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.
Yesterday I was driving home and spotted a Geek Squad van (Geek Squad is a computer repair division of retailer Best Buy). I thought it would be fun to create a video where I play a fictional Geek Squad hero responding to farcical “help calls,” so I shot some footage of the Geek Squad van. Later, I decided, I would videotape myself in our van, and edit it so it appeared I was the driver.
As I began to videotape the van, the Geek Squad driver became suspicious and concerned. He was speeding, so maybe he thought I was going to report him… and that intimidation would redirect the situation. He began to take photos of my car, write down the license plate number and give me odd looks. So at a stop light, I handed him my business card and explained my intent in hopes that it would diffuse the situation. I told him I was making a video parody for YouTube — not at his expense — but in a parody of people who call tech support for erroneous reasons. He replied, “good now I can sue you.” I thought that was an antagonistic response to my gesture, but I just smiled and drove away when the light turned green.
Minutes later I saw police lights in my rear-view mirror, and posted a video real-time on my Unclenalts account. I also Tweeted pictures of the event, and alerts. Seems the Geek Squad driver called 911 and reported me, saying I got out of the car at a red light.
The video documenting my experience is now among the most highly-rated videos of the week on YouTube, and the comment cloud below summarizes the reactions. Twitter exploded with @bestbuy and @geeksquad alerts, propelled by fellow YouTuber CharlesTrippy. Nearly 700 people “thumbed up” the video versus 16 “thumbs down.”
I’m still not quite sure why the driver became so defensive, or the rationale for the “reckless driver” citation I received for $85. I do plan to contest it, if only to keep my nearly perfect driving record stable.
Meanwhile it’s unfortunate for BestBuy (who I regard as one of the better companies in social media, as well as one of my favorite stores… until yesterday). Here’s a blog post I wrote about BestBuy’s Barry Judge, and my “man crush” on him.
No official response from BestBuy or GeekSquad, although I did get a positive tweet response from http://twitter.com/AgentEAN. I did alert BestBuy’s corporate PR to the situation via e-mail on Friday. No response yet.
I’m really no fan of drama like this, much less when it reflects negatively on a corporation I like (BestBuy) and involves the police. But I do feel obliged to surface this via social media… the driver’s defensive and confrontational reaction reflects poorly on Geek Squad. And it not only got me a police citation but ruined a rare date night with my wife last night. Hard not to look at the Geek Squad logo without getting a viscerally negative feeling… like when you smell burnt hair or hear a chalkboard scratch.
BestBuy, known for its heroic approach to social media, didn’t acknowledge the Twitter tornado on Friday (almost all searches for BestBuy and GeekSquad were about this situation).
Here’s the video on my Nalts channel that shows the blow-by-blow. I thought the police officer handled it well, even though I would have appreciated him not giving me a citation given that it was based on a report from the Geek Squad driver (rather than anything he witnessed). I can’t envision that holding up in court, since the “eye witness account” was clearly not objective. I would have also appreciated him allowing me to talk with the driver, which he refused.
Parenthetically, it’s not illegal to videotape a van or a policeman in public, despite many myths. I’ve only heard of people getting in trouble when videotaping in a private place and refusing to stop or leave…. or for obstructing justice or demonstrating disorderly conduct in public while videotaping.
Social media pioneers have long advocated honesty, disclosure, bacchanalianility, transparency and authenticity.
Today the world’s most widely read blog that is called WillVideoForFood announced a new short URL you bloggers, social-media whores and YouTube stars can use conveniently… It’s as follows: http://bit.ly/TransparentWhore
I probably ought to have come up with that code in June 2007 when I made this video featuring the fictional “CashToBuzz,” inspired by appauling businesses that would pay bloggers to review companies and products favorably. And yes, we were really chased out of a mall.
Just remember kids… it’s only pimping if I’m not in on the deal. And it’s only wrong when you pimp opaquely. Or forget your bacchanalianility.
I was reading the POV of a franchise trade blog on a TCBY “This Could Be Yours” video contest in which we’re a finalist. The contest, unlike many I’ve entered, is not about producing a compelling video to persuade consumers. It’s designed to prove to TCBY that you’re worthy of winning… a TCBY franchise (valued at $300K).
As I commented on that blog post, my first thought about this TCBY contest is that it might attract people who wouldn’t otherwise be strong franchise candidates. A franchisee demonstrates their commitment to the franchiser by investing start-up capital. By waiving that, TCBY has removed a healthy “barrier to entry” that keeps away those lacking the fortitude.
As a military analogy, the franchisee capital investment (which can range from $50-$300K) is the equivalent of boot camp. While boot camp trains new military recruits, it’s also a Darwinian-like process that ensures those going to battle are ready to endure.
I’ve written about plenty of video contests (and read Jared’s “Video Contest King“). But this is not like most video contests. It feels like it was driven by an effort to increase franchisee interest (B to B: business to business), but it’s perhaps inadvertently turned into a B-to-C (business to consumer) campaign. In other words, what might have been designed to spur franchise expansion has turned into something that can’t help but create consumer demand for yogurt. Check out Google News to see all of the local press this has generated. Our local story (see part of it here, or the scanned version at tcbywinners.com) prompted a classmate of our daughter to send us something she’d written in 2004:
“One day I will own an ice cream store shop and make lots of ice cream.”
Given the costs of a video contest (advertising, public relations, interactive development, contest legalities, etc), I wouldn’t expect a company like TCBY to make that investment to reach a fairly narrow audience: franchisee candidates. There certainly are more efficient ways to reach that target audience (trade shows, franchise magazines, franchise bloggers). But given the massive amount of public-relations spawned by this, the payoff to TCBY will indisputably be broader… enhanced branding, increased consumer awareness, demand growth.
3 examples that are difficult to put into a video contest ROI model (and I’m sure each contestant has examples like these):
Some parting thoughts for those of you that dared read this long:
Walter Sabo, Hitviews founder and former radio maven, makes it more apparent why radio people seem to have adapted more naturally to online video than television people. At first I thought it was simply that the radio people saw their boat sinking sooner than television people (some who vary their whistling melodies and choose a new route past the graveyard to show they’re flexible).
In fact there’s another reason that Sabo has attracted radio investments and a posse of former radio sales people, and it’s evident in his anti-standard piece and even more succinctly in his “Four Crazy Things My Dad Said About Media Buying”:
Every radio spot he (Sabo’s father and store owner) bought was a live read by personalities. Every print ad was endorsed by a local celebrity. Every TV buy at least had live tags even though TV was too precious to offer live spokespeople. On the Internet he would have bought a webstar video visiting the business and talking about it. We all buy products from friends.
Indeed radio and today’s version of online video are arguably more alike than online video and television. Why? The talent carries the show. You may like the tunes best, but you can’t argue with the facts: when a radio star jumps stations, the audience often follows. Is it any coincidence that one of YouTube’s hottest properties is a former disc jockey (yeah the fat guy- Shaycarl). If Shay loved beets I’d eat ’em.
Online video is about a charismatic human and people who enjoy them… unscripted reality and a fairly intimate relationship (as one-to-many goes). Like radio personalities, online video folks don’t mind plugging a good sponsor. And that doesn’t work as naturally on the boob tube, except for during an occasional talk show (where’d that format come from again) or that radio-like television show we call American Idol.
I’m not entirely unbiased about Sabo’s poetry (see below graphic to find the “Hitviews Pro” series on JackMyers.com) because I have a working relationship and friendship with the radio and online-video media maven… Still, I do believe he’s the Billy May’s of online video. He cuts through a lot of the jargon and states inarguable truisms, and it’s especially charming when he quotes his dad. Get on his good side, and he’ll give you a bear hug, make you feel special, and drive two states to bring you cookies when you’re having back surgery. Get on his bad side, and he’ll pinch your brain. Either way you’ll find him more interesting than the average human, and check your pulse if you don’t find this article about why records in automobiles failed (it’s not why you’d think).
Since my blog’s been a bit slow lately, here are 5 great articles by Walter “Regis” Sabo and Caitlin “Cathy Lee” Hill. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Sabo is his blatant disregard for middlemen, especially media buyers. (Just once I want a media buyer to tell me how prejudice I am, and prove me wrong).
Of all the nonsense about social media, I can’t say I have heard it represented as a money saver until I read this interview with Jane Postlethwaite (Social Media Can Save Council Money). Man it’s weird to call a YouTuber buy her full name when you basically barely know her first name. She’s StylistBrighton, damnit (and SytlistBrightonStyle). I met the fashion stylist/model in London, but who knew her name was Postlethewaite?
Anyway the former fashion model and YouTube weblebrity is now the Brighton and Hove City Council Social Media Officer, and she’s opening the UK government’s eyes to using social media to reduce costs. It’s a fair point. When you have 9,000 employees and take 400 calls a day, there’s got to be an efficiency angle… keeping or improving relationships with the public without the burden and cost of mail and phones.
I have a client that receives 500 calls daily in a customer-service department with only about 4 or 5 people. If customers could gain access to basic information (the 80% of the calls that represent the same 10 questions), why shouldn’t social media provide cost offset? As an example, I no longer call stores to check their hours or directions… Google covers that for me, and its’ faster and has zero cost to me or the company.
So kudos to Jane for being brave enough to enlighten a government office to social media (far braver than me trying to do it for pharmaceutical firms). And extra credit for conceiving it as an efficient channel of communication that can maintain or improve public relations and also reduce calls, letters, lines of people…
One day, when the US catches up, I hope I can update my driver’s license in a single tweet. A girl can have her dreams.
I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with social-media monitoring tools, and their inability to filter out old content or spam bots using my old content. It’s very easy for me to assess a social-media tool by querying my own name (Nalts). I know instantly what content about me is new, and can recognize old content that has been repurposed by spam sites, which often grab my old blogs and video descriptions to fool search engines and people into thinking they’re not autobots.
Here’s an example from my Google Alerts, which I am about to discontinue. None of this is new! Even Google can’t determine what’s old anymore... and some of this links to my own blog posts that are ancient. This makes me question the prevailing myth that Google will overtake the social-media monitoring landscape with its own free solution.
Is there a solution? Even the best social-media tools can’t seem to discern between legitimate recent posts (of me anyway) that are on my sites or others.
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:
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!
This WSJ post claims it’s the death of the “slush pile.” It seems publishers like Random House once reviewed unsolicited books for consideration. Not anymore.
“Getting plucked from the slush pile was always a long shot—in large part, editors and Hollywood development executives say, because most unsolicited material has gone unsolicited for good reason.”
Now there’s a new fear. “Film and television producers won’t read anything not certified by an agent because producers are afraid of being accused of stealing ideas and material. Most book publishers have stopped accepting book proposals that are not submitted by agents.”
“The Web was supposed to be a great democratizer of media,” writes Katherine Rosman. “Anyone with a Flip and Final Cut Pro could be a filmmaker; anyone with a blog a memoirist. But rather than empowering unknown artists, the Web is often considered by talent-seeking executives to be an unnavigable morass.”
Rosman suggests you find an agent or enter contests. I’d argue that the web is still a vibrant place for talent to find an audience, and would look no farther than the top YouTubers. Are they moving to television and films? No. Are they gaining audiences and making money? Yes. Dozens and hundreds.
So maybe being at the top of the slush pile is better than being “plucked” from it?
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.
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: