Will Video for Food

Can a Search Engine Detect and Rank Comedy? Google Tries.

Nalts — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:53:20 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

The newest funny cat on YouTube says No No No No

Look out “I Are Cute Kitten.” There’s a new cat in town, and she says No No No No. And according to research it’s the funniest video out there.
Google is trying to create an algorithm that ranks a video in terms of humor/comedy. Here’s an article about the subject, and here’s a BBC World Service Radio interview I just did live on the topic. Humor is a difficult thing for a computer to detect, but I do think we can collect viewer reactions to draw conclusions.
I spoke last year at the International Society for Humor Studies (see presentation) and the academics and psychologists were having trouble agreeing on the constructs and classifications of humor. It’s a bit like sculpting fog to predict what makes us laugh.
Can Google do it? It is a company made up mostly of engineers. It won’t be an easy or precise task, but I won’t rule it out.
Naturally I DO think that humor can be researched based on human reactions. That’s why (as seen below) I always test my videos behind one-way glass with indepth interviews and focus groups.

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Ferris Bueller Movie Highligts Moshed With Broderick’s Superbowl Ad

Nalts — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:23:31 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

You’ve seen the Ferris Bueller homage that promoted Honda during the Superbowl. Now watch Michael Broderick “then and now” as he delivers key lines in both the Superbowl ad and the film.
Be sure to check out all the advertisement’s “Easter egg” subtle nods to the film.

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

YouTube Statistics for 2012

Nalts — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:36:58 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Time Magazine provided a rather exhaustive review of YouTube’s past, present and future. Check out the full article, titled “The Beast With a Billion Eyes” (a title, no doubt, with Shakespearean roots). Some highlights:

This is the first ever coverage of YouTube that failed to mention Shaycarl or Olgakay.

The piece cites the age-old quote that every minute that passes in real time, 60 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube, and then plays with the math (more video uploaded in past month than three big TV networks in the past 60 years).

YouTube gets 4,000,000,000 page views a day, which adds up to 1,000,000,000,000 a year.

The author creates the mock YouTube video title, “LOLOLOLOL this thing is amazeballs!!!!!!!”

YouTube recently enlarged the thumbnail images very slightly. “That change alone increased clicks to the Watch page by 2%,” said Margaret Gould Stewart, director of user experience.

On the efforts to boost channels (versus individual videos): Where there used to be two units of organization on YouTube–a single video and the 1 billion video collection–now there’s something in between.

YouTube has 800,000,000 users (about the same as Facebook) who watch 3,000,000,000 hours of video a month. But even one of the most-subscribed guys, RayWilliamJohnson, has 5.3 million subscribers. So that could suggest that the number of users who actually subscribe is in the low single digits.

Average viewing session remains a low 15 minutes (compared to hours of television binging).

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Bunny Rounds Up Sheep (video)

Nalts — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:15:36 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

A rabbit can scare sheep? Thanks to Weird Universe for sharing this delightful video of a little bunny rounding up sheep. Seems a German channel posted this just days ago…

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

VlogBrother, Nerdfighter John Green Publishes “The Fault in Our Stars”

Nalts — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:09:22 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

John Green's latest novel covers the topic of cancer with humor and emotion

I picked up the Feb. 6 Time Magazine (another recent issue of Time provided a nice summary of YouTube recently), and what did I find? A review by Lev Grossman of John Green’s new book titled “The Fault in Our Stars.”
It’s nice to see a YouTube weblebrity get some coverage in a national magazine, and the review was quite favorable. “In fact it is damn near genius,” Grossman writes. “It has been years since this jaded critic has shed tears over a novel, but I will cop to crying over this one.” The young-adult story is about two teenagers who have cancer, and their battle.

The title is based on the twist of Shakespeare reference, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars.” That’s now effectively doubled my Brutus quotes. Et tu?

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

The Viral Video Whisperer (Forbes)

Nalts — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:10:35 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Let’s just get this right out… this post is going to be narcissistic. And I recognize that’s not good for my health (US News Health).

Michael Humphrey of Forbes.com continues his series of YouTube personalities with an article about me titled, “Nalts: The Viral Video Whisperer Talks YouTube Dominance, Audience Analysis And Cats.”

Click image for Forbes article

Sample paragraphs for you peeps who are too lazy to click the link:

It might surprise you that the man who wrote the book that kick-started many online video careers, and who advocated for his inclusion in the Partners Program, does not choose to make a career of YouTube. He is a marketing professional, who also has happened to score close to a quarter-billion video views on the side.

That unique combination comes together in Nalty’s “Beyond Viral,” a book intended to help brands build loyalty in an ecosystem where the single vlogger may have the advantage.

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Most Prerolls on YouTube Can Now Be Skipped

Nalts — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:12:52 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

In an interesting update on the preroll formats on the world’s largest video site, Gigaom reports that 60% of prerolls are “skippable.” After 5 seconds the viewer can jump past the ad, and advertisers pay nothing.

The piece also quoted CEO Larry Page as saying that growth wouldn’t necessarily come at the expense of TV budgets, as advertisers generally weren’t shifting spend from other parts of their video budgets when committing to YouTube.

Some notes on this:

This means that only 40% of ads are traditional 30-second prerolls.

Video creators (Partners) gain no revenue from this format except when viewers sit through the whole ad (like a movie trailer).

I’d expect the majority are skipped.

The videos command a higher “cost per view” than YouTube would receive for forced banners.

I would suspect that advertisers are penalized (with maybe a higher cost per view) if the ads are viewed far under the average. This is how paid search works, where advertisers must pay a higher cost-per-click when the URL is deemed less relevant (as observed from bounce and return)

The implication to marketers is clear: get your message into the first 5 seconds, and compel viewers to stay (using entertainment instead of straight promotion).

Superbowl advertisers get ready: this is a powerful way to amplify TV spends

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Should Agencies Fear Others Making Video Spots?

Nalts — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:38:28 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

It’s time to change the way advertising agency holding companies source video content. First some background:

Advertising agency holding companies ignored the web for 5-10 years, allowing a flurry of website production companies to evolve into full-service “digital agencies of record.” They finally developed small web agencies internally, and then realized they needed to acquire some of these web boutiques (and eventually integrate them). Media buyers paid little attention to paid search until they finally realized they’d need to buy small paid-search firms or the talent from within them.

Now we’re seeing ad networks creating content that’s being used for television (see Break/Sony story in Adage). That should be a wakeup call for agencies who feel threatened when ads are developed by separate vendors. After all, the “agency of record” usually knows more about the brand’s goals, and is the uniting force of the creative.

As a marketer I’m interested in a unifying campaign, but not opposed to an occasional smart deal like this (which cost Sony nothing since Break Media did it for free). In the extreme it can become chaotic to manage, however.

So the agencies roll continues to change. Instead of the strategy/planning team sourcing video production to high-priced partners (with whom they’ve developed long-standing relationships), it’s probably time to expand the network to include boutiques that have little access to brands. Or even semi-pro one-man shops. I’m doing a pilot with Poptent to explore this model now (the company sends my brief to a variety of creators and I buy the videos I like for a cost that’s a tiny fraction of what I’d pay for a full blown ad shoot). The agency’s response? “You get what you pay for.” However I think I’ll do better.

The lesson is this: we’ve got a fragmentation of the web, and no shortage of devices and target consumer segments. So we need more variations of video content, and that can’t drive our “non-working” budget up dramatically. Otherwise our “working media” suffers. I hope agencies will recognize this fact, and step up to the plate. They can forge new relationships that keep them relevant, bring costs down, and reduce the workload of brands to pursue these solo (which does take some time and effort).

Common large agencies: The time is now. Please get comfortable with lower cost production, and source beyond the $100-$500K productions that then result in bastardize prerolls that are derivative from TV shoots. Let’s try different models for online-video ads, and see if we’ll sometimes get something that isn’t just cost effective… but so fresh that it can be used more broadly.

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

Tablet Viewing is 30% Higher Than Desktop (and more stats on online-video viewing by device)

Nalts — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:24:55 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

I just discovered a report published late last year on video trends observed in the 3rd quarter 2011 (ending Sept. 30). It seems we watch 30% more video when on an iPad (versus desktop). Ooyala, a service provider to media companies, tracks a mess of activity and provides some nice signals in this report (see PDF). The company defines “conversion” as the percent of videos viewed against those displayed. I’d estimate these to be rather small (low single digits) on YouTube. But the publisher sites seem to be doing much better, with 40% to 60%. Game players take the lead with 60% which is remarkable, but probably a function of fewer content choices.

I really like this visual of the complete rate by form factor. It confirms what we’ve been saying about our tolerance for longer form when on devices beyond desktop.

Our complete rate varies fairly significant by device

P.S. Here’s some cheese.

Do you Hunker for a Chunk of Cheese?

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

CES to Illuminate Future of ITV

Nalts — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:58:17 +0000

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com

As the Consumer Electronic Show approaches, the “pre-game” show includes some buzz about Internet Television (ITV). We’re beginning to see better signs of a more mainstream evolution from “lean forward” to “lean back” consumption of video. It’s a race from the office to the living room and bedroom.
Even “post Jobs,” Apple is the most common buzz beneficiary. But a recent USAToday piece confirmed the challenges Apple has had with securing content deals — a far cry from how the company mobilized in the music industry:

“The problems Apple is having securing content deals were described in an interview with a person who worked in the Apple TV group and verified by two television industry sources.”
The trailblazer has been GoogleTV/Samsung, and Microsoft continues with its Xbox approach. While the Rokus and Tivos were early movers, I’d expect the true rivalry to ultimately occur between television manufacturers and cable providers, since “it’s a race to the living room.” While early adopters are comfortable with alternative devices and streaming from their computers, most Americans are overwhelmed with the prospect of using any device that’s not “standard issue” by their cable provider. But most televisions are now coming with web access, and that’s underexploited capacity.
Back to Apple after its lackluster AppleTV launch. Can it reinvent? The good news for Apple and other players is that we seem to be adding more TVs per family than ever.
“I do expect Apple to make an attempt,” says Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, “since I expect the living room to remain a center for family entertainment, and that touches on all areas of consumer products that Apple is already making.”

By Kevin Nalty, http://www.willvideoforfood.com