Tag Archives: online

It’s Your Fault if You’re Bored Online

tilzy.tv tracks episodic online video contentNow 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!

Appear Better Informed About Darfur in 3 Minutes: The Onion Makes Me Cry

Darfur. We both know how serious it is, but we’re not sure exactly why or where it is.

The Onion (helping you seem more informed”) has produced this fantastic parody of news analysis. It’s called “How Can We Let Darfur Know How Much We’re Doing For Them.”

picture-10.pngI’ve never laughed as much in preparing a post for this silly blog- in fact cried laughing (to use a bad pun). The Onion, I hope you know, is a website/print publication that has made the single finest transition to online-video content. The Onion News Network is as well written as the website I used to eagerly anticipate each Wednesday (in fact, it was literally the only website besides Google that I checked routinely in the early part of this century). But the acting is what cinches this. The acting is better than amateur online-video content, and most of television.

Watch each of these actors and realize how easy it is to believe that they’re real analysts and you’re not supposed to be laughing- the cadence, the off-camera glances, the “pile on” comments, and the timing. Folks if you’re watching, I’d kill for a cameo. No charge, and I’ll get their with 24-hours notice. 

The onion logoAccording to Wikipedia, (but watch out because The Onion reminds us Wikipedia is prone to error), The Onion launched The Onion News Network, a daily web video broadcast that had been in production since mid-2006. An early story featured an illegal immigrant taking an executive’s $800,000 a year job for $600,000 a year. The Onion has reportedly invested about $1 million in the production and has hired 15 new staffers to focus on the production of this video broadcast.[11] Carol Kolb, former editor-in-chief of The Onion, is the head writer.

In a Wikinews interview in November 2007, Onion President Sean Mills said the ONN has been a huge hit.

“We get over a million downloads a week, which makes it one of the more successful produced-for-the-Internet videos,” said Mills. “If we’re not the most successful, we’re one of the most.”

TheOnion has a YouTube account (with an atypical banner that allows viewers to drop directly into its podcasts, website or RSS) since March 2006, but its videos are all relatively new to YouTube (past several months). As of this post, I have about 35,000 subscribers on YouTube, and The Onion has about 13,000. I’m willing to bet that the network has twice as many subscribers as me by the summer.

I’ve often said that quasi professional content is on the rise, but this isn’t fair to call “quasi.” The only reason this content isn’t a better version of SNL is because there’s not enough of it, and perhaps it appeals to a smaller segment of the SNL audience with primarily news parody. Then again- it works for Jon Stewart.

See: FDA recalls pot pies because they’re hungry and the plight of lost hikers.

Media Stereotypes Online-Video Clichés

There’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:

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.

spoof of traditional media’s coverage of youtubeAs 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.

Who’s Going to Change Online-Video Advertising?

imedia connections graphicI’ve often debated with myself who’s responsible for radical changes in online-video consumption and advertising. Creators? Marketers? Agencies? Media properties?

I attended a recent iMedia Connection event, and found out an unlikely decision maker that advertisers and marketers agree will be the real driver of change. Um… you. See the chart below. You as the online-video consumer will decide.

Now I don’t think we can expect online-video creators to identify new ways they’d like to be interupted with ads, but this does serve an important point. If you hadn’t decided you wanted to share and view videos on YouTube, there wouldn’t be much of an online-video ad model.

So what’s next, viewer? Tell the marketers and the agencies. They’re watching and waiting.

Why Media Buyers Are Stunting the Growth of Online Video

Balding 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.

I’m Packing It In. I’ve Been Outclassed.

Well after two years of trying to evangelize amateur video, it would appear that Fred and Sharon have done more in this two-minute video titled “Who Needs a Movie.” They inspire, generate ideas, and provide passion that I’ve lacked.

As film maker Dawn Westlake said, “OMG! I’m packin’ it in. How can anyone who’s legit OR viral compete with this? The PERFECT “video movie.”

So I actually visited Fred and Sharon’s website and was shocked to find there was a $1 admission price to most of their content. Out of sheer curiosity, I paid. Naturally, I found a series of low-budget YouTube videos including this classy dog animation. Or the high-end corporate film for Fred’s Bread and Jam Bakery.

I think we have cult heroes here.  Fred and Sharon- if you’re out there… let’s collab.

First Online Video Dates Back to 2600 B.C.

first ever online videoAlas, online viewers may have a short attention span, but the rapid-fire entertainment has its roots more than 4000 years ago. Here’s the oldest recorded animation, and it’s made by sequencing five images on a goblet that may date back to 2600 B.C.

This according to the archeology blog on About.com (warning- pop-ups will chase you home tonight if you click that link):

Now this is deeply cool. The Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts Organization (CHTHO) in Iran has made a short film using the images on a bowl from the Burnt City. The Burnt City (Shar-i Sokhta) is a site in Iran that dates to about 2600 BC, and has seen some decades of investigation. The bowl shows five images of a wild goat leaping, and if you put them in a sequence (like a flip book), the wild goat leaps to nip leaves off a tree.

What does a historic goblet animation teach us about online video?

  1. Keep the story simple.
  2. Animals sell. Animals are to online video as red and yellow are to fast food.
  3. Jumping animals are funnier. I would have prefered to see the goat smash his head, but I’m clearly not on PETA’s Christmas list.
  4. Watching feeble attempts make us feel better about ourselves. The goat never quite catches the leaves. That’s only moderately funny now, but it killed on Bob Saget’s “Iran’s Funniest Goblets.”
  5. Don’t forget the permanence of the medium. I suspect the poor Iranian that drew this might have put a bit more attention into the totally unconvincing trees and over-extended goat horns if he (or she) knew it would be flopping around the Internet. Of course, they didn’t yet have electricity, so I doubt they really could conceive the notion of the Internet until maybe a few hundred years later.

Doesn’t Steamboat Willie seem a bit Neuvo now?

What Does Google’s Acquisition of DoubleClick Mean to Online Video?

Google 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.

marketing text booksOh, 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?

candy cornIn 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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

nalts interview mediaI 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.