• Home
• About Nalts
• Subscribe
• Forum
• Hire Nalts
• Buy Junk
• Nalts Videos!
• Links
• Nalts News

On NBC Today Show… this morning. maybe. July 9, 2008

Greetings boys, girls and willvideoforfooders!
I’m your substitute, I mean “GuestOfNalts (.)” today

As you know this self proclamied viral video genius, Kevin ‘Nalts’ Nalty, started talking to himself early on, as we see in several of his more delightful films: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, AND here!

WHEEW!

Kevin has developed a number of personalities, alter egos and of course clones over the years. This is me here in my pre-natal state along with my other clone brothers and sisters. And here is the first generation of a Nalts’ Clone. As you might have guessed he didn’t quite make it. Unfortunately, he was unable to grasp the finer points and magic of editing and fell into a very tragic incident involving a can, the local trash collector and the very large trash collector’s truck. Since, much progress has been made and as you can rightly read I am one of the current generation ‘CloneofNatls’. However, we do prefer being called ‘Spawnsof Nalts’. We have advanced far more than the initial copy, even though we still titter on lame.

As a copy and a real live SpawnofNalts it is my position to make sure that anything Nalts does or thinks when indisposed makes its way to the beautiful eyes of his darling readers, fans, lurkers and all the rest of you, ASAP!

Tomorrow (July 9), on NBC’s Today show in a segment called “Frustrated Fliers.” The interview was shot in NYC yesterday and prompted by “USAIR Sucks” and not “Crawling Through Airport.” See if you can spot the original Nalts at the airport. If not, enjoy these little vignettes to make up for the possibility of a brown out we predicted in NYC. If you missed it because you just couldn’t drag your lazy ass out of bed before 11am, you know who you are, and barring some possible genetic or technical malfunction, me and all the other SpawnsofNalts will try our best to accommodate Today the day after yesterday or sooner right here!

Oh, and bring a clothes pin!

Nalts at the airport Today!

Be glad smell-a-vision never took off!

END TRANSMISSION

The Secrets of Viral Video (draft presentation) July 7, 2008

As I mentioned previously, I’m presenting “The Secrets of Viral Video Marketing” at a Yahoo! event called “Big Screen, Little Screen.” It’s this Wednesday,  July 9 in Toronto, Canada.

Want to review the deck and provide any suggestions? Obviously it won’t be self explanatory, but I thought I’d give you loyal WVFF readers a sneak preview. Here’s the Powerpoint deck in Flash via Slideshare.net.

Any suggestions?

Oh- and thanks to David Bridges for designing the Nalts flavicon (that little icon on the left of the browser window before the WVFF URL). Thanks also to Jan for installing the little booger!

| View | Upload your own

Kevin is a poopie head July 5, 2008

!

discuss!

Three Golden Rules of Online-Video Creation June 27, 2008

For years I’ve written countless words about “do this” and “don’t do this” related to online video creation. Some of this applies to amateurs or pros, and some to advertisers and brands. Today’s advice pertains to three “Golden Rules”, and it’s important for all of us- but especially creators.

Let’s look at the Three Biggest Mistakes made by online video creators (and that does include “viral campaigns”):

1. Emphasizing quality over cost.
2. Believing good content will get seen.
3. Caring about what the audience thinks.

Now you skeptics just mentally formulated the three following counterpoints while reading the Big 3 Mistakes above. I’m right, aren’t I?

1. Higher production value generally means the content is better
2. The social aspect of the web means good stuff rises and bad stuff dies
3. The most savvy creators listens to audiences and predicts them, thus creating content that’s more popular.

The good news is that your counterpoints are indeed accurate. The bad news is that if you live by them, you’re going to be broke, frustrated and unsatisfied in your work. I promise. And a promise is a promise. So today, Uncle Nalts will serve up the 3 Golden Rules that shall guide you on your path to online-video sustainability. They’re subject to change as the market matures, but who cares?  If you succeed you’ll find your own reasons to explain it. And if you fail, you won’t soon return to this post because it will piss you off.

Golden Rule #1: At all costs, manage costs. There STILL isn’t a safe online-video monetization model (advertising, purchase, rent) for the majority of video content online. This is actually good news for amateurs like me, because we’ll sustain while better creators come and go — studios simply can’t justify a team of writers, producers, directors, actors, editors on the hopes of finding an audience (that day will come perhaps). I certainly am not the best video creator, but I’m probably one of the most profitable. I write, shoot, edit, and act… So I don’t have costs beyond my excesive time (which I justify by joy, not an hourly wage) and the nominal amount I spend on equipment and variable fees. Most of the people in my videos are acting for fun like I do, and occasionally I’ll pay them with bribes and gift cards.

Golden Rule #2: Good Content is Not Popular. It’s time you separate your notions of what’s good and what’s popular. You couldn’t have predicted 10 years ago that a cup of coffee would cost more than a gallon of gasoline — and that you’d bitch about gas prices while sucking down your overpriced moca frapolati venti with vanilla sprinkles. Good isn’t popular, and popular isn’t good. Does that mean you strive for popularity? Nope. That’s like trying to change the direction a boat is taking by hoping the wake shifts direction. But don’t lose hope here! Nalts doesn’t drop crap on your desk without telling you how to clean it. The lesson is that you’re responsible for getting your videos seen if you want your videos to be seen. I’ll bet you’ve been obsessing on what you do before you hit upload, and subconciously starving everything that happens after that (as if it’s beneath you). Don’t pimp and spam it (I know some video creators that should be Amway reps), but invest in some gentle efforts to get the video to a relevant audience. If the video is about cheese, did you remember to send it the cheese blogger? He’s got an audience of cheese lovers, and not much else to write about.

Golden Rule #3: Screw The Audience. I’m serious. This is really, really hard to do. There are times where you’re hypercharged by the feedback and audience interaction. It’s validating, it helps hone your storytelling, and it’s instant gratification. But almost no online-video creator is at risk of losing touch with their audience — the medium consumes them. Rather, most popular creators lose their steam because they focus on feeding the audience instead of instinct. What began as a fun outlet becomes an obligation. Experimentation becomes repetition of a formula that seems to work (Zipster08 and SMPFilms have, interestingly, spun off LocoMama and a Sparta the Cat channel the same week — these were recurring bits that grew and sustained much of their audiences, but fatigued others). By focusing on the audience above all, desperation and frustration sets in. The remedy for artistic sustainability is caring less. Get back to doing what’s fun and ignoring the “you’ve lost your edge” cold-prikly comments but also the “that’s the best video you’ve done” warm fuzzies. Every video creator I know (and I know a lot of you) pays too much attention to feedback, and I’m quite confident it’s the root cause of death spirals (including my own). For you advertisers, I’d adapt this rule as follows: don’t follow the formula because it’s already been done. The best judge of future viral failure is past viral success.

Moses has spoken.

Video Sponsorship Trends: “Cashing In” or “Selling Out” June 11, 2008

I like this “Viral Video: Cashing In or Selling Out” by Jennifer Hollett (Canadian Globe & Mail), and not just because I’m featured in it. It’s actually a well-balanced view of the issues surrounding paid sponsorship and product placement.

As you may know, there are two different ways to make money via online video. You can share in the percent of ad proceeds based on the publisher (Revver, Metacafe, and now YouTube’s Partner Program). This is easier, but low margin. And you’re at the mercy of the publisher. Currently it would appear YouTube is selling fewer InVideo ads associated with amateur content, and I’m seeing more Google Adsense copy ads or display only. InVideo ads are far, far more profitable to YouTube and creators — selling at about $20 per thousand impressions. Advertisers get much more exposure, since the ads peek up at the bottom and are interactive (a far cry better than banners that we tend to tune out). The second way a creator can profit is by working directly with brands to feature products and services for a fair fee.

If you read this blog regularly, you’ll recognize my POV on this article (worth a scan). I satirize “selling out,” but I actually think you can find a balance between helping an advertiser and entertaining. I even contend that promotion need not come at the expense of the entertainment and vice versa. That said, I do respect the opinion of Kalle Lasn, editor in chief of Adbusters magazine and author of Culture Jam. Kalle, according to the piece, feels product placement on YouTube is a sad development. Lasn says there are already between 3,000 – 5,000 marketing messages coming into the average North American brain everyday. “I don’t think we really need 5001,” he says.

The article highlights (oh I hate that word) Brandfame, which helps facilitate the interaction between creators and sponsors. I’ve also met with Placevine, which represents a number of different brands interested in tapping creators. This article references a video I made called “Viral Video Broker,” where I spoofed this industry almost two years ago exactly. (Another one of those videos I wish I had shot with a better camera, but at least I was somewhat ahead of my time… the voices were, of course, people in my offices at J&J not real weblebrities).

Watch for five trends in this area in 2008:

1. Creators are going to cross the line by pushing the advertising too hard, and alienating their viewers. It will feel right for them and their sponsors, but ultimately make for a jaded bunch of viewers.
2. Brandfame and Placevine are the signs of an emerging cottage industry that will become more vital than the labor intensive machines helping broker product placement in television and films. Online video will give brands more inventory (it’s not called the “short tail” folks), access to niche audiences, and — here’s why the legacy firms will struggle — easier scalability. You’d better make it easy for brands and creators, and take a fair portion but not excessive. Product sponsorship is the only way many brands will penetrate the vital medium of online video, because it’s a fairly ad resistant one. In the “lean forward” generation of online-video, we’ll only watch your advertising if it’s interesting or if you force us. I’d content the sustainability of the latter is weak, and you’d have trouble arguing otherwise. Enter TiVo bloink sound, or the sick delight we take shutting a browser window that “serves” a pre-roll advertising with all the tact of a bad-breathed vacuum cleaner salesman. As David Spade said as a flight attendant on SNL, “Buh bye. “
3. The online-video sites will struggle in this area. Currently mama Google doesn’t profit if I cut my own deals with Mentos (except when Mentos flighted my video as a 30-second ad). But it’s not an area of high concern since YouTube needs to focus on scalable revenue. What happens, however, if creators join forces and agree to sell prerolls embedded in the video file… a Toyota ad pops up gently in the intros or before the “Next New Network” bumper at the end of a clip? Does YouTube take issue with this advertising that they facilitate but don’t profit on? Or is it analogous to a producer selling his show, but retaining rights to a fixed amount of the ad space (I’ve heard Ryan Seacrest does this with his show).
4. There will be no trend four. Trend four is often wrong, which itself is a growing trend.
5. The backlash associated with hidden sponsorship is far from over. I wish there was a law that required film makers to disclose any paid advertisers, even though I know much of the “product placement” is offered free by directors. Federal Express, for instance, does not often pay to have its boxes appear in a film. The directors want the film to feel authentic, and seek permission not pay from FedEx to avoid needing to distract viewers with a Garbagepatch Kids-like bastardization of FedEx (FoodEx). In the end, however, I feel like the video creator owes me, as the viewer, disclosure. If you’re getting paid to hold a Mountain Dew, more power to you. Just let me know, so I don’t feel like you’re being sneaky every time your camera pans a mall and I see logos.

Why Media Buyers Are Stunting the Growth of Online Video March 21, 2008

Balding white marketer desperately wants to meet smart, strategic media buyer. If you’re one, please recognize you’re not the target of this rant. But the rest of  you are just so friggin’ short sighted and clueless.

There are some amazing online-video series that could be incredible opportunities for smart brands wanting to engage with early adopters of a medium that is changing the way we relate to content and brands.

Brands can reach depth and relevancy with their target, even if it’s not driving total significant awareness and immediately creating ROI through driving intent, store visits, and trial.

I give you exhibit one. iChannel.  A mere 8000 people are subscribed to this series on YouTube, but the views of the weekly series are roughly three times that (I’m the inverse of that with 30,000 Nalts subscribers, but some recent videos ranging in the 8-15K views). So it’s a healthy and highly devoted and interactive audience. Episode 31 had 180K views alone.

And it’s deeply philosophical, well acted, intelligently scripted and short and addictive.  I had the pleasure of appearing in one last May.

These guys spend more time setting up one shot than I do on my entire post production. The audience is like a microcosm of those watching Lost. Or The Office. They’re engaged, passionate, and hold their breath waiting for the next episode.

So why would a media buyer pass on this?

• It’s not a big media deal. No hot AOL ad reps are pushing it.
• The audience isn’t big enough. No scale yet.
• The conversion from the episode to a bloated brand microsite wouldn’t be great.
• They can just advertise on YouTube’s invideo ads and get there.

Why should an electronic manufacturer dye to have sole sponsorship?

• They could probably own it for the equivalent of pocket change they dug from the back of their marketing budget couch.
• It would be ground breaking.
• The audience is perfect, and the level of product engagement would be far richer than an ad we’re trained to ignore.
• It sets the stage for a new model where advertisers contract directly with creators of content (who carry fixed audiences). No worthless intermediaries clogging the pipes between.

What’s the solution to grabbing these types of opportunities? Have these deals championed by someone outside the regular media-buying job. While I was at Johnson & Johnson, the big deals between media players (networks and magazines) were done by folks that weren’t inline marketers like me, but had influence over the way media budgets were set across the many brands. After all, J&J couldn’t get interesting deals if each brand fended for itself, and the interesting partnerships required someone that could step outside the short-sighted world I live in when charged with P&L of a brand.

What Does Google’s Acquisition of DoubleClick Mean to Online Video? March 11, 2008

Google 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

10 Tips for a “Viral Video” Hail Mary February 27, 2008

Alright, the “Cheat sheet for marketers interested in online video” didn’t get a lot of views. And frankly I get more people consuming my content in an hour than read this damned blog in a day.

So to hell with you. Here’s what you should do to get viral, stupid marketers and agencies.

1. Spend an assload of money. Put most of it to banner ads that promote your video, but spend at least $250,000 on the production. Only don’t make it look highly produced. Use a $100 videocamera and crappy lighting.
2. Don’t worry about what people are saying about your brand. Screw them. Just tell them what they need to know.
3. Promote, promote, promote. It should feel like a cable TV advertisement. Throw boobs in there to make sure people pass it along.
4. Target 10 million views. Anything less than that and you’re a friggin’ wimp.
5. Don’t bother with those that are online-video personalities. Find a good washed-up television personality.
6. Make it a rap. The kids love raps.
7. Do something really safe to keep your management happy. Remember- your rise on the corporate latter means putting the customer (your boss and his boss) first.
8. Steal an idea that works. That “Evolution of Dance” thing was popular. Get MC Hammer to remake it. He’s coming back again.
9. Be sure your agency knows the space. That means if they’ve ever shot a video to stream on your product site, then they know viral video. It’s that easy.
10. Measurement is so 2007. It’s all about views and perception. Fake some positive comments to show your boss.

YouTube as Marketing Channel (free 30-minute podcast): Nalts and Obama Girl Creator February 20, 2008

Here’s the archive podcast of the Blog Talk Radio show I did with Toby Bloomberg and Ben Relles (read more). Ben’s story about “I Have a Crush on Obama” is always interesting. And maybe you’ll learn a few things about how brands can harness the power of YouTube. Here’s the Diva Marketing Blog description of the show if you want a quick scan.

YouTube as Marketing Channel: Live With Bloomberg February 18, 2008

Marketing Consultant Toby Bloomberg (Marketing Diva Blog) is hosting a radio/podcast show on the topic of YouTube as a marketing channel. It’s live tomorrow night (Tuesday, 6:30 PM EST). I’ll be a guest along with Ben Relles, creator of the wildly viral “I Got a Crush on Obama” and Barely Political.

Here are the details:

• What: YouTube/social networking video sites: Play Toy or Credible Marketing Strategy? Kevin Nalts and Ben Relles join Toby to explore if video networking sites like YouTube can go beyond “cool” to a credible marketing strategy. And by the way, how do you get a video viewed by thousands?
• When: Tuesday, 2/19/2008 6:30 PM EST
• Where: (718) 508-9924 (or visit Toby’s channel on BlogTalkRadio, but note this link activates the last show with a preroll audio ad).

Now archived here

• About...

  Kevin Nalts is one of the most-viewed YouTube comedians with more than 670 short online videos seen more than 28 million times. By day he is a Marketing Director at a Fortune 100 company, and speaks, writes and consults in the area of online marketing and viral video. To contact, please see details in ABOUT NALTS.

• Nalts Links

  • About Nalts
  • Buy Junk
  • Forum
  • Hire Nalts
  • Links
  • Nalts News

• Recent Nalts Videos

  Loading...

• Recent Posts

  • Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • If a YouTube Channel is a Channel, Why Can’t We Select Specific Shows?
  • Avoid Regret Pixelation Hangover When Posting Videos
  • Dead Video Sites Don’t Have Proper Funerals
  • YouTube Thumbnail Isn’t Center Frame Anymore
  • Viral Video Villain Got $1 Million as 750 Industries
  • How to Buy Advertisement on YouTube

• Funny Comments

  • marquisdejolie on Dead Video Sites Don’t Have Proper Funerals
  • Marilyn on Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • Marilyn on Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • xsukatrax on Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • xsukatrax on Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • xsukatrax on Local Idiot to Post Comment on Video
  • marquisdejolie on If a YouTube Channel is a Channel, Why Can’t We Select Specific Shows?

• Archives

  Select Month August 2008  (12) July 2008  (47) June 2008  (58) May 2008  (26) April 2008  (36) March 2008  (36) February 2008  (25) January 2008  (18) December 2007  (35) November 2007  (33) October 2007  (17) September 2007  (16) August 2007  (35) July 2007  (23) June 2007  (30) May 2007  (21) April 2007  (20) March 2007  (36) February 2007  (38) January 2007  (68) December 2006  (31) November 2006  (63) October 2006  (72) September 2006  (97) August 2006  (147) July 2006  (111) June 2006  (89) May 2006  (71)

• Best of Nalts Video Feed

  I post regularly on YouTube, but a lot of that is self referential or vlogging. So here's the "best of nalts" feed that is updated whenever I think I've got one worth uploading on other sites.

• Blogroll

  • Art Media & Stuff (jischinger)
  • I Do Nothing All Day
  • Kevin Nalts Official Homepage
  • Mariyln’s Blog: For Those With Nothing Better to Do
  • Metacafe Blog
  • Must-Have Video Software (Rocketboom)
  • Nalts Videos on YouTube
  • New Tee Vee
  • Online Video Forum
  • Reubnick: The Human Neopet
  • Revver Blog
  • Shirtless Apprentice: Video Production Tips with Humor
  • Social Media Explorer: Jason Falls
  • Steve Garfield: The King of Video Blogging
  • The YouTube Celebrities Website
  • True Talk Blog
  • Viral Video (Wikipedia)
  • Viral Video Wannabe
  • Web Ink Now
  • WillVideoForFood Forum!
  • YouTube Blog

• WillVideoForFood Ning

  
  View my page on willvideoforfood
  

• What I'm Doing...

  • No tweets available at the moment.
  • More updates...

  Posting tweet...

  Powered by Twitter Tools.

• 
  

• Feeds

• Full
• Comments