Category Archives: advertising

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

Don’t Buy YouTube: Bloggers Debate

debate.jpgInteresting article by ZDNet’s Digital Micro-Markets (DMM) that outlines the “top 5 reasons not to buy YouTube.”

Here are DMM’s reasons, and WillVideoForFood (WVFF) responses. I wanted to post this on the comments section of the ZDNet blog, but it wasn’t working for me. Watch out- WillVideoforFood (WVFF) is actually standing up for YouTube on a few points. Despite our previous rants (see “YouTube Rant”) on the subject.
 

DMM #1: No meaningful revenue stream, but $1 million per month in bandwidth costs.

WVFF: Correct

DMM #2: “Home-Grown” user created content lacking mainstream appeal of professionally produced video entertainment.

WVFF: Totally disagree. YouTube viewers are looking for JUST THAT! Look at the most popular videos. Are they “professionally produced video entertainment?” No. They’re home grown. And there is plenty of professional content that is sitting in the bloated YouTube collection that people could have selected.

The whole point of YouTube is that people are sick of “reality” t.v. and want real real stuff. (WVFF)

DMM #3: Pirated Video Content

WVFF: Absolutely a problem. Can’t sell ads surrounding copyright theft.

DMM #4: YouTube users are not willing to pay for content and are deemed resistant to advertising.

WVFF: Nonsense. Eventually there WILL be paid channels, though we’ll only pay for an exclusive selection of really good content (JibJab quality as I call it). And if YouTube was smart, it would start experimenting with how much advertising its viewers will tolerate without reducing their duration and frequency of visits. It’s simple- get a control and three test groups of viewers. Then experiment with 3 levels of intrusion (contextual ads, banners, pre-rolls, etc.).

The real issue is that advertisers don’t want to play Russian Roulette with their placement. They’ll want some level of quality control to make sure their ads are connected with appropriate content that is tied to their target market’s interests. (WVFF)

DMM #5: Broadcast Yourself positioning is not sustainable.

WVFF: Don’t really understand that point.

advertising, book, Future of Online Video, Making Videos, Online Video, popular videos, Revver, Video Advertising, Video Business, Video Contests, Video Sites, Web 2.0, YouTube

Seven Deadly Sins of Advertising Via Viral Video

53 Comments

sins.jpgShow me a marketer without “viral” on her marketing plan and I’ll show you an online video site that’s profitable. Advertising offline is getting harder with time-shifted television and declining viewership, and online advertising is getting more complex with paid-search prices rising and banner click-thru’s dropping. Given the low variable cost of viral, it’s natural that advertisers would want to experiment with it. “I want a piece of Web 2.0,” they say.
Advertisers beware. Getting people to promote your product by forwarding a viral video is not as easy as it appears. Save you and your clients some money and consider the “7 Deadly Sins of Advertising Via Viral Video.”

1. Make a white and brown cow. Seth Godin has a term called “Purple Cow,” which refers to marketing that is “remarkable” and worth paying attention to and talking about. Your viral video better be Technicolor Purple if you actually expect it to break through an increasingly crowded space. What is remarkable? Take a look at the Volkswagen “Fast” series featuring Jim Meskimen. (Jim is a comedian and impersonator, and you’ve heard him as the voice of Messing With Sasquatch” series. Would you view this content more than once, and show it to a co-worker or forward it to a friend? I would, and have.
2. Pretend you’re not advertising. Nothing quite irrates a consumer like being secretly persuaded. “Al Gore’s Penguin Army” is a classic example of a “funny video” that was exposed as having a PR agenda. Transparency is a ticket in the viral video door, friends. No ticket, no ride.

3. Spend a fortune on production. It pains me to see companies throw around huge production budgets on online video. I’ve seen it payoff only once. Here’s Smirnoff’s Ice Tea Partay (which was featured yesterday as one of YouTube’s top 3 on Good Morning America). Clearly this cost north of $300K to produce. But even if you pay that much, you might be better off giving it a “rough around the edges” look. Improv acting, sloppy camera moves and poor production can actually give your video that “consumer generated video” feel. There’s going to be a huge market for individual directors that can shoot viral videos for around $20-$50K, and it makes it much easier to get an ROI on viral video when you’re not having to recoup a big fixed-cost investment in production. When Yahoo featured on its homepage my “Lay Me Off” video (which I’ve temporarily pulled down at the request of some of the actors), I got a number of e-mails from people asking how much I’d charge for a viral video for their clients. Since I have a day job and I do videos as a hobby, I declined. But they’ll find someone who is quite happy to take a low fee for a video that’s powerful. Of course an advertising agency will probably mark up the director’s fees by 500%.
4. Tell consumers instead of engage them. Don’t think of your viral video as an adaptation of a 60-second spot. Obviously it’s got to be irreverent, weird, funny and different. But more importantly, the web has the ability to make the viral event a dialogue. Contests are a good example. There have been plenty of online video contests, but Mentos Geyser Contest is already shaping to be one of the most successful. Check out all of the consumers creating buzz around a candy that was a 7-11 relic 6 months ago. Seventy to date! Production costs for Mentos on those videos? Zero. (By the way, vote this Mentos Jet Pack one 5 stars and I’ll send you some cheese). BarterBee’s contest created buzzz for a CD and DVD exchange. The CEO wore a bee suit to promote it. Brave.

5. Do a video contest because everyone else is. This online-video “contest fad” will continue, and it will become more difficult to activate consumers to promote your product. Do a search for “video contest” on Google and you’ll see four or five different ads for contests. The David Chappelle video contest is a good example of a nice idea with some executional flaws. First, it didn’t initially promote the contest on its own website because it wanted to focus people on buying the DVD. Second, it petered out. Contest winners weren’t announced and insufficient media budget promoted the contest. To give you an idea of how abused contests are getting, there was a summer promotion for a mayonnaise manufacturer looking for videos about may recipes.

6. Set unrealstic conversion metrics. After someone watches your video, what do you think they’ll do? Will 30% come to your site? Will 10% buy your brand in two months? Give me a break. Viral video is one of the most difficult-to-measure parts of your marketing mix. Sure you can count views. But none of the online video sites are yet able to track the viewers so you can conduct your DynamicLogic unaided recall and awareness study. And very f people will take an immediate and measurable action. Sorry to sober you.

7. Throw in the towel and decide to just advertise around viral videos. Please don’t give up and decide that it’s easier to simply advertise around videos. There are certainly products and services that can do well through this, but it’s the lazy way to approach online video. The online video sites are mostly new, and there is an unlimited possibility for creative partnerships. Even YouTube (which has been slow to embrace commercial interests) has a homepage advertising feature for advertisers. As I write, it’s a trailer for Beerfest. Yesterday it was Paris Hilton. Revver has run a few contests, and has married EepyBird to Mentos in probably the best case study for viral video marketing yet. For best results, don’t think you have to decide between getting your videos seen on sites for free OR advertising on them. Do both in partnership.

advertising, book, Future of Online Video, Google, google video, Making Videos, Online Video, popular videos, Video Advertising, Video Business, Video Sites, Viral Video, Web 2.0, YouTube

What Will YouTube Do When Paris Hilton Doesn’t Save Them?

11 Comments

paris-on-youtube.jpgTechCrunch’s Marshall Kirpatrick reports that YouTube tomorrow will unveil a number of branded commercial channels– including a Paris Hilton channel being featured on the homepage. This is a surprising and encouraging move from a video site that hasn’t shown any other interesting way to profit from its incredible appeal. Fox has paid an undisclosed sum to advertise on YouTube and build custom channels, and it appears other media players (like NBC) are starting to take YouTube seriously.

So what’s next?

First, YouTube will have to figure out how to keep viewers at YouTube.com. The networks, despite what they’re telling YouTube right now, will constantly fight to dissintermediate YouTube. That way they can evolve past promoting their own shows… and start selling advertising space around their online content. Can you imagine how hard it will be for Fox to split ad revenue with YouTube when the ads surround Fox content? Sooner or later Fox will say- “why do I need you, tube?”

Second, we’ll probably see some fee-base channels evolve. I don’t see a sustainable pay-for-view model with YouTube alone, but if it partners well it could move that direction. Then Paris can charge for her nude videos… oh, wait… too late.

Third (and most importantly) what does it mean to us amateur video folks? Like Google Video, YouTube is focusing on large advertising deals with major content providers. Our viral stuff isn’t where the real action is yet. But here’s the good news (this is still me talking, but I’m drop quoting for emphasis):

YouTube needs to maintain “consumer generated content” to keep people returning to the site and avoid being dissintermediated by large content owners (Disney, Fox, Time Warner). Beyond some cool functionality and traffic (which is fickle), the amateur video content is the only edge YouTube has over Big Media.

So I would suspect YouTube is going to start sharing ad revenue with select creators that have Director accounts. The content will have more rigorous screening process (to ensure people don’t make ad revenue from video clips they ripped from the Daily Show), and will be vetted to ensure the content won’t embarass an advertiser. YouTube can start with me. I’m seeing WireFly ads on my little user page. How about a little CPC sharing?

Stay tuned. It’s getting more interesting by the day.

advertising, book, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Business

“Ripple Effect” News for Online Video? Puh-leez.

3 Comments

In a move the Wall Street Journal said could have a “ripple effect” for networks, CBS said it would will simulcast the soon-to-launch “Evening News with Katie Couric” live on the Internet. The WSJ ads, “Until now, no major TV networks have aired any of their programs on the Web simultaneously with television, although several of the networks have begun to stream programs after they’ve aired.” The ads for the online version will be sold separately.

This is news in 2006? I swear someone just put me in a time machine and dropped me off at the end of the 1990s. This is like watching Amazon’s rise as the traditional book sellers dabbled their plump, swollen, smelly toes into the online space.

CBS- here’s an idea. Tear down your website and just put up Katie’s bio on CBS.com. Make it appear as flash with music in the background. It would be very vogue.

advertising, book, Future of Online Video, Online Video

Fox to Sell Prison Break Episodes for $1.99 Online

1 Comment

nasty-prisonbreak-tatoo.jpgRegarding the recent news of Google/Viacom and Fox’s move to sell video online, Catherine Holahan of Business Week Online writes:

…The deals show just how far the online video industry has come in the past year—and are a harbinger of where it’s headed in a hurry. In a matter of months, many online video sites have evolved from pages packed with poor-quality home videos and pirated clips to video stores offering legitimate pay-per-download movies and network content.

Click here to read the article titled “Fox Feeds the Online Furry.” I encourage a visit so you can see a headline with alliteration, and a website that features quite possible the most annoying, intrusive talking AMD video banners — ever created.

advertising, book, Google, google video, Online Video, Revver, Video Advertising, Video Business, Video Sites

Extra, Extra: Google Video Preparing to Share Ad Revenue With Video Creators

3 Comments

personal_google_video.gifGoogle Video is rolling out some new features, including “instant gratification” uploading, and the ability to add comments, tags and ratings. Buried quietly in the “terms and conditions” (which you default accept if you don’t opt out in 5 days) is some language that suggests Google Video is preparing to give amateurs the ability to profit from ad revenue and sales of videos. See “more” below for an e-mail that was sent to uploaders last night. To read the new “terms and conditions” click here.

Highlights:

  • Selling Videos for 70% Gross: If user-generated video is eventually sold or rented via Google video, Google keeps 30%.
  • Ad Sharing Hints: If Google Video does share advertising revenue, you need to accrue $100 before they pay you, and it’s paid monthly.
  • You’re Fired: They can terminate your account if you set up more than one – unless you get written permission. If you provide a link from your video and don’t update it, they can terminate you.
  • Boilerplate Content Language: You grant a royalty-free, non-exclusive right. You allow Google Video to display “limited excerpts” of your content for “no fee to the end user.” You have to indemnify Google and only submit content that you create.
  • You’re Giving it to Google and Any of Google’s Friends: You give Google Video the right to display the video content “in connection with Google products and services now existing or hereafter developed, including without limitation for syndication on third party sites.” You are giving grant Google a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license to use your name and logo in connection with your video.
  • Click Fraud Clause: Google wouldn’t pay you for clicks “co-mingled” with invalid clicks. Suppose that means if they find Clickfraud, they don’t want to have to weed out the real from the fake.
  • Hush Clause: You can’t disclose your click thru rates. That’s Google confidential.

Bottom line? This represents Google Video moving slightly into YouTube’s “community” space for consumer-generated content, and potentially into Revver and Eefoof‘s advertising-sharing model. However I wouldn’t see it initially as a high-profit source for amateurs. Google Video appears to prioritize major content providers, and I’d predict the bulk of revenue to come from low-margin contextual ads. Although Google has high traffic, it needs to get into display/impression advertising to make decent money in the online video arena. Continue reading Extra, Extra: Google Video Preparing to Share Ad Revenue With Video Creators →

advertising, book, Online Video, Video Advertising, Video Contests

State Farm Goes for “Where’s the Beef” Campaign With “Legs”

wendys.jpgBrandWeek reports on a new campaign by State Farm that includes a viral video contest:

State Farm asks, then answers, the question, “Now what?” in a campaign that shows people having to deal with common, but difficult, situations. The campaign, via DDB, Chicago, targets young drivers and is anchored by three TV spots, in which no reference is made to State Farm, no words are spoken and the only text is the URL, www.Nowwhat.com.

The campaign, which broke this past weekend, already has State Farm believing it has “legs” to last a while. “We believe that ‘Now what?’ can become part of the vernacular, like ‘Where’s the beef?’ or ‘Whassup,’” said Teri Lucie, State Farm segment marketing director.

Poor Teri. Great idea and clever implementation. But imagine the snickering in the State Farm cafeteria. “Hey- here comes the ‘where’s the beef’ lady.” “Teri- long time no see. Whazzup.”

“I pitty the fool that don’t buy insurance.”

Starting 8/29 you’ll be able to enter a “So What” contest via iFilm (details on the site, read by a young un-voice-over announcer for that hip feel). Do you suppose you’ll have to watch a 90-minute pre-roll ad before registering? Actually that’s not fair. I think iFilm has calmed down a bit with the pre-rolls.

advertising, book, Future of Online Video, Google, google video, Online Video, Revver, Video Sites

Google, Ads and Distribution! “No One’s Ever Done This Before.”

lightbulb.jpgAnother online video article by WSJ: “Google to Distribute MTV Clips: Deal for Ad-Backed Videos Could Bolster Revenue, Broaden Viacom’s Reach” by Matthew Karnitschnig. How’d you like to have that last name and have to spell it to people 4 times in a row every single day?

The Highlights

  • Google will distribute video programming from Viacom’s MTV Networks. It starts this month with such programs as “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “Laguna Beach.”
  • Google will distribute these to a subset of its network — made up of thousands of Web sites — to place paid-search ads on behalf of a vast array of advertisers. “Our technology takes MTV’s video, marries it to an ad and shows it on a third site.
  • No one’s ever done this before,” Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview. “If this works, it would be a very large business for all players.”

Nobody has ever done that?! I love you Google, but that’s patently wrong. It’s called “Revvtagging” and Revver started in 2005. I can understand the Google CEO claiming it, but I’d have thought WSJ’s Karnetstchnigading would fact check that one.

Pictured above is a new invention Schmidt and a team created last weekend. It’s an electric current that passes through a thin filament, heating it and causing it to emit light. The enclosing glass “Goog-bulb” prevents the oxygen in air from reaching the hot filament, which would be otherwise rapidly destroyed by oxidation. Patent filed.

advertising, book, Killer Video, Making Videos, Online Video, popular videos, Video Advertising, Viral Video, vlogging, YouTube

Al Gore’s Penguin? You Have a Right to Manipulate Me. As Long as You Tell Me You Are.

2 Comments

One of my wife’s tabloids featured an ad for Vitamin Water featuring American Idol star Kelly Clarkson (I guess she lost enough weight that the campaign is live). The ad is made to look like the cover of the tabloid and uses its masthead. Since it appears upsidedown and is marketed by tiny 10-point type as being an advertisement… it looks like the magazine is doing a cover story on Clarkson and Vitamin Water.

Deceptive? I thought so. And I had the same feeling about Friday’s Wall Street Journal article titled “Where Did That Video Spoofing Gore’s Film Come From?” Here’s the video.

Highlights of the WSJ article (written by Antonio Regalado and Dionne Searcey):

  • “Al Gore’s Penguin Army,” is a two-minute video now playing on YouTube.com. Gore appears as a sinister figure who brainwashes penguins and bores movie audiences by blaming the Mideast crisis and starlet Lindsay Lohan’s shrinking waist size on global warming.
  • The video’s maker is listed as “Toutsmith,” a 29-year-old who identifies himself as being from Beverly Hills in an Internet profile. The WSJ busted him in an e-mail exchange in which it was clear that computer routing information contained in an email sent from Toutsmith’s Yahoo account indicate it didn’t come from an amateur working out of his basement. It originated from a computer registered to DCI Group, a Washington, D.C., public relations and lobbying firm whose clients include oil company Exxon Mobil Corp.
  • As its popularity has exploded, the public video-sharing site has drawn marketers looking to build buzz for new music releases and summer blockbusters. Now, it’s being tapped by political operatives, public relations experts and ad agencies to sway opinions.

Now it’s me talking. I found the video really funny! It has little to do with my political stance and more about the fact that it was irreverent, absurd, topical and sophomoric. That said, it wins DCI the first monthly “WVFF Viral Penicillin” award for making a series of basic errors:

  • First, don’t wear a mask. Tell us who you are. We’ll still laugh and forward it, and you won’t end up on the WSJ as the “poster child for manipulative PR.” Which isn’t a great thing if you’re a PR firm.
  • Second, watch that e-mail thread. How in the world did you get busted for that? Or maybe the WSJ had an inside “deep throat” they had to keep anonymous so they blamed it on e-mail since it’s hard to prove that wrong. I didn’t know e-mail carried secrets about the computer from which it originated. I’d better stop e-mailing YouTube and telling them I’m with the WSJ. 
  • Third, don’t by Google ads to promote your viral flick. It’s a giveaway that it has an agenda. Who can afford paid search to drive visits to a video?