One Small Step for Video Ad Standards. One Giant Leap for Creators and Brands. May 7, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Google, Making Money, Video Advertising, Video Business, YouTube, advertising, google video , 10commentsOne of the factors that has limited the growth of online-video advertising is the production and traffic work. Mike Shields of Mediaweek reports that the Interactive Advertising Bureau this week introduced a set of guidelines to standartize online-video advertising and make the medium “easier for advertisers to buy.”
The new guidelines cover three basic forms of online video ad formats: linear ads — interruptive video spots which are typically of the pre-roll variety, non-linear ads — which include the increasingly popular ‘overlay’ ad units, and companion ads — bannerlike ads that appear alongside video as it plays on the Web.
The guidelines, writes Shields, are the product of work conducted by the IAB’s Digital Video Committee, which is composed of 145 leading media companies, including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. “This is a historic day,” IAB president and CEO Randall Rothenberg said, likening the announcement to a similar set of landmark guidelines put in place for banner advertising in the late 1990s. IAB senior vp David Doty said he thinks leadership and marketing, predicted “seismic shifts” would occur in the online ad business as a result of their adoption.
So while the viewer in me isn’t too excited to see the new “interruptive video spots,” the creator and marketer in me looks forward to the possibility that this may unlock some of the potential of this medium.
In related news, tech writer Leah Messinger writes about other sites beyond YouTube that offer advertising models brands can consider.
Google Engineer Fired for Failure of “Google + Virgin= Virgle” April Fool’s Gag April 2, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Google, YouTube, google video , 11comments
Google fired the engineer who convinced Virgin Founder Richard Branson and Google Co-Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to participate in an elaborate hoax (see press release) inviting individuals to apply to live on a Mars colony sponsored by “Virgle.”
Wired Writer Loretta Hidalgo Whitesides called it the “funniest April Fool’s Day spoof I have seen.” Whitesides is the founder of a local chapter of the Family Circus Fan Club, and has California’s largest reported collection of Alf memorabilia.
David Scheyd, the 28-year-old Google engineer who conceived the gag last February was, yesterday, inexplicably dismissed from his position at Google — a job he held for 4 years. “Scheyd presented the Virgle idea with such passion that we really thought it would be funny,” said Melanie LaForge, a Google spokesperson.
“It was with great regret that we had to let Scheyd go. It became clear yesterday to both Google and Scheyd that the attempted gag was too obvious and failed to amuse even the most affable and simplest minds employed by our company — the NYC media sales teams.”
Scheyd declined to comment except through a written release, in which he attributed the prank’s failure not to its concept but its poor execution. “The poor video deliveries by Branson, as well as Page and Brin, brought a sad and creepy fakeness to what might have been a very funny and believable bit.”
Neither Google nor Scheyd’s spokesperson could confirm if Scheyd had any credentials prior to leading the blunder.
Georgetown Business Historian Professor William Lawler called it “corporate America’s least-funny practical joke by a landslide.”
The only thing less funny than the prank, said Lawler, was the discussion group thread that had such actual unfunny quotes as:
- Maybe the cure for cancer and aids is on Mars.
- Curing cancer and AIDS would no doubt be a wonderful thing, increasing the quality of life for many.
- Consider, however, that once eradicated, there will be other things that crop up, things we didn’t foresee.
- There are several Mars analog projects that have been underway for some time, testing and trying to make colonization of the red planet a possibility for humanity’s future.
Scheyd would not confirm rumors that he has been offered a writing job for YouTube comedian Sxephil.
P.S. I’ve just informed that April Fool’s is over, and I’m not supposed to tease people with fake stories. But the ImprovEverywhere guy told me April Fool’s is amateur day. So by writing a fake story on April 2, I’m communicating to you that I’m a pro.
“Sorry, Partner” says YouTube March 26, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Google, Making Money, Making Videos, YouTube, google video , 31comments
Sorry, Partners. Seems a few YouTubers have been getting the following response when trying out for YouTube’s Partner Program.
“The current level of viewership of your account has not met our threshold for acceptance.”
- Should they announce what that threshold is on the “who qualifies” page?
- Or provide a message that is a little more human?
- Maybe let people know that the ad revenue would be laughable if views are at x level?
- Give applicants a banner and credits to the Google store, which would be enough for many?
Nah, I think they should just send this clip without any text.
What Does Google’s Acquisition of DoubleClick Mean to Online Video? March 11, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Google, Making Money, Making Videos, Online Video, Revver, Search, Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, YouTube, advertising, google video, marketing , 13commentsGoogle closed on the acquisition of DoubleClick today, and issued this statement to address concerns (continued Dart service, as well as privacy provisions).
As a buyer of interactive media (primarily paid search but also targeted display), I like this deal. Google’s muscle, innovation and discipline from the paid search origins means this could enhance the metrics around otherwise cute but unaccountable display ads. I’m tired of the “let’s do another bloated consumer survey to find out what display does to awareness, recall and intent.” There’s got to be a way to get conversion rates tied better to display, and if anyone can now prove the “one-two-punch” theory of paid ‘n display (think chocolate and peanut butter yummy), Google now can. And should.
Oh, I almost forgot. Here’s my “Enlightened Stupid Marketers” video I posted this morning to spoof my profession, and it touches on the impact of friggin’ newspaper ads versus paid search. Did you know that stupid marketers have two choices: to remain stupid, or pretend not to be? The core YouTube audience really doesn’t care much for these niche videos, but readers of WVFF might.
Where was I? Oh. Now here’s the challenge. This deal kinda makes some online media buyers a little twitchy, as some get threatened by consolidation downstream. Some of those flickering-bulb types (you know- the pretty ones that talk too much if they talk at all) will feel they’re one step closer to being as obsolete as their moms or older sisters who were, naturally, travel agents. Maybe they should be doing PR afterall?
In reality, the online media mix is dynamic and will always require smart, strategic buyers. It’s just that they’re only about 10 of them in the world, and 7 of them lose their charm exactly 6.5 days after they win the new account. Like Candycorn, the first few handfuls are delicious, and then suddenly you feel like you’re eating sweetened candles and can’t stand the site of them. You loved the little puppies in the litter, and now they’re just pissing on the furniture, biting the couch and barking all night.
So get to the damned point, Nalts. What does this acquisition mean to video? Well, probably nothing initially. But long term it’s good news for two reasons:
- Text ads are currently more relevant than display ads around videos. Since Revver hasn’t been selling many single-frame display ads these days, we’re seeing the Google-run text ads (Adsense) served “InVid” style. Guess what? They’re actually relevant and capture my attention more than current display ads. I watch a lot of videos, and have developed ad anethesia for the limited number of CPG companies doing “run of site” ads across YouTube. Don’t stop, guys. I owe my YouTube partner income to you.
- Since it’s Google buying Doubleclick (and not the other way around), we’ll see display develop some of the maturity of paid search. Harnass the visceral medium of InVid (quarter frame ads) with their sister display ads, then add the relevance of text relevancy. And if the databases can be merged in ways that don’t freak out the privacy people, then ads become even more relevant albiet sometimes creepy.
Now Google has two more challenges to make video advertising really interesting.
- The Google account teams have to grow beyond paid search. This is not an easy transition. SEM (search engine marketing) buyers have a very hard time with CPM (cost per million- a term for buying for an ad based on impressions not performance). Meanwhile SEM sellers need to be trained to talk to CPM junkies. It’s kinda like being bilingual. You need a translator around for a period. Currently, it’s a buyer’s market for video advertising. I am convinced that the “marketers are afraid of buying ads around CGM (consumer generated media)” hype is a big, fat, stinkin’ red herring. It’s just that nobody is showing marketers how online video ads and more creative sponsorships can move their business. Google plus YouTube plus DART should be able to pull that off, but it’s going to require behavior and organizational shift.
- Now the big challenge. If I get a CPC (cost per click) based on text ads around my videos, then I’ll tag them all with free Viagra, mortgage, loans, lawers and digital camera. So we need that ever-evasive “text recognition” technology that turns my droaning voice into targetable text. Blinkx was supposed to be doing this years ago. Then, of course, I’ll just start saying all those tag words as part of my scripts.
Even My Boss Knew About This Video December 5, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Blogs on Video, Future of Online Video, Google, Killer Video, Making Videos, Online Video, TechCrunch, Video, Video Sites, Viral Video, Web 2.0, Yahoo Video, YouTube, google video, popular videos , 3commentsIt’s not often my boss mentions YouTube, and I usually try to avoid eye contact when he does. But at today’s staff meeting he mentioned that a friend from a former employer had a YouTube video called “Here Comes Another Bubble” by The Richter Scales. It’s a wonderful satire on the absurdity of web 2.0 which, indeed, begs for another bubble burst. It’s done to the music of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”
No sooner had I forgotten about his Bubble video did I discover that it trumped me on the “highest rated video of the day on YouTube. And I had actually done a storyboard for my “iPod Angel & Devil” video, which involved makeup, script, and a wicked amount of editing time (parenthetically this iPod video was born out of my frustration about overlooking the free AT&T phone by signing up directly with AT&T instead of Mac, and a quote that popped out of my mouth in a meeting this week: “I just paid $400 to eliminate jealousy.”).
Kudos to the Bubble video, which will be one of the seminal viral creations. If I’m going to be beat I’m delighted to see something this entertaining (versus musical montages of funny cat photos). This was cleverly written, jampacked imagery, and self depricating (it depicts a blog post with “another lame web 2.0 music video”)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi4fzvQ6I-o[/youtube]
Online Video Sites and Monetization Status November 21, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Making Videos, Online Video, Profit, Revver, Video Sites, Yahoo Video, YouTube, advertising, google video, metacafe , 4commentsTubeMogul’s blog did a nice summary of the online-video sites it feeds, and provides user feedback about the site and monetization status (whether you can make money on the sites). You can also read the “Zagat’s”-like report as a PDF. Thanks to Mark from TubeMogul for bringing this to our attention.
Promoting Your Brand With Viral Video October 8, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Contest, Future of Online Video, Google, Making Videos, Mentos, Online Video, Profit, Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, Video Contests, Viral Video, YouTube, advertising, google video, marketing, popular videos , 14commentsI debated heavily before posting this, because this blog is supposed to be a review of the fun world of viral video and marketing (not an advertisement for my services). That being said, I think some of you readers may be interested in how I work with sponsors.
As you know, I advocate that brands participate in consumer-generated media, but many have invested hundreds of thousands, and have seen little in return. Here’s a presentation I recently gave for some clients of Atlanta-based interactive agency, Spunlogic. It takes you through a number of ways your brand can enter this space cost efficiently — from contests to partnering with known creators.
Background
Earlier this summer, I read The Secret. The big idea (while not being entirely new) is that you can attract things you want, if you ask for something and have an unwavering belief that it can happen. My day job as a Marketing Director pays well, but we live out of our means. So I decided to pursue an additional $4-$5,000 a month. And it’s been working. I’ve created several videos through XLNTAds and here’s a recent example for GPSManiac (it has nearly 40,000 views and was rated among the top videos of the day when it posted). I’m working on scheduling some promotional workshops because I believe most agencies and brands are still in the dark ages in this arena. October happens to be a slower month because a few of my promotional videos have been delayed to November and December.
So this month, I’m offering a “sale” for custom entertainment/promotional videos.
You can promote your product or service for $2,000 flat fee (I’ve charged $1,500-$5,000). You’ll get a video you own for use on your own website, and a guarantee of no less than 20,000 views via my channels (I’m able to do that primarily thanks to YouTube). I perhaps should charge a higher premium because these are implied endorsements, and I don’t ever want to fatigue my kind, devoted viewers. But I enjoy making them and getting additional income. Two thousand dollars comes to no more than a dime a view, or $20 CPM (cost per thousand), which is the price YouTube charges for its new “InVideo” ads that appear briefly in the first 10 seconds of the video.
I hope you can appreciate that I tend to be selective about the brands I promote. I typically avoid unknown startups, brands that don’t fit my personality, or anything to do with healthcare marketing (since that’s a conflict of interest). My favorite sponsor is Mentos (see Mentos example that they ran as an ad on Google Video and Break) because they are very hands off the creative and it’s a great brand. If you’re interested, please send a note to kevinnalts at gmail.com with the subject header “PROMOTIONAL VIDEO.” That ensures it gets my attention among the myriad of spam I get.
Here’s how it works:
- You present your brand’s goal, and any ideas you have. GPSManiac actually provided a script for this video (What GPS Thinks), but typically I create the concept and script.
- I brainstorm some ideas (3-12), and you decide what makes sense. For this to work, the video has to be entertaining first. Promotion needs to be subtle. Otherwise it won’t get views or good ratings. Since I’ve made more than 500 short videos and work in marketing, I can usually find a good intersection between promotion and entertainment.
- Once we settle on an idea, we flesh it out via an outline. Only when that’s approved by the sponsor will I shoot footage.
- I edit a draft (usually 1-3 minutes with a promotional message at the end and links to your site). You can make up to 3 revisions of the video. Ultimately I won’t post the video until we both believe it’s funny and achieves your marketing goal.
- I’m always transparent when it’s a promotional video. People think I do “product placement,” but I’ve never been paid by a sponsor for subtly incorporating their brand. It’s always clear if it’s a promotion.
- I upload the video to YouTube, and several other sites. I track the views and ensure that you achieve at least 20,000 views (but often more). GPS Maniac is using the video referenced above on its own, and paid less than a nickel a view via my channels. Not a bad deal.
- Note that promotional videos have limitations. They’re good for brand building, but they need to be entertaining since viewers will skip them or give them poor ratings otherwise. They also don’t typically result in instant conversion, so they aren’t yet a good direct-marketing play. I’ve found that a small (under 5%) number of viewers will actually visit the site mentioned, but I’m working on ways to drive that up. I’ve created a microsite for a client called “Mr. Complicated,” that I think will result in more visits from a video I’m currently editing.
As I’ve always said, anyone can get into this space. It helps when you have a sizable audience (I’m fortunate to have large following via YouTube) because that increases the views to your videos. At the same time, I have to walk a careful balance, because I never want to violate the trust of my viewers or promote so frequently that they stop watching.
I know some of my fellow YouTubers have also begun to do promotional videos (see Charles Trippy’s recent video which has already been viewed more than 75K times), and some have charged more or less. A few are new at this, and are happy to promote a fun brand in exchange for free product.
I look forward to your feedback. Do you think this is a fair deal? Any advice about ensuring brands meet their goals without compromising viewers experience? I want to hear from you. We’re still working things out on the WillVideoForFood forum, but that will eventually be a place we can compare and debate approaches.
Internet Video Statistics September 30, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Google, Online Video, Video, Video Business, Video Sites, google video , 20commentsI’m working on a post that summarizes some of the recent statistics related to online video, and I’m hoping YouTube will share some recent stats. I’m also hoping I can post some of the data I source via Hitwise in my day job (with permission).
In the meantime, I found this Profy post titled “ComScore Releases Internet Video Report.” Here’s the full report, based on July stats, from ComScore. ComScore gets its stats from a panel of online consumers. Hitwise gets its data from ISPs, so the sample size is much larger.
Highlights:
- 75% of online users are watching videos (frequency obviously varies dramatically). That’s up 4% from 4 months earlier.
- YouTube claims 27% of the market by the end of July. That comes out to about 2.5 billion videos viewed.
- Comscore’s research shows Yahoo! edging out Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Interactive Media, proprietor of MySpace and Photobucket by about 100 million in terms of videos viewed.
Some of this doesn’t make sense, but that could be a function of ComScore’s sample size or methodology.
If you have any other stats or site, please list them below. I know Wordpress pushes hyperlinks into a moderated cue, so I’ll try to keep my eye on them!
The Best Tool for Uploading Your Video to Multiple Video Sites September 10, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Making Videos, Online Video, Video, Video Business, Video Online Tools, Video Sites, Viral Video, Yahoo Video, YouTube, google video, metacafe, popular videos , 14commentsNearly 9 months ago I begged for an alternative to uploading my videos manually to multiple websites. But shame on me. I’ve been uploading to dozens of sites for nearly two years, and we’re talking about nearly 500 videos. So that translates to several thousand times of doing the mundane “title it, describe it, tag it, upload, and wait.” Rinse, repeat.
Solutions have gradually developed, and all but one of these is free. So why have I waited until today to change this forever?
- Very few credible solutions have emerged in this space until recently. I’d even spoken with developers to create a custom web-based application that would focus on simplifying uploads and cope with site-specific criteria (monetization requirements). The potential here is enormous because content-creators would make that site a regular stop, which would give power to the tool to permit less popular sites to receive content.
- Most of my recent videos have been YouTube-specific and I’ve let my presence on other sites fade. Still, there are always a few that could have life beyond YouTube. And when I focused on Revver and Metacafe I made decent money for a short period. Ultimately my Revver and Metacafe dollars have dwindled as Revver views are low and few of my videos have hit the criteria for revenue-sharing on Metacafe.
- Ultimately I’ve distrusted non-credentialed “uploader” applications because of the risks I may take. Do they keep a copy of the video, and what rights might they assume on them? More importantly, the mystery company owns YOUR passwords of each video website. Do you want them being able to change payment preferences in your Revver, Metacafe or YouTube settings?
It’s time to overcome this fear.
I’m starting with what appears to be the leader in the space: TubeMogul. I neglected to mention them in a recent post that sited two players, and I heard from you WVFF readers and from the company.
So here’s the current landscape of players. I am not brave enough to try them all, and in some cases I list the “deal breaker” that turned me away.
Pros: Hands-down winner of the space. Registering and password process made me feel safe.- Cons: Limited sites supported: YouTube, Metacafe, MySpace, Yahoo, Revver, AOL Video, DailyMotion, BrightCove. Interface was frustrating because the process of defining the sites to monitor is very different from identifying the sites for uploading. This required me visiting each of the sites for various information at different stages: e-mail, password, URL of my video page.
- Note: The site asked if I wanted to store the passwords, so I’m hoping I won’t need to teach it again. The status feedback hasn’t yet changed on the videos I uploaded an hour ago.
- Pro: Simple interface, good analytics, easy to add account to site via interface.
- Con: Too few sites supported - deal breaker until developed. They are exclusively allowing Google Video, Metacafe, MySpace, Revver, Veoh, YouTube. Typos on site and lack of contact information also made me weary to try.
- Pro: Nice interface from developer that seems legitimate.
- Con: Deal breaker: You need to remember your passwords, because they’re used in the “session” but not databased. This may have been to quell concerns about sharing passwords, but it seems like I’m just as vulnerable for password theft whether it retains them or not. And it’s a huge inconvenience.
- Pro: By uploading on Veoh, you can also add Google Video, MySpace and YouTube to the sites that receive the video. This is, to my knowledge, the only video site that provides that unselfish functionality.
- Con: Veoh is supposed to be a revenue-sharing site, but I haven’t made a penny on it in the months and months I’ve tried it. It’s frustrating to even try uploading directly to Veoh on that basis. Not a deal breaker but seems like a waste of time.
- Pro: Best diversity of sites. Supports: AOL Uncut Videos. Youtube, Google Video, Bolt, Putfile, Metacafe, Yahoo Video, MSN Soapbox, Myspace Video, Revver, Livevideo, Stupidvideos, Break, Brightcove, Grouper, Zippyvideos, iFilm, Veoh, Flurl, Blip.TV. $1 trial and downloadable application may simplify storing and using (although does present challenges for traveling uploaders).
- Con: $19.95 is a deal breaker when there are free alternatives. Lack of company contact information and poor grammar on website makes me fearful to even try it.
Bottom line:
VideoMogul wins for easy upload features and strong statistic monitoring (its origins). The site is free, and fairly intuitive (although the user interface could use some simplifying). Ideally I’d like to set up my upload and monitor sites once, and then have a simple interface for each time I post or review statistics. I’d also value alerts for when a video happens to move. For example, if my Revver video got more than 100 views, my Metacafe video made it into the hermetically sealed “Producer Rewards” program, or I made my first penny on Veoh.
YouTube Finally Discovers Ad Format It Can Monetize August 22, 2007
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Google, Online Video, Profit, Video Advertising, Video Business, YouTube, advertising, google video , 40commentsIn a significant first, YouTube has decided to let advertisers inject their messages inside the video frame for select content on its site (see ClickZ or MediaPost). For an interesting piece that projects revenues for YouTube, see this post by Silicon Valley Insider.
For an example of the ad, see this Smosh video and watch Homer Simpson at 15 seconds in. To see another similar demo (unrelated to YouTube), check out this site by Adjustables (which allows you to drop in various embedded ads).
This is huge news, and here’s why:
- It’s a new ad format that I believe balances marketing needs with user experience. As a creator and marketer, I love them. And as a viewer, I can more than tolerate them. They’re not interruptions, and allow me to dig-in or continue with my viewing (as opposed to horrendously long pre-rolls). But they’re also not lost in left field: like basement-price banners that sit miles from a video and get few views much less clicks. Don’t get me wrong- these banner ads may still be worthwhile for marketers because the CPM (cost per thousand) is so cost-effective.
- This exponentially raises the revenue that YouTube can make per video view. Grant- I’m biased in this enthusiasm since I am a YouTube partner. $20 CPM is a fair price.
- Ultimately, it shows that YouTube/Google is turning the corner on this age-old debate about advertising vs. community. YouTube has always been about community not commercialization. And that’s not a bad thing, but they happen to be in business to make money. Google also tends to build new product/service solutions without considering the advertising implications. Then eventually they figure out how to monetize it.
Some of the community will, of course, object to any new ad format. But ultimately this increases the sustainability of online-video and is a good thing for those viewers who want to retain access to free, quality content.
Now for some key points about the ads — lifted directly from the ClickZ article:
- The new offering, dubbed InVideo Ads, mimics the clickable ad overlays introduced in recent months on ad networks like VideoEgg and YuMe.
- Ad product consists of animated bars that obscure the bottom 20 percent of the video frame for a given clip. They initiate 15 seconds after the beginning of a clip
- InVideo overlays are “80 percent transparent” and remain visible for approximately 10 seconds before shrinking to a small button users can later click to view the marketing message again.
- YouTube has set a $20 CPM for InVideo ad buys consisting of an InVideo ad accompanied by a tiny in-player companion ad and an adjacent in-page unit.
- Clicking on an overlay ad pauses the current video and launches one of two experiences brands can choose between. One is a new clip superimposed over the video in progress via a player-within-a-player interface. When the paid clip ends or is closed, the original automatically picks up where it left off. Shiva Rajaraman, YouTube Product Manager, said 76 percent of those who click the overlay and watch the video ad viewed the entire trailer for NewLine’s “Hairspray.”
- The other option is a Flash-based interactive experience in which the user is invited to navigate an interactive menu. Warner Bros. created such a unit where users can flip through selected album covers (click for example).
During YouTube’s research process, Rajaraman said, “One of the key things we found, not surprisingly, is that when a video is playing on YouTube their attention is [locked in to the video frame]. When we came up with an ad format, we realized that… it needs to be in the player.”
Yet when the Google-owned video portal tested pre-roll placements, YouTube users abandoned video clips at a more than 50 percent rate. The overlay, by contrast, results in an abandonment rate under 10 percent. Not only that, but click rates are five to 10 times greater than standard display click-to-video ads, according to Rajaraman.