Tag Archives: amateur

Online Video

Sorry Weblebrities. Traditional Media Has Ad Value Density.

15 Comments
YouTube is betting that stars like J-Z can attract audiences and "ad value density" (advertisers will pay more per view than amateur webstars)

Weblebrities, also known as amateur “web stars,” are like the Gaddafi loyalists. They’re not done fighting, but odds favor Libya’s National Transitional Council headed by Abdurrahim el-Keib. (Sure he’s a former electrical engineering professor from the University of Alabama, but he’s the country’s interim prime minister).

The new regime of YouTube is The National Transitional Council of Professional Content, and it’s fortified by something more precious than allies, arms and cash. It has the online-video equivalent of nuclear weapons: “Ad Value Density.”

“Ad Value Density” is a phrase used by Michael Humphrey of Forbes when challenging some conclusions in Revision3’s Jim Louderback AdAge article (the piece gave some “watch outs” to old media entering new media land). Ad Value Density means the content can command a premium spend by advertisers, who are skittish about having their ads surround “consumer generated content,” and feel warm ‘n safe placing ads adjacent to content by real celebrities and network content.

Ad Value Density means, from a financial standpoint, a view’s not a view’s not a view. YouTube’s financial interest is to propagate content that meets the following criteria:

  1. It generates the most revenue: the high ad-value density for professional content means advertisers will pay a premium to surround that content… making each view on YouTube more profitable.
  2. The content will draw larger audiences who return frequently. If they follow the Golden Rule of web content: create constant content.
  3. It generates the most revenue.

Repetition by intent. Professional content will increasingly dominate YouTube, and that will draw larger and more profitable advertising spends. It makes good business sense for GoogleTube. As online-video begins to merge with television, Google wants to be The Distribution Platform. That means it needs content sought after by the unwashed masses who don’t yet use YouTube daily.

What’s not clear is how cable TV will respond. It turns out they’re the current platform, and have a strong-hold on most households with proprietary boxes and bundled channels that would be cost-prohibitive if sold “ala cart.”

In the meantime, it’s a continuous gentle fade for the weblebrities, except the fierce ones who morph with the medium… aligning with studios, securing cash from Google’s $100 million paid to professional content providers.

YouTube's Content Priorities

We’re seeing four tiers of content providers emerge, and YouTube placing a sharp emphasis on the top of the pyramid…

  • Pro: Celebrities and professionally produced content (premium advertising due to “ad value density”)
  • Top 100 Weblebrities: The leading YouTube stars (decent ads, and placement for a while)
  • Partners: Declining emphasis as documented in my previous post (lower ad value)
  • Consumer content with monetization: This is the “long tail,” and YouTube in past months has been working aggressively to monetize even tiny accounts (see proof). Here we’ll see mostly tiny CPMs and CPCs from some of the lesser known advertisers looking for cheap leads.

Nobody’s going to die quickly, but all signals suggest YouTube/Google is shifting its emphasis — from web originals and amateur “weblebrities” to celebrities and large content providers. Why? The latter has the potential of attracting people who aren’t using YouTube, and Google apparently believes it will have them coming back again (if they heed Louderback’s suggestion about creating content frequently). Simply put, higher on the pyramid the higher the “ad value density,” right?

Finally don’t underestimate the Gaddafi Weblebrity regime. Sxephil and others have already secured placement in the pro camp. The fierce creators may be able to segway their web fame into long-form content.

Online Video

Interview With Al, YouTube’s Algorithm Monster

9 Comments

We at WillVideoforFood were honored to be granted the first interview with Al, YouTube’s Algorithm Monster. Al makes critical determinations about what videos get seen, which subscribers see what content, what videos are placed as “related video,” and what videos are “spotlighted” throughout the site. He recently took many amateur creators down to 25% of the views they had this summer, effectively dropping their income by the same amount.

Al, YouTube's Algorithm owner, is seen here in his San Bruno Apartment where he has been sad and depressed.

WVFF: How are you, Al?

AL: Al scared and not happy. Very sad.

WVFF: Why?

AL: Al made changes for YouTube bosses to make people stay on YouTube longer. It work. YouTube visits increase in duration by .0005%.  But Al accidentally punished amateurs. Now amateurs upset with Al. They come to Al’s swamp with torches.

WVFF: Can’t you change them back?

Al: Al no make backward changes only forward. Evolve not devolve.

WVFF: So how about a forward change that keeps independent content creators steady on their views.

Al: Why Al do that?

WVFF: I don’t know. It seems it would keep independent creators motivated and loyal, and ensure that YouTube has content that can’t be seen on TV or other places.

Al: YouTube masters told me professional content more important. We go professional. No more cats and vloggers. We go “2 and a Half Men.” Me do what told.

WVFF: Al. Do you honestly think YouTube is poised to compete with networks and cable companies? That’s waging war, and it’s not what people want via online video yet.

Al: Al sad. Eyes leaking.

WVFF: Why, Al?

Al: Because you right. But masters at YouTube tell Al what to do. Al get blamed. They hurt Al.

WVFF: Sometimes, Al, you’ve got to show uncommon courage… doing what you know is right, not what people are asking you to do.

Al: Al feel better now. Al make it fair for amateur creators again. Al not want video creators sad like Al.

WVFF: Thanks for your time, Al. Just one final question.

Al: Yes, Nalts.

WVFF: How do you make changes to the algorthym while you’re in this swamp?

Al: Al only do interviews, poop, and sleep in swamp. Al walk to YouTube campus and bathe. Then Al make program changes.

Online Video

How To Direct Childran in Video (without crew)

3 Comments

So you’re a parent making an amateur video, and you don’t have a crew. You want to get the best out of the kids, but you know they’ve got the patience and attention of a fruit fly (a trait they inherited from someone). Here are some tips.

In the sample videos, both promotions, my children were generally not delivering their solo lines with their siblings. It’s too hard to keep them all together for more than 10 minutes, and they make each other laugh. So I shoot wide shots first, then take them one-one-one for individual lines. Then I edit longer lines — using “cutaway” shots so you don’t realize the entire line wasn’t read at once. The cutaways allow you to believe the kids are still gathered together.

Here are some other pointers…

• Have all props ready
• Get tripod and lighting together- best if daylight
• Incent kids (but best not to bribe); give them a time limit (15 min)
• Ask if they cam commit to that time (a verbal yes increases odds). I never like to impose or threaten them.
• Shoot all wide shots first (group ones)
• Stay off tripod for tight shots- allows spontaneity and motion shots
• Give them a cue (go!) and ask them to wait one second
• Feed them lines in tone you want delivered
• Break long lines us, and use cutaway
• If they mess up, encourage, keep rolling, do again
• When they get a line right, praise them (avoid fake praise)
• Allow for improv lines and moments
• When shooting individually, get cutaway shots of them looking in direction of other kids (even if they’ve wandered off)

Spontaneity. You can’t script lines like the horse/car and “old fashioned hot dog” lines in the video below. Most of the time my kids provide me better stuff than I could script. If you select “more” you’ll see the script of a video called “Couch Digging.” In this, the kids keep pulling out stranger things from the couch cushions. I’m too wacked on medicine to patiently shoot this right now, and I’m hoping Katie (age 13) will direct it and I can edit it. I know the best lines and shots will be spontaneous like Grant’s lines in Dr. Who below.

Storyboarding. Don’t know, don’t do it. I barely script.

 

Online Video

Poptart Taps Top YouTube Musicians

9 Comments

Credit to Poptart for tapping the two most-subscribed YouTube musicians: DaveDays and VenetianPrincess, and for taking over the homepage to promote the campaign (exhibit A). Let’s look objectively as possible at this campaign to see what worked and didn’t…

Interactive YouTube Banner Promotes Poptarts Via DaveDays & VenetianPrincess

The homepage takeover caught my attention first, even though I’m subscribed to both of these musicians and enjoy their work. Had Poptart not included them in the homepage ad, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the ad and certainly wouldn’t have looked further.

While the YouTube pop-tart channel isn’t seeing loads of views or positive ratings (see exhibit B below)…

Presumably designed to provide continuity and increase branding and engaging, Kellogg commissioned some more highly produced videos. These did not score as well (see comments, views, ratings and comment clouds)

…VenetianPrincess and DaveDays are getting a more positive reaction on the videos they create and distribute on their channel.

For instance, here’s the score on DaveDays video seen more than 750,000 times. Nearly 80 percent gave this video a “thumb’s up,” which is just slightly lower than recent ratings of his non-promotional videos.

Nearly 80 Percent Thumbs Up (for the DaveDays video).

What worked:

  • Kellogg did a great job tapping people who are already known on YouTube, and it certainly cost them less than getting stars.
  • The videos, as evidenced by views and ratings, were better received than ads.
  • The homepage takeover page helped drive views and brand engagement. It’s important to couple webstars with a media buy since neither alone is as effective.

What could it improve?

  • The biggest problem this campaign faces is that it’s completely dependent on the talent and their musicians. The notion of a “battle on taste” is devoid of any humor, or “reason to engage” with the brand or its channel. These two are capable of far funnier musical parodies (check out Dave’s Miley videos or Jody’s song parodies for proof). So presumably they were not given great direction or creative freedom.
  • I’m not sure the expense on the “play-by-play” transition videos was worthwhile, unless it cost a lot less to shoot than it appears. It might have been better to toss in another YouTuber, and have them figure out a more organic way to connect the videos and work in the branding.  Those promotional videos got hosed on ratings and comments (see below):
Poptart's Videos, by Contrast, Got Low Views and Poor Ratings
Online Video

A New Model for Producing Television & Online-Video Ads

8 Comments

Okay get a coffee and sit down. This is one of my important posts. You’ll learn in this one post more than you learned in that stupid communications major (the sender sends messages, and the receiver receives them). I switched majors the day I realized half of the women in my Freshman 101 communications class wanted to be the next Oprah.

Now traditional advertisers and commercial production shops don’t much like the notion of online video ads (especially consumer created) because they prefer to shoot $500,000 commercials in lovely locations. It’s one of the perks of selling your soul to agencies. And I’ve got friends that bemoan the future of television spots as they adore the romantic trip to Europe (to film a pool that looks remarkably like one in a New Jersey suburb).

Alas, advertisers and their favorite commercial directors need not fear online video! While we marketers may request fewer $500K commercials, we’ll still need good content. Lots of it. Instead of one Superbowl spot, however, we’ll want an assortment of creative ads that appeal to our various and fragmenting audiences. So we need to get our cost-per-produced-minute down by 50% or more. And I’m not talking about amortizing the shoot by rotating three actors: a white guy, one hispanic gal, and a slightly overweight Asian transgender.

We ideally want to tailor the ad content to the medium. I was thrilled to see V’s debut (the television show) with a character on YouTube’s homepage that actually mentioned YouTube. Hey, she belongs here. Check out this Louisiana hot sauce spot by pro-amateur Jared Cicon (embedded below), and if you drool over it like I do… check out the rest of his reel. Is it Superbowl material? Maybe not, but it would cost about the same as a single ticket to the game. And I think if Jared (who conveniently puts himself in most of his spots) would probably have just the same Q rating as the best-looking transgender Asian your talent agency could find.

We have two important forces at work: advertisers need MORE video content to participate in the 30-40% growth of spending on this channel. And we have lower-cost options like Jared that do damned good work. So what’s the solution? Wel you have three choices:

  1. First, large production shops — with pricey directors and overbaked sets — can dial down their costs for the medium. I’ve talked to at least 5 production companies that are adjusting their model to bring budgets down (on a shoot for a magazine ad photo, I was happy to see wardrobe with 90 clothing options from Gap that they’d return the next day for a credit).
  2. The other option is for advertisers to put work “out to bid” to a new swarm of directors with minimal costs but talent (that won’t impact the veteran directors, is awesome for the noobs, and probably scares the hell out of the rest). Use a clearinghouse like Poptent.org, or go direct to people like Jared.
  3. Finally, advertisers can run a contest. However I don’t like to see online ads for contests like the Dove blitz. I feel like the advertiser should be selling the product not wasting it on reaching those of us that enter video contests (although they get points for trying to engage the audience). Ultimately most contests get minimal participation, and why not just reach out to ringers — especially if they have an audience online.

Mind you, Jared or PopTent offer advertisers low-cost but remarkable production quality via amateurs. What you won’t get, of course, is an audience. That’s why Hitviews, who contracts with “weblebrities” who already have an audience, makes more sense for some… you get a decent video, and fairly guaranteed views. Or, as I wrote about yesterday, you could bid for product placement on Placevine or Zadby.

By the way, I like an online-video contest that rewards the cat who drives the most views or votes, and Jared likes the ones where quality actually matters to the judges. He’s got talent and I have an audience. In the end, Jared always wins and I get a free f’ing Slurpy coupon.

In 2010 smart advertisers will commission work for less than the cost of an agency dinner. And here’s the part you say “hooray!” First, we can skip 45-stages of market research, and just flight the damned partially executed concepts and learn from them. How’s that for a dislodging that kidney stone? Maybe “ready, go, set” is better than “ready, ready, ready, ready, set, set, set…” Second, we can finally determine if the ad worked because of the messaging or the creative… because we can test multi-varied approaches.

What the hell do I know about research? I’m not even sure I used multi-varied approaches correctly. But I can tell you that I spent an assload of my employers’ money to test three sets of creative, and still wonder if we’d have been better off with a different execution of one of the alternative campaigns that died in market research maybe because the headline or image didn’t resonate with those pretend consumers that spend 50% of their life behind a two-way mirror for cash.

Can I hear an AMEN!?

Now you’ll flight 20 ads online, and take the crappy half out to pasture. See? Maybe we can finally kill that stupid quote: “half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I don’t know what half.” It’s about as cute as “Hang on Baby, Friday’s Coming.”

P.S. Some of you will love this ad, and some of you will hate it. But good news. Some day Google will save you the trouble of ignoring an ad or moaning over it… you’ll only see the ones you love.

Online Video

An Online-Video Contest Crisis Begs for Better Model

34 Comments

I’ve written quite a bit about online-video contests as a win-win for producers and brands. Unless the agency insists on a giant microsite and excessive media buy, these give brands access to novel creative executions at a great price. And amateur producers can use it to promote their work, and make some bucks.

My support of Xlntads/Poptent is in hopes the startup can bridge the gap between brands (otherwise paying $200,000-$1,000,000 on TV spots in hopes they’ll land well) and the abundance of creative, talented directors who lacks the connections to become a candidate for a major shoot.

So I was rather surprised to see Jared, aka VideoContestKing (see blog) announce that he’s turning down more than $3,000 of prize money because it makes little economic sense for him. Jared, unlike me, has a television-quality production style and that comes with costs that can’t be offset with a year’s supply of Cheetos.

Last week,” said Jared, “I received and email from Right.Org informing me that I had placed 2nd and 7th with two of my video submissions to their contest. The total amount of prize money was $3,034.00. A tidy sum…but not enough for the job. I decided not to sell my creative property at the price point offered by Right.Org.

Here’s one of Jared’s entries, and you can certainly envision it on television:


Jared goes into great detail about his rationale and why it sets a bad precedent for someone making his income on producing television commercials and high-end content. It makes me wonder if Poptent.net can serve a higher niche (certainly that’s Poptent CEO Neil Perry’s vision). In the future, brands will (I strongly believe) engage lower-cost directors and develop a sleuth of TV-ready spots… then they’ll test them without the exhaustive research & revision process that currently goes results in cost-intensive commercial production (insight research, creative platform, message testing, concept testing, final execution). At the end of that process, sadly, we marketers and agencies never quite know if the ad fails or succeeds based on the insight, message approach, or creative execution. But what if you instead contracted with 6-12 producers, and tested numerous treatments online (not just asking “did the consumer like it and remember it?” but “did it increase your propensity to purchase?”

Risks are reduced, costs are minimized, risk is mitigated, and the final ad (whose director would get an additional premium for granting TV rights) would be more effective. Jared and I exchanged e-mails on this issue tonight, and he’s given me permission to share some of his thoughts. If you click “more” in this post, you can see some of the dialogue we’ve had. What do you think? Should Jared accept what he’s been awarded, or stand his ground with hopes of making a point?

Continue reading An Online-Video Contest Crisis Begs for Better Model →

book, Online Video

Amateur Commercial Beats Agency Ads in Superbowl

24 Comments

It’s not the first year a Superbowl ad was produced by an amateur (source: Advertising Age report on USAToday poll).

But this year’s $2000.00 commercial featuring a crystal ball getting tossed into a Doritos machine beat many of the Madison-created commercials. It’s a good day for companies like Poptent/Xlntads, which contract with amateurs to produce TV and web commercials. The folks that produced the Doritos spot (see video below) have been awarded a million-dollar contract as a result. Not bad. I still like mine better, not that I’m biased.

Carla McLeod, CMO of Zeta Interactive, a digital agency that monitors buzz, said that “Free Doritos” was also the best-performing Super Bowl ad in the blogosphere. Not only did the spot have the most posts in hours following the game, but nearly 90% of the posts were positive. “People thought it was a fun, memorable ad,” she said. “It really resonated with that audience.”

In related news, the video I posted featuring my top-1o Superbowl 2009 commercials has been viewed 240,000 times in the past 24 hours (more than 6 times the number of people than fit into the stadium for yesterday’s Superbowl), and this blog has been viewed in the past 24 hours more than ever before– in fact 4x the second highest day. Oh I’m not bragging, mind you. Nope. Just letting you know the thirst remains high for Superbowl ad buzz.

advertising, book

Winning Doritos Superbowl Commercial

32 Comments

You won’t likely see this 30-second consumer-generated video in the Superbowl, but I decided to enter the contest anyway. I named this entry “winning commercial” for Google’s spiders not for you. It’s really a loser.

If I was smart, I’d focus on nailing another poorly promoted contest, instead of tossing my hat into this crowded ring.

Feel free to watch this video 9 times so that it makes it to the “most viewed” gallery. 🙂

Kudos to the agency for giving each entry a unique URL instead of the typical bloated flash website that has no way to direct link into a specific video.

The few videos I’ve viewed on the website’s gallergy pretty much suck, but as the deadline of early November approaches the semi-pros will storm the website with killer ads. Some of the entries last year looked like professional producers or agencies looking to get a big break. Here’s the best one so far (although the sex, TV, Doritos is a bit cliche, the payoff and execution is good).

Hey, good point there Nalts. There should be criteria. You qualify only if:

  1. you spend less than 3 hours from concept to uploading,
  2. you have the same person writing, shooting and editing, and
  3. your camera cost no more than $1000.

I suppose I should enter separately the footage of my kids (these two kids are not mine, but I rented them to play to Doritos target demo) scrounging up the dropped Doritos like pigeons at a park.

If my co-worker Mike is reading this, he can kiss my ass with his comments about how I should have used fishing line and a Doritos on a pencil so it’s spinning even on the crane shot (in which I use a pool net to have the camera in the air). Kiss my ass, Mike. Where’s your stupid entry with the guy in college who lives on Doritos and has furniture made of Doritos. That’s almost as bad as some of these other hopefuls.

 

Online Video

Amateur Versus Professional Video on YouTube: What’s Next?

18 Comments

Slowly the top 100 YouTube “most subscribed” channels are professional content providers. But sxephil (a YouTube amateur who blogs about daily news) maintains that the amateurs “are the future” and YouTube should pay more attention to them, rather than become a Hulu.

I explore this debate in my video today… Also note a new trick I’m experimenting with at the end of the video. I run a few seconds of black and then add some links to other videos that are related or that I want to promote. You won’t see those unless you have “annotations” turned on.

A few of the links at the end of this video aren’t mine. But this technique is a smart way to keep people viewing your content, rather than selecting the random video that might appear over the player as “related.” One of the easiest things to do when you’re lost in a YouTube binge is select the next video it recommends.

So whatya think? Amateurs versus Pros. What’s ahead?

book, Online Video

ROI Better on UGC Than “Professional” Video?

11 Comments

My friend ran a digital media buying company and literally wrote a book on internet advertising. He told me three things I never forgot:

  • The best color for a banner ad (from a direct response point of view) is “clear.” That is, whatever blends with the publisher site.
  • It’s hard — if not impossible — to make money if you’re buying advertising to get traffic, and your revenue is purely based on advertising.
  • Setting aside demos, banners perform better on weather and gaming sites than higher-end publishing sites (like the Wall Street Journal). This point perplexed me, but he explained his theory on this maybe counter intuitive discovery. The viewer is less engaged in the games and weather content, thus more likely to ditch it for a relevant online ad. It helped too, mind you, that the CPM for a weather.com is presumably much cheaper than a WSJ.com.

So as a marketer I’d say — assuming you could reasonably target your demographic — you’ll probably get a better return on UGC (user generated content, or amateur stuff) than professional content.

A Nalts video is less captivating than an SNL skit on Hulu (and admitting that fact came a little easier than I thought). In the next year, advertisers will feel temporarily safer with Hulu because it’s a network site (and God knows the ad networks and reps will be greasing the palms of buyers everywhere). Brainless ad buyers in NYC will clamour for inventory on the “safe” sites, and drive the CPM artificially high. Meanwhile, there will be a growing inventory of amateur content as YouTube rolls out its “partner program” wider than the paranoid advertising market can handle. So it will invariably drop or maintain.

A study (reported here by NewTeeVee) by The Diffusion Group shows a gap on CPM (cost per thousand views) already emerging:

  • CPMs for professional long-form video are about $40 now and predicted to rise to $46 by 2013.
  • CPMs for professional short-form video are roughly $30 now and expected to hit $34 by 2013.
  • UGC vids currently get $15 CPMs and are seen rising a little, to $17, by 2013.

My short-term bet for advertisers? Buy ads against UGC content, but pick your channels carefully. Don’t buy Invideo ads on Nalts if you’re selling cosmetics, but if you’re Coke running a direct-response program via InVideo ads you’ll probably have better luck buying ads against YouTube amateur partners than Britney.tv (she’s actually entertaining to her audience). YouTube may content otherwise, because they have loads of inventory on professional players, and more at stake there.

For that matter, you’ll probably get a better awareness rating on amateur content because we’re less interesting than professionals. You may, however, get a higher attribute rating (as measured by something like Dynamic Logic) if you buy ads on killer content (like Universal) versus another Fred video. Hard to say there.

Note- I’m biased on this analysis for two reasons. First, I’m in the middle of business planning, and my right brain has been completely shut down as a result. I haven’t even watched a video in days. Second- as a YouTube partner, I have an interest in UGC CPMs (I get a piece of the advertising revenue).

Now the good news for creators and advertising. It’s not an “either or” proposition. The Diffusion Group estimates that $590 million video ad market today will be a $10 billion video ad market of the future. I’ll take a smaller piece of that growing pie.