than a GREAT solo one. I’m pissed that more of my friends aren’t watching Modern Family because I want to discuss it conveniently.
So what does point 3 look like on Google TV? Suggestions need to be based not on the general population but my slice of reality. The WVFF back row likes it? I don’t want to miss it. I find something (like reruns of the Ricky Gervais show or the “acquired taste” of “Outsourced”) and I damn well want someone sharing in that. So I’m motivated. I want my GoogleTV to do three things and only three things:
Tell me what my friends like. And don’t make it a pain in the ass for them or me.
Introduce me to people with my same taste and obsessions. And do it gently because instant BFFs are short lasting ones. True friendships take time to blossom and the insta-friend is usually only there for you when he needs you.
Let me share my finds effortlessly with friends so we can easily share in the experience without changing my habits dramatically. And regardless of geography. I want right now to laugh about the fat nerdy guy from Outsourced and the way he body danced in the last episode when he thought he was selling the record amount of prank gifts. But it turns out he was getting punked by the douchebag Microsoft call centers who are Indian but speak jive, honkey, and redneck fluently. That’s brilliant comedy and I want to share t without hunting down some damned Outsource Fanclub blog forum shit. I wanna do it right from the TV. “insert lol” at the exact moment of the show so my friends see it when they’re watching and I can search for their LOLs.
Ultimately I’m betting on Google figuring out the new television because its legacy is in the relevance business. Google knows what I want when I can’t even articulate what I’m seeking.
I know I sound freaky but this is coming as sure a your mobile phone will be your portable remote, remembering your subscriptions and purchases and being indifferent to the monitor or location. This will happen soon enough because I know we not just want but need it.
So you’re too busy to buy a copy of my book (Beyond Viral), but maybe want a quick scan of the topics? Here are some of the key points addressed in each of the 18 chapters… these digital documents also identify the many experts who contributed to the book.
From Daisy Whitney (This Week in Media), Mark Robertson (ReelSEO) and Ben Relles (Barely Political/Next New Netowkrs)… to “YouTube Stars” like CharlesTrippy, VenetianPrincess, RhettandLink, ShayCarl, Mediocrefilms, and Daneboe/Annoying Orange. Thanks to all of you!
It’s called a “sneak preview,” but I hope you’ll read it and consider picking up the actual book. There was no way I could have summarized it in 5-20 pages because the book has loads of examples and details.