Category Archives: google video

Promoting Your Brand With Viral Video

I 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.

nalts-product-placement.jpgYou 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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

I’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

Nearly 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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

TubeMogul

  • tube mogulPros: 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.

Vidmetrix

  • 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.

HeySpread

  • 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.

Veoh

  • 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.

VideoPostRobot:

  • 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

In 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

The Google vs. Viacom Debate

Yesterday’s post about Viacom suing Google brought a couple dozen fantastic debate points. You can rest assured that Viacom’s public relations team is doing a “word of mouth” audit (using Buzzmetrics or another player) and that your quotes are being read by nervous spokespeople.

fight.jpgI was amused by at Slashdot in which one individual suggested Google should remove all Viacom properties from its search results! Richard Brandt, a blogger and journalist who is writing a book on Google, predicts Viacom will settle for $500 million.

Incidentally, I started my online video obsession with Revver and uploaded about 2 dozen videos with copyrighted music. Revver’s CEO, Steven Starr, called me one day and explained why the site is vigilant about copyrighted material. He explained how, in the end, I’d want the protection of copyright for my content. I was so compelled with his rationale that I voluntarily pulled videos down and resubmitted them with Garageband music. A couple weeks ago I used a company’s logo on a Revver video, and Revver received a hostile letter from the logo’s owner (and you know who you are, bastards). Again- I pulled the video down quickly and apologized to Revver.

Now my rule of thumb is simple: If a copyrighted song will dramatically help a video, I’ll use it as a score. But I never do it for a video that I think might have a shelf life, and I accept 5 risks.

  1. It probably won’t get featured.
  2. I won’t be able to use it on Revver or any shared-revenue site.
  3. It’s not likely to get used on a television network.
  4. I’ll probably have to delete it when Google/YouTube start revenue sharing
  5. It’s possible that individually I could be sued (remember, folks, Google’s not going to take all the bullets here).

That being said, I think Viacom is tarnishing its public image by acting like a scorned girlfriend.

It’s understandable that it feels robbed, frustrated and a bit frightened. In the end, it has an obligation to protect its content. Here’s what gets me. How in the WORLD can it point to a loss of revenue?

  • Remember Viacom. We’re watching more television since online video arrived. Not less.
  • Most stolen clips on YouTube are too short to cannibalize viewership
  • Online videos have probably been the best marketing tool for television that ever existed

I once did a video with my son laughing at “The Office” (probably my favorite television show). The video is about my son’s reaction to a brief clip. I contacted the network numerous times to get their approval to put this online and didn’t get the courtesy of a response. To thee I say… “lighten up, Francis.” Dang. I can’t find that clip from Stripes on YouTube.

Video Hoax: Getting Google TV Invitation

infinitesolutions.jpgThere was part of me that wanted to send you to Infinite Solutions without revealing it as a hoax. It’s much funnier that way. But I didn’t want to be responsible for any readers beating their head against the wall trying these video tutorial tips out.

Mark Erickson provides fascinating technology tips that don’t really work, but delivers them with deadpan credibility. So I’m guessing that the majority of the people that watch this Google Television tutorialare now logging in and out of Gmail… over and over.

It’s a compelling proposition: a sneak preview at on-demand television via Google. You’re probably going to try it just to be sure.

Is Soapbox a Zune? MSN Launches YouTube Competitor

soapbox.jpgIt’s been in talks since September 2006, but MSN finally launched a public beta of SoapBox (source: DigitalTrends). Although MSN has about 10% of the search market (compared to Google and Yahoo’s combined share of more than 80%), it does have the advantage of being backed by the world’s largest software company. While the world probably doesn’t need another user-generated video site, Microsoft might make Soapbox fly with sheer marketing might.

There actually are some features that make Soapbox unique:

  1. Soapbox allows users simultaneously to watch videos and browse for new ones on the same screen. Something nice for those of us with vADHD. The result, however, is less of a community feel and more of a broadcast feel (like Yahoo! Video or AOL Uncut).
  2. You can upload more formats than most sites: AVI, ASF, WMV, MOV, MPEG1/2/4, 3GPP, or DV file formats. And get this. While it’s uploading you can continue to surf the site (that’s extremely rare).
  3. You can view them on Window’s Media Player (that still around?) or Flash. No Quicktime.
  4. The interface is ‘perty (albiet not user centric). The player controls are very smooth. Videos appear to stream rapidly, but we also know that not many people are using it yet.

And now for some complaints.

  1. When you select a video, the URL doesn’t change. That makes it difficult to link to specific videos. Only a savvy user will realize that you have to select “share” and copy the URL manually. So, for example, I can share this video of William laughing. But almost thought the feature was missing.
  2. In a similar flaw, the URL doesn’t change based on the section of the site you’re in. So I can’t send you directly to the comedy category.
  3. Sniff, sniff. I don’t smell any advertising revenue sharing. Hisssss.
  4. No Quicktime viewing. Windows Media? Isn’t that obsolete?
  5. Can’t download videos.
  6. The comments are buried. Half the fun of YouTube is the dialogue around the comments. But Soapbox takes more of a broadcast model like Yahoo Video or AOL Uncut (where people almost never comment). We’ll probably see very little community build around Soapbox.

8 Wishes for Online Video

Paul Sanchez — biker, video junkie, PR machine, blogger, and maddman — has started an 8-wishes “tag chain” thingy. He’s asked me and other bloggers to post our 8 wishes and pass along the task to others. Parenthetically, Paul’s first wish was granted, as he recently interviewed Kinkos founder Paul Orfalea.

So let’s be clear that if I really had 8 wishes, they’d be focused around my wife and family, world peace, end of poverty and injustice, etc. However I’m focusing these strictly on online video.

  1. Amateurs develop niche audiences that can economically sustain themselves. That’s what this blog is about. Many of us make videos for fun, but would love to jump into it full time. Currently there are really only two ways to do that. Develop a tremendous following such that advertising (via sites that share ad revenue) sustains you. This is proving to be very difficult so far. The alternative is to develop serialized content and attract one or more sponsors. We’ve done a couple videos for Mentos (Sneaking Mentos into Theater and the recent Team Mentos with MediaMogirl). It would take a lot of these to cover my mortgage, but it’s a good start.
  2. Online video channels will compensate creators. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have almost guaranteed you that community would form around sites that shared ad revenue. This isn’t happening as fast as we all hoped. YouTube does not share advertising with creators, and sites like Revver, blip.tv and Brightcove are only effective if you have your own audience. None of these sites draws traffic like the big boys. Metacafe has both ad sharing and traffic, but it’s fierce competition to get seen.
  3. Advertisers will hasten their shift from interuption marketing to engagement marketing. Instead of building campaigns that push product, I hope they’ll more deeply engage in social media. The EepyBird Coke deal is a great example. Coke paid the comedic duos, and then drove views via Google Video. Advertisers are starting to realize that the the 60-second spot is dead, and they need to let go of scripted messaging to be viable in a demand-driven content world where they can skip ads.
  4. Online video accessible via any box. I hope that in 2007 we see more power to the explosive collide of television and online video. YouTube and Revver have deals with Verizon, and there is no shortage of models that bring online video to cable, television, media centers and portable devices. The more this happens, the easier it will be for content creators to find audiences and audiences to find niche content.
  5. Niche channels form. There are many of us that create content that is not necessarily mass market. But there are groups of people that love specific niches. YouTube facilitates this connection via subscriptions. In the past week I jumped from 400 subscribers to about 1200 on YouTube and these are people that have self-identified as being interested in my style. Others can RSS my content, but there’s no easy way to turn on the boob tube and surf some of my videos. I hope there will be soon.
  6. The letter V will be removed from the alphabet. You have to have a stretch wish.
  7. The networks will support an online-video show. This will provide mainstream visibility to online-video creators that have interesting content but can’t sustain their own show. We’ll see an SNL-style show that features an assortment of short clips from regular content providers. I want to be one of ’em. Remember how the Simpsons got its start as a segment of The Tracy Ulman show.
  8. My 8th wish is for 8 more wishes. Is that allowed?

Time-Lapse Photographer Reviews Video Sites

Mike Posehn is a time-lapse photographer and creator of the GBTimeLapse software that helps turn digital photos into time-lapse videos. In his post on GraniteBaySoftware’s blog, he compares various video sites.

His goals are similar to many of ours:

1) Good video quality, easy and fast uploading and an attractive and flexible video player.
2) To drive traffic to my site I need a site with a big audience.
3) For extra revenue I need a site with an ad revenue sharing business model.

He reviews Brightcove, YouTube, Metacafe, Revver, Google Video and VideoEgg… as well as two I didn’t know. Zudeo and Stage6.

Submit Your Video to Many Video Sites at Once

laptops.jpgI’ve been long begging for a technology that allows amatuer videographers to populate multiple video sites with ease. You may like the popularity of YouTube and the money from Revver, blip.tv and Metacafe. But you can’t afford to miss sites like AOL Uncut, Yahoo or Google Video since they do deliver volume. I think I speak for most video makers that my LEAST favorite part of video is manually submitting it on sites. And I invariably forget one or two.

A number have people have confided in me certain new businesses that address that unmet need — I will not reveal specifics of these in respect to their need for secrecy. As you can guess, some go after subscriptions, others charge a flat fee, and others are targeting high-end publishers to charge a premium.

Marquisdejolie recently shared that Veoh uploaders can automatically populate their YouTube, MySpace and Google accounts with their videos. That’s brilliant. Something I’ve urged Revver to do for months.

This is how I see this market playing out:

  • The progressive, smaller sites will use this as a value-add to attract content. The larger sites (with maybe the exception of YouTube/Google Video) have no incentive to facilitate this.
  • Some software players will try to make a business model on this separately. You’ll register at a site, and they’ll take care of all the form requirements of the most common video sites. While I’d probably pay a modest monthly fee to avoid an hour of work each day, most will resist that.
  • Someone will build a free shareware application to do this. However the video sites might change their specifications or make this obsolete.
  • Ultimately there will be a hybrid free/paid tool. For free you’ll get, say, 20 uploads a month to various sites. For a minor ($10-$20) fee you can have unlimited uploads to a broader base of sites.
  • To avoid commoditization these tools will offer additional value-add functionalities. For example, they’ll get your video search-engine optimized, Digged, etc. And maybe they’ll discover additional value-add services that provide video junkies more time to focus on creating instead of posting and publicizing.