Before we armchair quarterback Geico’s YouTube spend today, let me share a secret story. The names will be changed to protect the innocent.
An extremely popular YouTube star (let’s call him Spiffy) last fall mentioned something fascinating to me in private. A major consumer-products good brand (let’s call them “Yummy Snack”) paid him handsomly to create an enteratining video incorporating Yummy Snack. A member of the Yummy brand team had shared the success story at a conference I attended, but left something critical out. It seems Yummy’s agency hadn’t asked Spiffy to post the entertaining/promotional Yummy video on Spiffy’s channel!
The talented Spiffy voluntarily posted it on his channel, and THAT was the Yummy video that popped. Not one posted by Yummy Snack on some branded YouTube channel page. Not because media dollars drove views. I thought that Spiffy’s generous move was so cool, I’ve decided not to call out Yummy’s agency on this horrible oversight.
YouTube might have saved Yummy, but can you blame them? Google is more concerned about selling media dollars than tipping off agencies to the organic power of a star’s audience.
YouTube doesn’t make money when a promotional video goes viral… only when there’s an ad buy.
I like to think agencies have learned something in the past year, so it’s sad to find history repeating itself even today. Geico insurance purchased the expensive YouTube homepage spot to boast its ”Gecko & Numa Numa kid video,” which prerolls (without audio). Today’s ad spend cost the Geico more than you or I make in a year, and Gary Brolsma (NumaNuma), the online-video sensation, isn’t posting the video on his own channel concurrently.
Are you kidding me? Much of the value of the YouTube stars is his or her embedded audience. Most stars have fans that will propel the video to the top of the “most watched” and “highest rated,” and share it with friends (assuming it doesn’t suck).
As an example, if Fred made a video endorsing Poprocks, his video would get million of views. If the agency posted it — even with some advertising dollars promoting it — it would get far less.
For a moment, let’s put aside the debate about Geico’s agency associating itself with the NJ kid who is mostly a “one-hit wonder” lacking a recurring audience. Numa only has 35K subscribers and his recent videos are fetching just a few thousand views. Even so, Numa dual posting the video would certainly attract views for an ROI that’s as good as any media spend. The agency gets credit for driving homepage views to its own ”Its the Gecko,” channel instead of Numa Numa’s… but one can’t help but wonder if there’s a longer vision for that branded channel or if it was an afterthought.
Why on EARTH would Geico not pay Gary a few clams to post it on his channel? Even without a lot of daily views, Gary could have posted it on his channel concurrently, and gotten views by:
Showing us a “behind the scenes” footage
Featuring the video on his channel page
Making the Geico spot a video reply to his big hit, where it would get residual views
I’d love to know if this was an oversight or a thoughtful decision because, for instance, Gary wanted more coin to distribute it than made sense for the agency. But absent that, it’s going to be my case study for being “half pregnant” on YouTube– smart enough to tap a star and invest in media, but not savvy enough to tap into the creator’s audience as well.
The lesson: It’s not smart for brands to tap into know YouTube stars without buying media, and it’s not smart to buy media without getting some “street cred” from a known YouTuber. It’s smart to do both. Who’s going to help brands figure this out?
(I’d like to use the case study I referenced at the beginning, but the star would get tainted by the agency for mentioning this slip and ”Spiffy” doesn’t deserve it).
Note that this post and video were done before the game actually finished, so we may see some unexpected surprises and need to revise accordingly. What do you think? Have some favorites I didn’t mention, or some losers of your own?
Here’s a Hulu widget that lets you watch the Superbowl ads in HD…
Now here’s my top-10 list (you can also see Adweek for some coverage).
Number 10 was Coke’’s avatar ad– visually appealing and sentimental.
Number 9 may be the most quoted ad: “Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy” by Castrol. Annoying at first, but it grows on you like fine wine or oil sludge.
For spot 8… I don’t often like repeat campaigns but that eTrade baby did it again with talking babies.
Position 7 belongs to Dreamworks animated film “Monsters Verus Aliens” and the clips rocked even in 2D.
Number 6 belongs to CareerBuilder for reminding us that these symptoms may indicate it’s time to brush up the resume.
Number 5 goes to Denny’s who flip off iHop’s foo-foo pancakes. We need more Giggledrops, baby.
The fourth best ad belongs to Coke with its medley of animated insects. Ladybugs, like cows, sell.
The second greatest Superbowl ad this year goes to Pedigree Dogfood video, which features no dogs but will be the most talked about. Rhinos in cars? Common, peeps. If you didn’t laugh at that ad, check you funny pulse.Now for number 1: Miller Light’s “Deliver Guy” ad by Saatchi & Saatchi is the indesputable winner of pre and post game buzz. Windell Middlebrooks spent 17 hours taping these 1-second spots, and it worked.
Now the losers?
Spot 3 is the absurdly forced Gatorade ad featuring a collection of athletes and animated lizards. Puleez- 1996.
The second loser award goes to GoDaddy.com for still pitching hosting solutions with hot babes. That campaign is beaten to death, and is almost as bad as Peta’s banned veggie campaign. The absolute worst ad belongs to the biggest sellout since me. Ed McMahon’s Cash4Gold.comlong after we care.
Why watch the game, when you can catch all of the advertisements on these online-video sites? And hey- most of these ads don’t have any prerolls. That goodness Madison Avenue and the online-video sites are finally cooperating.
A YouTube for All of Us
As a community, we have come to count on each other to be entertained, challenged, and moved by what we watch and share on YouTube. We’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to make the collective YouTube experience even better, particularly on our most visited pages. Our goal is to help ensure that you’re viewing content that’s relevant to you, and not inadvertently coming across content that isn’t. Here are a few things we came up with:
* Stricter standard for mature content – While videos featuring pornographic images or sex acts are always removed from the site when they’re flagged, we’re tightening the standard for what is considered “sexually suggestive.” Videos with sexually suggestive (but not prohibited) content will be age-restricted, which means they’ll be available only to viewers who are 18 or older. To learn more about what constitutes “sexually suggestive” content, click here.
* Demotion of sexually suggestive content and profanity – Videos that are considered sexually suggestive, or that contain profanity, will be algorithmically demoted on our ‘Most Viewed,’ ‘Top Favorited,’ and other browse pages. The classification of these types of videos is based on a number of factors, including video content and descriptions. In testing, we’ve found that out of the thousands of videos on these pages, only several each day are automatically demoted for being too graphic or explicit. However, those videos are often the ones which end up being repeatedly flagged by the community as being inappropriate.
* Improved thumbnails – To make sure your thumbnail represents your video, your choices will now be selected algorithmically. You’ll still have three thumbnails to choose from, but they will no longer be auto-generated from the 25/50/75 points in the video index.
* More accurate video information – Our Community Guidelines have always prohibited folks from attempting to game view counts by entering misleading information in video descriptions, tags, titles, and other metadata. We remain serious about enforcing these rules. Remember, violations of these guidelines could result in removal of your video and repeated violations will lead to termination of your account.
The preservation and improvement of the YouTube experience is a responsibility we share. Let’s work together to ensure that the YouTube community continues to thrive as a positive place for all of us.
1. Why should videos be demoted on profanity alone? Why not just hide them for people not logged in and are 18 or older?
2. Some of YouTube’s most popular stars…Bo Burnham, Charles Trippy, sXePhil, Chris Crocker, Mark Day, etc…(name as many as you want) all have used profanity.
3. The new thumbnail idea sucks. Now what if none of the thumbnails are good?
4. YouTube sometimes features videos with profanity.
—————–
OK, now I finally understand YouTube’s “Stricter standard for mature content”
“Videos that are considered sexually suggestive, or that contain profanity, will be algorithmically demoted on our ‘Most Viewed,’ ‘Top Favorited,’ and other browse pages.”
A Pegasus-like horse-plus-man guy is hanging out in the shower talking about how he’s two things at once. It’s a creepy video ad, topped only by a creepier website that loops his voice.
I present you with the “double-impact” campaign for Old Spice’s Red Zone Body Wash Moisturizer. It’s based on the laziest marketing proposition ever: Trying to distinguish a product as being “two things in once” is like launching a car that appeals to “emotion and logic.” We haven’t heard that before.
It’s not unique, ownable or differentiating, and it’s made worse by the painfully dull and awkward creative… Not funny, somewhat disgusting, and memorable only in how freaky it is.
We give it the “WillVideoforFoodWorst Video Campaign of 2008″ award. I dare you to top it. Old Spice would have been better off maintaining its positioning as your grandfather’s deodorant.
And you have to love that the URL from the ad (which caught my eye on The Onion)…
That says a lot about the agency’s confidence in its banner redirect technology, doesn’t it? I dare the agency responsible for this to raise its hand. Anyone? Anyone?
I’ve had a few people tell me they click on my YouTube ads to help make me some money. However the ads are mostly “CPM,” or “cost per thousand.” So the advertiser pays a fixed amount (say $20) for 1,000 InVideo ads regardless of whether people engage or not. The clicks do nothing for me. I jokingly tell them to just hang out for long enough for the InVideo ad to complete rolling (20-30 seconds).
The advertiser typically conducts research to determine if those CPMs were valuable or not — looking at interaction rate, and doing test/control studies to see if/how the ads resulted in a different view or intent.
Did you seeing that ad make that brand more attractive to you?
Are you more likely to buy the product?
Did you buy the product, or planning to?
These questions are answered through studies like “Dynamic Logic” polls on YouTube or other sites. If you see one, take them seriously. Don’t lie, and recognize that it will help the advertiser determine if they’re spending their money wisely. That’s the sustainable requirement to free content online.
I really like Seth Godin’s ideas, and we once interacted when I was trying to get him to speak at Johnson & Johnson (alas our humble public relations budget couldn’t meet his justified speaking fees). His concepts have always inspired and provoked me, so I consider it interesting when the Sethinizer says something so in contraction to what I perceive as a marketing/content creation reality.
Via Online Video Watch, I found a recent Seth Godin (a marketing guru) post on “Ads are the new online tip jar.“ Had he been running Google ads (where advertisers pay Google and the website publisher a fixed amount per “click” like paid-search ads), Google might have justifiably terminated him for “click fraud.” If I had text ads based on the content of this post and used the terms “sex, lawsuit, digital camera — or other terms that advertisers bid high CPC prices” and I encouraged you to click them, then I’m gaming the system. The advertiser may get clicks, but those clicks are not likely to lead to purchase or material value.
A good advertiser will get brief euphoria about a high click rate, but an evolved marketer will look beyond them.
For instance, I judge all of my search-engine campaigns (for my marketing day job) based on the cost for 3-plus pages (a crude alternative to an overcomplicated “quality page view” method). If I paid $2 to get a visitor and they visited 3 or more pages on my brand website, I’d call that progress. We’re eventually moving to “closed loop” marketing where I can hold each media buy accountable to a “trial” purchase (as measured by unique codes on an downloadable offer). Then I won’t really care about my cost per impression or click. I can judge an ad buy based on what it cost me to generate a new trial for the product. If that’s $20-$50 I’m a happy camper (obviously my product’s lifetime value is worth more than that).
So what I’m getting at is this. The “online tip jar” will, in the short term, help web publishers make some quick money via Google Adwords and other programs. But ultimately if the clickers aren’t purchasing then the advertiser will discover that the ads are hurting them. The particular site is driving up their bid price and they’re paying for clicks that don’t result in page views, perceptions (as rated by Dynamic Logic studies) or purchase intent or transactions.
The Bottom line is this… the online tip jar is a short lived and superficial model.
What matters is that my content (written or video) attracts people that have common and somewhat predictable interests and purchase behaviors. Then I’ve got to align myself with advertisers that sell products that match my audience’s needs, wants and desires. That’s a sustainable win for me, the advertiser and the individuals that watch or read my stuff. Everything else is just “gaming the system.”
You didn’t even read this carefully, did you?
Hold on a second. I’m going to light a fart on fire. There. I’m back.
Time to test out your “is it real or fake” instincts. Watch this video where a random Verizon caller is surprised when that Verizon Wireless “Can You Hear Me Now” guy shows up with an army of Verizon people personifying the Verizon network.
Is it truly candid, or is our “victim” an actor?
Shaky camera
Genuine surprise and laughter from victim
Natural crowd reactions
Mercy, this looks like an amateur prank. This guy’s been punked by a big corporation with the world’s worst logo. Yey.
So, um, how’d they get a lavaliere microphone on the victim?
Isn’t Verizon lucky that one of the first things out of the victim’s mouth is, “it’s the network”? Yeah- That’s probably what I’d say to a friend, if a bunch of people in construction hats started following me. “It’s the network,” I’d say. I’d probably then work up a gag about reduced call drops and virtual tributaries that allow for ad/drop multiplexing of subrate traffic.
Lesson learned? This would have been a clever bit, but don’t dupe the viewer. Either the joke’s on the victim (the call recipient) or the joke’s on the bystanders (which would have been funny on its own). But this one makes me feel like the joke’s on me.
People are often trying to encourage me to mock a “candid” video, and even if you have a great actor like this guy (who laughs convincingly, which is extremely hard)… you can’t get away with the crunch because the crunch always gives you away.
Seriously. I couldn’t make something like that up. In case you don’t recognize the name, he’s the guy who wrote the TechCrunch article about how marketers can “game” YouTube with fake thumbnails, fake comments, et cetera. This blog called him the Wicked Witch of the West to my Glenda the Good Witch, and that’s something you don’t soon forget.
Dan- do you want me to renew the URL I parked (www.viralvideovillain.com) pointing to your LinkedIn page?
P.S. Y’all like the new masthead designed by The Most Excellent Gage Skidmore? He’s with Cosmic Flight.
Rhett and Link, comedic video amateurs, are mountaineering above the overhang of “The Great Cliff of New-Media Sponsored Advertising.” They’re harnessed to each other with a taut rope, knotted with creativity. The friends swing effortlessly to the next hold in a pendulum traverse. Rhett knows the objective danger as he firmly grabs his nub, and Link’s total attention is committed to spotting him. Their eyes lock, then gaze slowly down upon the falling spree at the mountain’s base. It would be a perilous drop to their death (is that ZeFrank’s skeleton?). But they both smile, knowing full well that they’ll live to see another climb.
[Editorial addition 6/20 9 pm EST: Rhett and Link have an insightful comment below] In their latest celebration of corporate sponsorship, the singing and acting duo present this hysterical video called “The Buffet Song.” It’s a song parody about all-you-can-eat buffets. Now there’s *every reason* I should have known this was a sponsored video:
It was clear on the video’s description and it was a reply to a video about the Alka Seltza tour.
I received this from them via e-mail, and it was explained as a video that it’s part of their of “Great American Road Trip Series” sponsored by Alka Seltzer.
Heck I even last week agreed via e-mail to meet them in Philly (Pat and Gino’s Cheesesteaks) for a video that they said was part of some Alka Seltzer series. They wrote, “It’s part of our Alka Seltzer road trip gig…. We’re still developing the angle so if you’re interested, you can weigh in as we develop it.” I took that as a fun challenge, and began soliciting others to collaborate. See- sometimes it’s not all about the money. Maybe they’ll have free samples.
But then, like, Yipes, Scoob… I opened this video above, and all of that awareness vanished — just like those pain pangs of overindulgence when met by a delciously effervescent glass of heartburn and indigestion medication.
In fact, I’d like to take you sequentially through my experience, which is something I can’t stand in a conversation. I’m always telling my wife, “you’re burying the lead again, Jo… I don’t need to know about how much change the post office gave you before the freak you saw on the way out. Just tell me about the freak.” But now I digress…
To read about my sequential experience wrapping my small brain around this video campaign, click MORE (bottom left corner of this blog – right above the “share” link”). Trust me, it’s worth it.
Kevin "Nalts" Nalty is one of the most-viewed YouTube comedians with nearly 800 short online videos seen more than 74 million times. He also consults with top brands to help them engage in social media & video (check www.NaltsConsulting), and is chief strategical officer at Hitviews.com.
You know you'll forget where this site is. So subscribe now to the posts via e-mail by clicking here. If you'd like to have Nalts' latest YouTube delivered right to your inbox, clik here
Twitter Visitor?
Nalts is one of the most-viewed online-video creators. Want proof?
A YouTube for All of Us
OK, now I finally understand YouTube’s “Stricter standard for mature content”
A Pegasus-like horse-plus-man guy is hanging out in the shower talking about how he’s two things at once. It’s a creepy video ad, topped only by a creepier website that loops his voice.
Via Online Video Watch, I found a recent Seth Godin (a marketing guru) post on “Ads are the new online tip jar.“ Had he been running Google ads (where advertisers pay Google and the website publisher a fixed amount per “click” like paid-search ads), Google might have justifiably terminated him for “click fraud.” If I had text ads based on the content of this post and used the terms “sex, lawsuit, digital camera — or other terms that advertisers bid high CPC prices” and I encouraged you to click them, then I’m gaming the system. The advertiser may get clicks, but those clicks are not likely to lead to purchase or material value.
Time to test out your “is it real or fake” instincts. Watch this video where a random Verizon caller is surprised when that Verizon Wireless “Can You Hear Me Now” guy shows up with an army of Verizon people personifying the Verizon network.
Rhett and Link, comedic video amateurs, are mountaineering above the overhang of “The Great Cliff of New-Media Sponsored Advertising.” They’re harnessed to each other with a taut rope, knotted with creativity. The friends swing effortlessly to the next hold in a pendulum traverse. Rhett knows the objective danger as he firmly grabs his nub, and Link’s total attention is committed to spotting him. Their eyes lock, then gaze slowly down upon the falling spree at the mountain’s base. It would be a perilous drop to their death (is that ZeFrank’s skeleton?). But they both smile, knowing full well that they’ll live to see another climb.
