Tag Archives: intent

Online Video

The Fourth Generation of Online-Video Advertising

8 Comments

Stop. Do not read another word before pausing for 15 seconds. Really.

Okay. How’d that feel? Chances are you ignored the advice, and perhaps it compelled you to defiantly plunge ahead with more interest. After all, the headline promised 4 generations, and that usually begs the question “what were the first three?”

But I made       you        wait. What if I forced you to wait?

Would you click the headline next time? I suppose it depends on how saucy it was. Maybe “New Video Compression Technology” would have instantly given your brain a pro/con dance. But “Fat lady falls down stairs and onto YouTube” might be the “spoon full of sugar” that made the interruption “medicine go down.”

According the book I read last night (Neuromarketing) your "old brain" (the prehistoric one that actually makes decisions) will love and remember this image. But your less important "new brain" (intellect, feelings) may find the text interesting.

My point is this: the third generation of online-video is preroll ads. Let’s get past this, shall we? They’re usually void of entertainment, unavoidable and will continue to proliferate and erode the medium — if unchecked. And according to my media friends, they’re hot. They’ve made me far more selective about what content I view on YouTube… it better be worth it. And this morning, in a move that might surprise you, I asked YouTube to turn them on my Nalts channel.

Think About.com in the mid-1990s, when it fell from a coveted curator of credible content to a cesspool of ads masquerading as content, and ads masquerading as more obnoxious ads.

So many ads you'll get an epileptic seizure (ask your doctor about ZIMPAT)

But let’s back up and look at the first three generations of online-video advertising in simple terms:

Lurker hangs around playgrounds and sometimes finds a victim.

First Generation: Lurker. Nickel CPM ads surrounded videos, and didn’t even subsidize the bandwidth. YouTube was a voluntary non-profit, and companies like Revver and Metacafe compelled creators with ad-sharing. Unfortunately the advertising industry saw online video with the same disdain it viewed the web in 2000. Oh- that’s the Wild, Wild West. We can’t put our brand next to that nonsense. In fact people aren’t even using the medium. You want reach? Look no further than the original tube.

Second Generation: Overlay ads. The healthy compromise of ads like YouTube’s “InVideo” model was what saved the medium. The ads had critics, but as an advertiser I felt like my brand got enough attention. As a viewer I felt like I could tolerate it. Ad a creator I felt like I enjoyed the higher revenue. But then the illness started with our children. They began reflexively closing the boxes, almost like you hit “skip” on the flash/splash screen on the publisher’s website. So click-through and presumably all the other polite terms for “no immediate action” (awareness, recall, attitude, purchase intent, favorability) dropped too.

You peeked the first few times, didn't you?

You want access to the party? You'll deal with him first.

Third Generation: Pre-Roll Bouncers. You won’t have to look hard to know my POV on these little bastards we call pre-roll ads.They’re annoying, intrusive and deceptive (you often mistake them for the video you thought you’d be watching). And I just asked YouTube to turn them on my content. Why? They’re profitable. Why? They work… for now.

Fourth Generation: In the Show. Before I explain what I hope will be the fourth generation, let me guess what you’re thinking… that these surround, overlay and pre-roll ads are here to stay. You’re right. The lurker, flasher and bouncer will be around as long as media buyers are held accountable to buying space like purchasing agents buying #2 pencils and copier paper. As long as reach, “frequency and single-minded impression” is chanted like monks by students of advertising 101.

Hmmm. I'm thirsty.

Now think like a receiver of advertisements. The Coke room on American Idol. The weather brought to you by Smuckers. They’re gentler on the stomach and more effective than the leading medication. Advertisers need to get within the show. It’s not easy to scale, it’s hard to do an “insertion order,” and it may not be the “path of least resistance” to getting your brand’s aided recall up by 50%. But it’s polite, there’s an implied endorsement, and it’s impossible to ignore. The brand is hero not the Soup Nazi. Most of Beyond Viral addresses this model of advertising, however my “lurker, flasher, bouncer” model is conspicuously absent in the book. It came to me in a dream last night. Shut up. Most of my dreams are better than your acid trips. This one just happened to be about advertising.

The burden of proof, I’d contend, is not on “in the show” to prove it’s scalable and drives purchase intent (although it certainly can’t be without accountability). Rather the burden of proof is on the less Darwinian evolved models to prove they’re a better bang for the buck.

book, Online Video

Media Buyers Remain Afraid of UGC & Chupacabra

7 Comments

Advertisers continue to fear user-generated content (aka consumer-generated media) and Chupacrabas, according to an eMarketer report. Instead of contextual ads or sponsorships, buyers are sticking with 30-second pre-roll ads that reduce purchase intent compared to control.

Media buyers prefer online video advertisements (versus sponsorships or branded entertainment) because “viewers dislike or distrust video advertising—even though they freely accept television commercials.” David Hallerman, who wrote the report, says that distrust is what wins over digital buyers who overlook the reduced intent test/control data because the CPMs (cost per 1,000) are irresistibly cheap, and media buyers can’t resist a deal.

“Even on their personal time, a good media buyer can’t overlook a sale,” eMarketer’s Hallerman said. “I have a neighbor who is a senior digital media buyer, and he purchases randomly sized dresses and skirts at Loehmans each weekend.” Hallerman added that despite his neighbor’s peanut allergy, he can’t resist the Jiffy “buy one, get the other 50% off“sales. But, Hallerman added, “He’s certainly financially disciplined enough to resist the paltry 25%-off sales.”

Chupacabra Sightings at Major Digital-Buying Agencies Have Created Near Hysteria.
Chupacabra Sightings at Major Digital-Buying Agencies Have Created Near Hysteria.

“Like last year’s study, media buyers remain afraid of the dreaded Chupacabra,” says to Hallerman. “Many of the top digital-media buyers we interviewed at such leading agencies as Digitas, Avenue-A Razorfish, OMD, UMI and even Scient and Viant are terrified of the goat-sucking beast. This is especially true of those Puerto Rican people, whose fear rose from 18% to 37% from 2008 to 2009.” Hallerman believes the Cupacabra threat may have originated via sales representatives of advertising networks and large media properties, who wished to keep their buyers safe.

“More than 78% of media buyers are taking protective measures against consumer-generated content and Chupacabra attacks,” says Hallerman. “It’s not very different from the swine flu, except that the swine flu actually exists.”

“In my country, many beautiful media buyers would having look at consumer-media,” said Marcos Sanchez of Cerebro Muerto Digital (CMD). “And they no coming back from night after Chupacabra eating their blood.” Sanchez said, under promise of anonymity, that CMD invests no less than 30% of its client’s digital media budget on low-cost inventory on websites that have not been operational in five years or more. “We finding on professional sites like “The Daily Reel” that they video prerolls get 500,000 impressions daily and viewers very, very engaged in banners with 94% recall.”

So… umm…. I’m kidding about only some of that. The preroll is all the rage,  while WVFF has showed how sponsored videos have measurable ROI. Did I ever mention on this blog that you can’t get reach without advertising near UGC (user generated content) because the VAST majority of views are of vloggers, YouTube stars, viral hits… not Hulu shows. Did I ever mention on this blog that you can actually pay a YouTube star a small amount of money to make a funny video about your product that you approve?

Anyway, some other key points for those that see online-video marketing as digital ads only:

  1. A 30-second preroll is not as effective as a 5-second preroll and lower 1/3 ad. In fact, purchase intent goes DOWN due to 30-second prerolls as compared to a control!
  2. People under 30 are far more likely to find an ad funny, emotionally touching or informative (3 proxies of purchase). Is that a function of their familiarity with the medium or the fact that many campaigns are targeting them?
  3. Below are other topics the full report hits. Feel free to send me a copy if you buy one. I can’t find a spare $700 of change in my couch. Plus they never interview me for these, so they can’t be that informative. Moo haa.

  • Why do many people distrust online video advertising?
  • What can advertisers do to overcome that obstacle?
  • Can social media and video advertising be an effective mix?
  • What ad methods are needed with short video content?
  • Is the online video audience as large as it appears?

advertising, book

Why Taking Online-Video Polls is Important

14 Comments

It’s unfortunate that most online-polls don’t provide an incentive. But if you do see a poll invitation surrounding an online video (on YouTube or other sites), I encourage you to participate, and do so thoughtfully and honestly.

I’ll briefly explain how they work, and why viewer feedback is so important to sustaining online-video model.

  1. As you know, ads fund our online-video experience.
  2. Content creators and YouTube don’t make a dime from viewers, so selling viewer eyeballs back to advertisers is the only way for them to cover costs and, daresay, profit.
  3. But advertisers have to know if their ads work. Since few people click ads, we marketers are interested in if the ads changed people’s perceptions about our products or services (and if they’re more likely to buy).
  4. It’s extremely difficult to get reliable data from a consumer about what drove their decision (they can’t accurately attribute the element of the marketing mix that was most influential). For example, most of my target consumers will claim television was the most influential, and we haven’t bought a television ad in a half-dozen years. Coupons are measurable, but usually “attitude and attribute” trackers are how we determine which half of advertising is working.

Typically online-video polls (through such vendors as Insight Interactive and Dynamic Logic) survey a test and a control sample. Simply put, those who have seen the ads and those who haven’t. They’re usually too long, and I have a hard time completing them myself.

How do we use the data? If the viewers who saw the ad like the brand (or better yet have increased “intention to buy”) more than the viewers that haven’t seen the ad, then the ad presumably was effective. A big difference between these ratings and we feel more confident that we’re driving sales. Since the investment in online-video ads is relatively paltry, then the ROI is likely to be positive.

Then, and only then, is the website and creator compensated beyond a pilot. As a result, the viewer can go about watching free content (and, of course, spending on the advertisers’ products or services). If ad-supported video content languishes, then creators will eventually fatigue (unless they’re OCD like me, and don’t seem to care that their hourly rate would be better at Taco Bell).

Bottom line: I encourage you to take polls. Don’t try to trick them, because they’re pretty savvy. But spend the time on them and consider the questions. Your incentive won’t be a free gift certificate, but you’ll know that you served your part to sustain the free-viewing model. Who wants the Cable TV model (fee for select programming) to hit online? Not me.