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.
How Many of the 10 Billion Videos Viewed in February Did YOU Watch? April 17, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Future of Online Video, Online Video, Video Business, Video Sites, Viral Video, YouTube , 6comments
We watched 10 billion videos in February, according to ComScore yesterday. That’s a 66 percent gain from February 2007, and apparently about 73 percent of people online are watching videos. Which means the other 15 percent are losers that are too busy brushing up on their math skills.
35 percent of this activity is on Google/YouTube, followed by about 6 percent by Fox and 3 percent by Yahoo. So if you want the “long tail,” go diggin’ into some of the big-media entities that top the list with one percent share.
I’ll be on YouTube.
It’s Your Fault if You’re Bored Online April 17, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Blogs on Video, Future of Online Video, Online Video, Video Business, popular videos , 6comments
Now it’s your fault if you’re bored online and can’t find anything good to watch (besides Nalts crap).
Tilzy.tv aggregates and lists a lot of the top episodic programming, and may especially helpful as a transition drug to online-video. Especially for you noobs who still think television is more interesting.
The name, branding and tagline “guide to television on the web” a oddly retro, but that’s the point we suppose.
Good content as well as stories, like this recent news about Rabbit Bites getting sponsored by Purina. You go, Bunns and Chou Chou!
The Best of Cats on Skateboards (YouTube Advertising) April 8, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Nalts, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, YouTube, advertising , 23commentsIt’s the biggest myth of online-video advertising. If a brand advertises on YouTube it will appear with consumer-generated media that includes such content as cats on skateboarders. TVweek’s “New Media Minute,” hosted by Daisy Whitney, featured a recent interview with YouTube’s Jordan Hoffner to set the record straight (via WebVideoReport).
Naturally I couldn’t resist a parody that includes Hoffner’s “that never happens” quote in a montage of nostalgic ads mixed with cat’s skateboarding. Here’s hoping Hoffner can laugh at the parody. I’m a YouTube Partner (paid content creator), but I didn’t monetize this puppy, Jordan.
Media Stereotypes Online-Video Clichés April 5, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Blogs on Video, Killer Video, Making Videos, Online Video, Video, Video Business, Viral Video, YouTube, popular videos , 23commentsThere’s no question that traditional media tends to characterize online video — and YouTube in particular — as a cute fad. Certainly the bulk of the stories are about the “one hit wonders,” Internet clichés, and sensational hits like Chris Crocker, Sneezing Pandas, laughing babies and Star Wars Kid.
When I saw some recent Comedy Central parodies, I actually got a little frustrated that comedy writers are captivated with the drama prairie dog, and misses the more interesting trends:
- Amateurs are gaining very active, loyal audiences. Watch the “highest rated” videos of the day, and you’ll see a collection of creators that live on this list. They have relatively small but extremely devoted audiences.
- Artists that create paintings and eBay them. Communities meeting together. Daily webisodes that are more succinct and appealing than much of television.
- Some creators, despite conventional wisdom, aren’t on a rapid pursuit of scoring television shows either. A few are making comfortable livings (six figure and up) and enjoy the creative freedom that only online video can provide.
The boys on Southpark were right that the distribution channel is still far from a mature monetization model. But it’s getting more interesting and obviously an important trend and not a fad.
As I was thinking about all this, I felt compelled to spoof my somewhat defensive reaction. So here’s me taking this argument to an absurd extreme. Attacking media for stereotypes, only to resort to groveling for an SNL deal with Lauren Michaels.
Survey of Video Advertising Rates April 2, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Video Advertising, Video Business, Video Sites, YouTube, advertising , 7commentsWeb Video Report polled a number of online-video outlets, and it seems that $25 CPM (cost per thousand) is the norm, with slight variances based on the quality and “targetability” of the content. After a quick scan, you’ll get insights from the comments by Mike Abundo and Paul Kontonis.
Is Yahoo TV Closing or Widening Chasm Between Online Video & Television? March 25, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Money, Making Videos, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, Yahoo Video, YouTube, advertising , 13comments
Which online-video site is mostly likely to be part of the bridge between television and the Internet? You can fault the model, and question it’s sustainability. But Yahoo TV is well poised to leverage its partnerships with Verizon and TiVo to start serving its bite-sized video content via television sets equipped with broadband boxes.
Take, for example, Yahoo TV’s “Prime Time in No Time,” a show hosted by Frank Nicotero that recaps the prior evening’s television shows. It’s interesting on at least two levels:
- It appeals to TV junkies. I’m not sure there’s a market for general prime-time recaps (since audiences tend to form around tighter niches). But it’s clearly targeted at TV viewers who maybe need some hand holding to start consuming via Yahoo’s mini-TV play. With some prime time promotion, I can see this audience growing.
- The ad model is interesting. Verizon gets a brief intro (not a preroll that I noticed), some banner wrap-arounds, and even a logo tucked nicely in the host’s corner frame. It’s dominant without being obtrusive.
So we’re still in the infancy of the “TV and online video” collision, which is clearly going to take much more time than we hoped. I’m far less interested in television administered in once-a-day pills (instead of intravanious drips). I find the more fascinating side to be the amateur creators gaining broader exposure than they currently get (assuming they’re good enough, and have consistent content that appeal to steady audiences even if relatively small).
While YouTube is still better poised for the latter, Yahoo comes at the web more like AOL: looking more like TV on the computer than web video as most consume it now. So we see less and more polished content, but fairly superficial interaction between the content and its audience. It’s still “one to many” unlike the magic of online video “many to many” play.
It’s Amazon not eBay.
As an example, one of my few popular videos on Yahoo has 90K views but just 90 comments. While one in a thousand comment on Yahoo Video, most of my YouTube videos get 1-2 percent of viewers commenting. My Mac Air spoof got 27K views with 13 comments, while the same Mac Air spoof on YouTube got 374K views and 1564 comments.
Typically the initial online successes are “pure plays” and not an offline entity moving in. This is true with almost any industry: gaming, retail, travel and media. But it will take a few failures along the way. YahooTV is bringing TV and online video ever so slightly closer together — even if it ends up being a log over the river.
Note that Yahoo Video (the quasi amateur section) still exists, but it’s not part of the primary menu on Yahoo. In fact, I almost gave up in my search for it, so it’s not likely drawing in many Yahoo users (Alexa won’t let me isolate http://video.yahoo.com/ from Yahoo.com, so I don’t know how it’s fairing). The featured videos seem to get paltry views relative to YouTube features, and even the Yahoo Video Awards blog post has just 35 comments 4 days after announced (by contrast, most top 100 YouTubers get that kind of views and interactions within an hour of posting).
P.S. Updated 3/27: Check out what InsideOnlineVideo has to say about Yahoo.
Why Media Buyers Are Stunting the Growth of Online Video March 21, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : AOL, Future of Online Video, Killer Video, Making Money, Making Videos, Nalts, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, Viral Video, YouTube, advertising, marketing, popular videos , 9commentsBalding 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
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.
Exposed: Big Media’s Bias Against Online Video March 1, 2008
Posted by Nalts in : Making Videos, Online Video, Video Business , 17comments
I was interviewed Friday by a major U.S. television network on the subject of online video, and caught some footage of the reporter’s loaded questions and biased reporting. You’ll hear how he tries to shape the discussion to confirm his own belief that online video is crap, and that big media will continue its reign. See it on YouTube, where it’s titled “Big Media Lies!”
The footage was shot documentary style, so the reporter is off camera and I’m against a green screen. Be sure to watch the “debrief” video before you render judgment but after watching the first one.
P.S. Leave the shoes alone, Sukatra.