Tag Archives: poptent

Online-Video Contests: Still Going Strong

I used to write quite often about online-video contests because for many brands, that was their online-video strategy. It’s similar today when brand’s create a Facebook page to check off that nagging “social media” objective.

A lot’s changed in the past years, and Jared “The Video Contest King” has reengaged, even musters up some praise for Poptent (the video contest site he’s criticized before). I found this quote especially interesting…

Yes, $7,500.00 for a contest victory for three weeks work is decent pay, but if you really worked for three months, because it is the true frequency rate of your ‘wins’, than you now are netting about $26,000 per year. I pay more than that in rent alone.

This is a good reminder that, with some certain exceptions among recurring Poptent winners, few are making a “living” with online-video contest winnings.

Key Point: I would urge those pursuing contests to do so as a) a creative outlet, b) a way to build a good reel, and c) an additional income source. This is true for YouTube as well… a handful of stanky rich creators making way more than your salary and mine combined. Lots of people making what we’d consider a fantastic second income. But if money is the primary motivator, it’s not a safe bet.

The Sour Patch Cannibals are nice proof that there's gold in 'dem quasi-pro amateur hills

In other contest news…

  • Amazing Justin and his new bride are still keeping the aggregator fresh, and even allows creators to profile and received customize information about contests.
  • Beardy’s “Video Contest News” has some nice coverage, and even offers occasional production tips (I liked this one since I’m always having audio problems with my DSLR camera as a primary video recorder). We like Beardy’s homeless theme, which reminds us of our WillVideoForFood name.
  • Poptent Neil Perry told me the company has received increased investment, hired a team of sales people, and are beginning to attract larger brands that align with the company’s original vision (where the content is used on television not just online-video).
  • Weeks ago (during PattyTube) we crashed the Poptent office and binged on loads of new contest entries. Years ago many looked like bad CableTV ads, but the ones we watched were damned-well close to agency work. Common- who else loved the “Sour Patch Cannibals“?
  • Collaborations by independent creators with specific talents — like writing, acting, production, editing, music — are on the rise according to Tim Breslin, the mad genius behind Poptent’s technology.
  • King Jared teamed with Joel Berry (aka Tavin Dillard on YouTube) to create a Poptent entry for Trident Gum (titled “Grease Monkey Business,” which is a far cry better than the “consumer-generated” entries of past.

>

Sour Patch Cannibals (consumer-generated ads)

I recently found this collection of entries to the Poptent.net “Sour Then Sweet” campaign for Sour Patch Kids. While I can appreciate why cannibalism might have been too risque for the folks at Cadbury, I think they’re certainly bold, entertaining and memorable enough to get the WillVideoForFood “honorable mention” award.

Don’t you? CHOMP. Hats off to Wonderful Color, Trunstyle, and iCohen.

Starving Artists Take Note: Video > T-shirts

A child peddling a light was the $10K winner that brought Poptent past the $1 million mark

I was happy to hear Threadless founder and former CEO Jake Nickell on public radio’s “Markeplace” tonight, and how he was “crowdsourcing” in Threadless’ decade of business… even before there was a name for it. “Last year we paid over $1.5 million out to artists,” he told interviewer Kai Ryssdal. Designers upload their creations, and the community votes for the best… which are produced and sold with artists getting a $2K cash prize, $500K in a gift certificate, and royalties.

Then I compared it to today’s news. Philadelphia-based Poptent (www.poptent.net), which crowdsources video production for large and mid-sized brands, has given out $1 million in cash payments. That’s certainly a first for online video, and considering in no doubt went to a small sub-segment of the 20,000 Poptent videographers, it’s a pretty good sign for the online-video creator community. The million-dollar man was hit by Sean Cunningham, a NY-based freelance videographer who received $10,000 for creating this video as part of GE’s “Tag Your Green” ecomagination campaign. Disclaimer: I worked with Poptent when it was Xlntads, and also participated in the GE campaign as a YouTube creator.

It’s a wonderfully inspired “amateur” creation that could easily fit as a broadcast television ad. Community comments on the video are positive, even if some might have been from competitors. Cunningham has been a member of Poptent since October 2008 and participated in previous Poptent assignments for Becks Beer, eHealth, and Snickers.  All four of the crowdsourced GE videos can be viewed here.

What’s even more encouraging? The assignment came not directly but via a major agency’s digital arm (OMD). That tells me the market is finally understanding that while agencies won’t soon lose their seat at the creative and strategy table, there are lots of Cunninghams with bright ideas. Even if it took six versions (see screen shot).

What Media Buyers Need to Know About Online Video

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, PlaceVinePoptent 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.

How Does an Entrepreneur Tap Online-Video Talent?

I ran into the TubeFilter’s new job board, which has lots of California opportunities but little else. Then I was thinking about the bunch of inquiries I’ve received since I was mentioned in Entrepreneurial Magazine

  • The reality is that there’s a lot of amateur talent available to work without high cost structures — often folks who work part-time or are students. They can create incredible videos, brilliant graphic design, and understand social media.
  • Then there are countless entrepreneurs who need these skillsets on an adhoc basis.

But I’m not aware of a matchmaker service that allows people to post their skills & experience, hourly rate, and garner some “trust” rating (like eBay sellers). Are you?

I do know that Ben Relles, when he needed to produce his first “Obama Girl” video, placed an ad in Craigslist! Within hours he had people to help on various areas of the production. A number of talented video creators found Xltnads/PopTent via Craigslist too. But I doubt most less savvy buyers know how to surf for talent on Craigslist.

Have you seen a service that connects small companies or startups to freelance video creators, graphic artists and writers? I’m just struck that there’s demand for digital talent, and a lot of brilliant talent eager for cash and experience. The big buyers use agencies, who help reduce risk and vet talent. But those larger agencies are expensive because they’re often siloed and bloated with high costs (real estate, overhead, etc.). 

Entrepreneurs want someone reliable, talented, eager and not too expensive. I love linking entrepreneurs with talent, because both win. As an example, I was glad to introduce my neighbor’s startup (iamintown.com) to Brett Slater (slatersgarage.com). The former gets a good service at a fair price. The talent gets business.

But entrepreneurs are not my target clients for video creation or consulting. It’s very hard to tell if they’re serious, and they often want you to work for free/cheap with the promise of something bigger down stream. Of course, if I was in college or didn’t have a family and a big mortgage, I’d welcome a few hundred bucks to spend time I’d otherwise use to play video games. It would build my portfolio, and certainly be more profitable than working at Wendy’s. But likewise I’d probably have no idea how to find clients. 

I probably get a dozen random messages from individuals or startups a week, and it kills me to ignore them. Sometimes the note is so desperate and poorly written that I know I’d be sucked into a time-wasting vortex by even engaging (example: I’m gonna be big, you won’t be wasting your time, I want to give you a piece of my company). But other times I’m curious if I may be overlooking a chance to work with the next Zappos before they pop.

Big Brands Tap Online-Video Stars

Caitlin Hill (thehill88) on ABC newsI’ve written before about Hitviews, and I’ve been working with the company on sponsored videos. This report (see video) by ABC’s NYC affiliate (channel 7), the most-watched local network in the US. It’s the story of how Hitviews co-founder Caitlin Hill (theHill88) and veteran network executives are turning online-video stars into promotional vehicles for large brands. 

As the recession hits marketers, I’ve seen no sign of a slow-down in this sector. Online-video continues to grow, and advertising dollars are shifting to sites like YouTube. What I find fascinating about Hitviews model is that it has nothing to do with display or overlay advertising. Rather than rely exclusively on “paid” advertising, some progressive brands are sponsoring well-known creators. For example, even though my videos are viewed more than 100,000 a day, there are dozens of independent creators that are far more “subscribed” and viewed. 

These amateurs, some with 300-500,000 views a day, offer advertisers a higher impact model to reach an engaged audience that eagerly await the next video of their favorite online-video stars. The audience trusts the star, and comment and reply. Meanwhile the stars are often 20-something kids who have a low cost of living, and are open to sponsorships and product placements that can be more profitable than, say, YouTube ad sharing. As a Product Director, I find a video about my brand exponentially more valuable than ads alone. As a traditional-media analog, consider the difference between a 30-second ad on American Idol and Coke cups on the judges table. The latter is an implied endorsement by the judges (and you may hate two of them, but probably not all four).

There are a few challenges, of course. And they’re non trivial, which is why few companies have cracked this nut…

  1. Most brands and even their agencies can’t establish relationships with these online-video stars on their own. Even if they do, the learning isn’t scalable. 
  2. The bigger stars are primarily focused on their audience, and not branding or even “business.” That means agencies may be surprised that the video creators aren’t cow-towing to them like a subcontractor. 
  3. Agencies and brands still don’t understand that sponsored videos are becoming both common and appropriate in social media (as long as the sponsor is disclosed), and partially controllable. The star won’t read from a script, of course, but the brand sponsor reviews all videos before they go live. 
  4. The creative challenge is to entertain first, and promote second. That requires sponsors to give the stars some creative freedom and trust their instinct.
  5. Online-video stars sometimes have agents, but often are “one-act shows.” That means that some are professional, and others are child-like. What made them popular with viewers — edgy, autonomous– can undermine them when it’s time to face such things as deadlines and review processes.
  6. Finding stars take significant knowledge of the online-video community. Some are easy to work with, and others are a nightmare. Some get top views, but have images and videos that are not right for some brands. Some work for cheap, and others demand top dollars.

I’m biased because I like Hitviews model, but I honestly can’t think of how brands & agencies can tap these video creators without an intermediary. Trust me because I’ve been on both sides. As a video creator I’ve dealt with agencies that think of me as a subcontractor and want a bloody advertisement instead of an entertaining video that promotes. I’ve not yet seen a company that bridges this gap like Hitviews. There are talent agencies that represent individual stars, and companies like Poptent that help brands find amateur talent. But no clearinghouse for brands/agencies wanting to do sponsored videos with video stars. In online-video’s infancy (2006-2008) it wasn’t uncommon for a popular YouTuber to work directly with a brands (like I did with Mentos).

But for this new-media play to scale, there needs to be a larger entities that can help broker the relationship so the key constituents (at least three) can all get what they need:

  1. First, audiences must like the videos. Failing that, nothing else matters.
  2. Second, the “star” must feel comfortable with the brand, and feel compensated appropriately. The videos take time, but more importantly an excess of them will harm their relationship with the audience.
  3. Finally the advertiser (a brand team or its steward) must feel like their money is well spent, and see the sponsored video as worth more than a preroll, overlay or banner. I’ve only seen about two interactive agencies that understand this, and I know that will change this year. As long as agencies see this as a “media buy” it’s doomed.