Tag Archives: new

Video Advertising, YouTube

Research Suggests Web Video is As Good as Television, and Viewers Are Ages 18-34.

1 Comment

Fresh new data about online-video views, sharing and viewers! The source is YouTube, Next New Networks and Frank N. Magid & Associates (see press release and blog), and the data was collected between May 18 and June 4, 2010. While it’s not super fresh, it’s filling a void in the past year.

Two important take-aways: First, the audience is digging its online video. More than half of those surveyed (people who have watched Web original videos) deem them to be just as, if not more, entertaining than what they view on traditional television. Did you hear that? As good as TV. And 25% find it more entertaining than traditional television. That explains why these folks are 2.5 times more likely to be “engaged.” They’re clearly watching more sophisticated content than mine.

Now before we get too excited, clearly YouTube and Next New Networks aren’t exactly objective here. Both have something to gain from convincing advertisers that this web-video fad, like the Fushigi and pet rock, is here to stay. However there are two things that make me inclined to trust the data: First, hopefully someone with a website as boring as Frank Magid’s is keeping an eye on the methodology and sample. Secondly, YouTube/Google almost NEVER shares data. So that’s a big deal.

I’m never sure what to do with excerpts like “four out of ten share videos,” because I’m more interested in how often they share. For instance, I’d be among the percentage of people who has seen my dentist in the past year (hey look I made him a website: drjeffreymercando.com). But that overlooks the reality that I’d not seen him for several years prior to my visit last month. If you surveyed me if I floss, I’d say yes. But how often?

The second interesting fact about this collective study is that online-video viewers are indeed young: mostly 18-34. There was no shame in the way YouTube/NNN and Magid depicted the demographic of online-video viewers. Rather than trying to dance around one of the leading concerns advertisers have about any new medium (that their target isn’t there)… YouTube & Next New Networks tell it like it is:

“According to recent Nielsen reports, the average age of television viewers is over the age of 50. However, this research revealed that 18-34 year old Web original viewers constituted 65% of the National sample, 73% of the YouTube sample, and 90% of Next New Networks’ sample. Not only does the coveted 18-34 demographic spend many hours viewing video online on a regular basis, but the research shows that this time spent with online video and Web original content leads to less time with TV. Web original video viewers spend 13% less time with TV than non-viewers.”

No they're actually 18-35. It's not just that they think they are.

So these fellas are kinda saying, “yeah we’re not television… but our audience is more engaged, and it’s that coveted 18-34 year olds who spend a lot of money.” And then it tosses in the fact that for these peeps, television isn’t growing. This demo, according to the research, is 13% less likely to watch the boob tube.

I present this cautiously. I recall the advertiser trepidation with the Internet itself, based on the assumption that online surfers were all college kids, and we (almost overnight) saw that change. Now, of course, online-use kinda mirrors the general population (at least in the U.S.)… that’s where this is heading. Eventually, like it’s true for the web, any target can be found via online video, with varying degrees of precision and scale. So I don’t want to let brands targeting different audiences, “off the hook.” Media buyers hold demographic data like Irish people hold grudges, and we don’t want to see advertisers write online-video off as the medium for just for Vodka, Kaplan, and Sandals Resorts. I think we need to keep a close eye on how online-video viewership of moms and boomers grow in the next months and years.

That being said, it skews young right now. Let’s face it and embrace it. Anyone up for cramming for the GMATS over a martini in Jamaica?

“The findings are an incredible point of validation for Web original programming as a key source of entertainment and viewers find it to be on par with television programming,” said Rick Silvestrini, Product Marketing Manager at YouTube, while holding in a 27-year-old fart.

Speaking of Silvestrini, below is my video remix of him, inspired by a comment I noticed about his original video where someone swears they heard a fart. Is this tasteless? Yes. Biting the hand that feeds you? Perhpaps. But could you expect me to restrain myself? No way.

No offense Rick. I’m the same guy that stuck Jordan Hoffner’s sound bite about advertisers fearing cats on skateboards into a “best of cats on skateboards” remix. And Chad Hurley still thinks of the anchovy pizza video when he sees me. It’s love… it’s just tough love.

book, Nalts, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business, Viral Video, YouTube

Weirder Book Comments Anyone?

4 Comments

So the book site (BeyondViral) is pretty darned live for this weeks’ official release.

From now on, if you put your hands in this position you're stealing intellectual property.

Now c’mon WillVideoForFood “backrowers.” You’ve done majestically on Amazon’s ratings. Let’s show David M. Scott (he’s like the Fred of social media) how fun people respond to blogs. He and Steve Garfield helped get me into Wiley’s New Rules for Social Media, and he’s blogged about Beyond Viral. Who’s got some comment humor in him. Rumor has it even Sukatra’s got WVFF access from her phone.

Who wants to read thoughtful reactions to literature? I’m guessing David M. Scott has never experienced a mathematical correction from Alexis (apparently “exponential” is not what I think), a bowel joke from Nutcheese or a Reubnick quip. Jan’s probably got a funky political angle. Here’s hoping Marquisdejolie links back one of his bazaar videos, a term I’d use more often but for Maryln. What ya got Punchy, Zack, Coffin, JimmerSD? How about my sisters and bro? They visit. Really.

I got a few notes that the book is in stores, which tells me either:

  • This isn’t some elaborate prank on me, or a dream.
  • Or that I’m still dreaming

Wow. I blog in my dreams? That’s kinda lame.

Amazon sent me a gift certificate for free copies, but I think I’m going to use it to buy a remote-controlled airplane toy with a video camera instead.

Online Video

Staten Island Girls (Katie Perry’s California Girls Parody)

8 Comments


Thumbs up to these gals for their amateur but brilliant Katie Perry satire of California Girls. It’s “Staten Island Girls,” and deliciously skanky and humorous depiction of New Jersey.

Just 5 years ago these gals would have been able to share this with their friends, but now the whole world gets to giggle. Oh wait. Five years ago Katie Perry wasn’t a household name, and these girls were probably playing with Strawberry Shortcake dolls.

My favorite two moments? The gardner hiding his face (criminal record?) and the gas station guy getting caught staring at the booty.

Online Video, Video Advertising

Online Video Media Buying Best Practices

2 Comments

Looking for best-practices and tips for buying online-video advertising?

ScanScout’s Jason Krebs provides tips and tricks for verifying your online-video advertising spend in Daisy Whitney’s New Media Minute.

He tells us how to buy by “cost per engagement” and to ensuring that we receive accurate reporting on our spend.

Online Video

Old Media On “Death March,” And YouTube is “Draconian”

5 Comments

We are highly amused by thoughts from former Disney CEO (Michael Eisner) at the recent NATPE event (see TubeFilter for more). Eisner is now CEO of The Torante Company, and its digital studio is called Vuguru. Very web 2.0 branding.

He speaks about traditional media’s “death march,” and says YouTube’s revenue share “draconian.” But he also poured $250K into a web series, Booth, with no distribution strategy. Really?

One can never underestimate the networking power of a media Titan like Eisner. Remember the most important rule for new content creators seeking advertising sponsorship: “sell your audience not your content.” Does professional content, with no distribution strategy, have a shot against “The New Establishment”?

I’m talking about Next New Network, Mondo, FunnyorDie, Machinma, Revision3, Demand Media, MyDamnedChannel, ForYourImagination. These guys are hit and miss, but many have created:

  • Popular content with an existing audience
  • Self-sustaining shows (with existing sponsors)
  • Lower-cost production
  • Solid distribution plans via television sets, websites and devices (Roku, TiVo).

I’ve continued to prematurely predict the demise of the YouTube “star” and the rise of semi-pro content. Look no further than audience size for proof: the top YouTube people have 500K views per day, while the semi-pro content is a fraction of that.

As the appetite increases for more polished content, I’d place higher odds on The New Establishment until online-video “grows up” and becomes… video.

This will especially be true when a major player (Apple, cable, Google, Hulu, whoever) develops a “subscription-based” and “on demand” model so that we can buy content broadly, and not rely strictly on advertising. Remember that charming vision of “3 screens” (television, computer, mobile)?

P.S. Michael if you read this… can you ask your son, Breck, to upload his college film, “Alice in the Underground”? I had a voiceover cameo in that short film, and would love to send my 160K YouTube subscribers to see it!

Online Video

What Media Buyers Need to Know About Online Video

9 Comments

What perfect timing. I watched this “New Media Minute” by Daisy Whitney, and  was interrupted by a Product Director who’s seething over his clueless media buyers. My client, like me, is perplexed and annoyed by the inability of most media buyers to speak succinctly to brands about two simple things: whether the media spend is, simply, “on strategy” and “on budget.”

The details are noise, and we just want to be convinced the media-buying firm is not completely clueless. Like maybe they’re buying based on efficient and high-impact opportunities and not to payback for the dinner AOL bought. I mentioned that some media buyers are the people from high school that could have chosen careers selling cars or mortgages, and generally had C averages (but to be fair, they dressed well and always knew how to tap the keg). He recounted his friend who “was probably 400 in a class of 399” and is now quite wealthy in the media space.

I really shouldn’t poop on media buyers until I walk a mile in their Manolos.

On a particularly good hair day, Daisy Whitney tells us Pepsi's putting its Superbowl coinage into creating its own BudTv.

But imagine how frustrating it is — to a marketer and video creator — to read eMarketer reports that online-video is projected to grow at a bullish 30-40% annually…. but knowing that it’s all in the hands of career buyers of print and television who like driving f’ing awareness & attitudes and CPMs and anything else you can’t connect to sales.

People, video has the great potential of driving awareness, but also trial... dare I call it a “direct response” medium that “traditional media buyers” misunderstand, fear, loathe? Media buyers are to “direct response” and sales what belly dancers are to FIFO. And even the Wall Street Journal (a publication you’ve not heard of because it requires a subscription) says snail mail is still hot.

(Oh- you’re not a “traditional media buyer” if you are reading this article, unless someone sent it to you to chastise you).

I find Daisy’s characterization of marketers and advertisers hoping to “buy not rent” audiences a bit quaint, even if it may well be accurate. How many of us wake up each morning curious to know what entertainment P&G or Kraft has cooked up for us? Seriously? Pepsi is apparently bagging the Superbowl and launching some online thing that may or may not be fabulous. It’s “the next great thing” or BudTV.com all over again. We can’t be sure, but I suspect we won’t bookmark it. It reminds me of pharmaceutical brand managers in 1999 aspiring to have their website as the “home page” of every physician. Fat chance, but sometimes time is the best teacher.

I do like the theme of marketers shifting from interruption ads to the creation of engaging content and entertainment. Yey for that! But we impatient and ADHD-driven online-video carnivores are not likely to find it without some help from PR and ad spending.

Fortunately we’re seeing some new “video” ad networks (Daisy names Yume and Scanscount) that might help media buyers go beyond prerolls. I wonder if these companies are sophisticated enough to monitor their names in social media. First company to comment below wins a free pixel.

Read this TechCrunch piece by WatchMojo’s CEO for some tips for content creators looking to snatch some of the massive online-video spending (the writer leads a company that does branded entertainment, which is about as pervasive these days as ad networks). According to WatchMojo: “Unlike articles, you can’t fool audiences as easily with videos. It’s easier to get away with a slapdash article than with a slapdash video.”

Well that’s news to me. I’ve been fooling audiences a few hundred million times.

So here are some tips for the ambitious media buyer who, at least, wants to sound smart when speaking with a brand:

  1. Acknowledge that online-video is growing, and that budget should follow the audience.
  2. Don’t spend it all on pre-rolls. We hate them as much as you.
  3. Find people who have already assembled an organic audience, and sponsor them or buy product placement. Go direct to the big ones (NextNewNetwork, Revision3) or use Hitviews, PlaceVine, Poptent or Zadby to broker deals with smaller guys. Did I miss any intermediary between popular web content and marketers? Don’t be afraid to raise your hand.
  4. Partner with content providers and online media players to create webisodes that are entertaining AND engaging (with an emphasis on the former, since the latter depends on it). You’ll need a “branded entertainment company,” but be sure they have an idea of how to get the crap seen not just make it fabulous.
  5. Buy the crap out of ad inventory that are driven by search (if they’re searching for your brand, you want to be there first).
  6. Customize your content because if I see another 30-second spot as a preroll I’m going to power puke.
  7. Use rich-media ads with compelling video content and an irresistible “call to play.”
  8. Buy every Nalts InVideo ad you can from YouTube regardless of the CPM. I heard his content attracts your target buyers, and that they’re 45% more likely to engage in your ad because his videos are so bad.
Online Video

How to Update Your YouTube Channel Page to New Beta Look

15 Comments

Here’s the link to upgrade your partner channel to the “secret” new one in beta.

What we like:

  • It keeps people within your videos and channel page as they browse (instead of dragging them around)
  • It has some nice ways of separating your recent content from your best content (via playlists)
  • It’s prettier, even if it’s a bit “Hulu” like

What we don’t like (and why we chose to keep ours on the old one):

  • It’s hard to get to your most recent videos, sorted by date
  • Some of the special playlist boxes receive less attention
  • The description of your content is tucked below the fold

Here’s a blog with more. What do you like/not like? Hey- it’s in beta. Gotta give ’em some feedback, right?

picture-21picture-31

Online Video

Mac’s New iPod Shuffle: My Social Media & Search-Engine Guinea Pig

3 Comments

 

The new shuffle can be controlled via the headphones if you know Morse Code.
The new shuffle can be controlled via the headphones if you know Morse Code.

I love my Macs, but I don’t care for the companies antiquated marketing style. Hush, hush and then mass marketing. Very 1980s/1990s, and not enough evidence it nurtures or rewards the enthusiastic fan base. Heck, the fact that Mac didn’t embrace HappySlip after her Mac Beautiful song made me think the company lacked basic marketing instincts. For the cost of a computer, Mac could have dazzled her and her audience. A relevant and permanent impression worth more than dozens of ad exposures.

 

So let’s backup, and see how Mac today became my guinea pig for a social media & marketing experiment: can social media stand between buyers and a new product.

Context: Last night I toiled in my day-job to help improve the way my employer monitors and engages in social-media. This morning I wrote a white paper (proprietary) that addresses the convergence of online-video and social media. And ironically I missed a social-media conference today in NYC. All of this at a time when social media is consuming more of our day than e-mail. (see previous post) That’s a really big deal.

hanna loves nalts but not his ipod nano shuffle reviewGoal: When the new Mac shuffle came out yesterday, I thought it was time for a test. Our mission: could little old ME rank higher on Google for basic terms related to the new Mac mini iPod Nano shuffle thing with autovoice? Could I possibly outrank Mac, CNet and Mac blogs on search terms people might use to find out of the device sucked or not? Remember Uncle Nalts says Google indexes well-viewed YouTube videos rather high. Certainly easier than buying Google ads perpetually or optimizing a website for 50K.

The Ditched Video Idea: My original plan was to make a skit about the Mac in hopes it would travel like my Mac Air parody (500K views and media pickup)…  Alas, none of my ideas struck me as particularly clever. At best, I’d play a frustrated PC designer launching a paperclip size MP3 player with a giant headphone device that allowed people to control it. And he’d be a day late. It just didn’t crack me up, and there was too much to cover and the clock was ticking.

Oh No You Din’t!
But my local Mac retailer didn’t even stock the new Shuffle today. Can Mac’s desire for launch secrecy prevent it from trusting distributors with the product immediately? Did Mac’s failure to stock for the impulse buys actually deprive me of my God-given right to buy more technology I don’t need despite debt?  

Results:
In a grumpy mood, I decided to vlog a bad review of the Mac Shuffle, and post it to YouTube. I then pretended to be a consumer searching Google for a review of the new device. Sure enough, below are the top three listings. To be fair, the search parameters are rather specific. But since Mac uses the same brand names (Shuffle, Nano) for each new release/generation, it’s hard to find the BRAND new one without adding a unique phrase like “autovoice.” You’ll otherwise get dated results (I’m talking 2005/2007), and I’m not impressed with Google blog search or anything Google is doing to sort with recency emphasis on basic searches.

Here’s something even more interesting (at least to me). Minutes later I couldn’t replicate the results depicted below, and I wonder if it was because my edits to the video’s keywords set it back temporarily?

mac shuffle autovoice review

Online Video

FailBlog: Doritos for the Brain

10 Comments

My friend used to call MTV “Doritos for the brain.” It won’t help you nutritiously, but it makes your brain happy in moderate doses. And that phrase is a wonderful way to think of the “fail” movement. 

I’ll now introduce you to (or perhaps remind you of) 2009’s “Doritos for the Brain”: FailBlog.org. The term “Fail” is the hot, new vernacular for mistakes, stupid moves, someone getting powned, or ridiculous moments. When you hear “Fail,” think “the opposite of success, but without even really trying.” Or check out this FAIL wiki to explore the term in greater depth… and see the classic “accident” photo of the train hanging from the second floor of a train station in Montparnasse, France. Whoops. 

The Failblog.org videos feature some highly rated and funny moments (check FailVideo on YouTube, since the original FailBlog account was yanked due presumably to “terms of service” violations). We suppose most of these are ripped and reposted, which means they won’t soon be making ad revenue from the popularity of the videos.

When you’re done chuckling at random images or videos, you may want to submit your own photo using the LOLCat builder. 

A very popular video this week is this debate with the Verizon folks about the difference between .002 cents and .002 dollars. Hey, I like any videos making fun of Verizon since the set boxes it makes me rent monthly are like using a TRS-80 from Radio Shack. You actually have to know how to program DOS to surf the On Demand 14-layer menu. And by the time the box registers that you want to play tonight’s American Idol, the next week’s episode is probably playing. 

Back to Fail.. this particular video “Woman Parking,” isn’t from FailBlog, but we think it’s worthy.