Tag Archives: Online Video

book, Online Video

Big Brands Tap Online-Video Stars

13 Comments

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.
advertising, book, Online Video, Video, Video Advertising, Viral Video, Yahoo Video, YouTube

Watch Superbowl Ads Online on 7 Video Sites

9 Comments

Why watch the game, when you can catch all of the advertisements on these online-video sites? And hey- most of these ads don’t have any prerolls. That goodness Madison Avenue and the online-video sites are finally cooperating. 

book, Online Video

Draft: Online-Video Predictions for 2009

35 Comments

I’m drafting my 2009 predictions for online video. I’m trying really hard not to repeat previous predictions, and to be realistic about what can happen in a year. This space has made enormous changes in 2008. Last month I made more on YouTube advertising revenue than I made in a month from my first job out of business school. Still not enough to live on, but a trend that I hope continues.

Here are some initial predictions, and I hope you expert readers will chime in. I’m rushing off to get the kids out the house, so this is just “top of mind” stuff:

  1. More amateurs will make full-time living via video ad revenue
  2. Dramatic shifts of online spending to video advertising: especially cost-per-click ads around relevant content
  3. 2009 is the year of the “semi pros.” The monetization is not significant enough for major players, but we’ll see many vloggers replaced by clever comedy troupes that adapt content for web… and create addictive content cheaply.
  4. SEO will awaken marketers to the potential of video– if I can get a top organic placement by tagging a popular video appropriately, that’s a short cut to the top of Google… a coveted spot.
  5. YouTube will continue to grow as market leader, but I believe some of the 2nd tier players will increase share. As the market matures, YouTube will remain #1, but the other sites (Yahoo, MSN) will start to attract new audiences, and steal share.
  6. Monetization options will greatly increase. Google will pressure YouTube to monetize the site, not because it needs cash but because it knows that it can’t attract professional content without better ways to monetize.
  7. We’ll see standardization of video ads, and new models like “overlay” (InVideo ads) that are less intrusive than pre-rolls but provide viewers with relevant video content.
  8. More of YouTube views will occur off YouTube via embedded video on other sites… as long as site owners can access free content and monetize the views.

What else?

Online Video

The Anti-Virus to Online Video

31 Comments

I’m still procrastinating my AdAge article for online-video, but the process awakened me to something vital about online video. You see, when I was featured for the first time on YouTube it was mocking a “viral video genius.” It was meant to be a joke. Viral video was not an art form, and remains a mix of luck, timing and the impact of the video. But I’ve still been using the term “viral video” like it’s some sort of holy grail, and I’d like to change course in 2009.

Yes friends, the self-proclaimed “Viral Video Genius” is now advocating for the anti-virus. Viral video is dead for 2009, and I hope this Feed Company report of the best “Viral Video” advertisements is one of the last roundups I read. 

Viral Video is Dead in 2009Yes, Virginia. I said it. Viral video is dead. In fairness, it was a bad idea from the beginning. The term viral was around well before online-video and derives from the term “virus.” Needless to say, when I first used the term in interactive-agency pitches to pharmaceutical firms in 1999 and 2000, marketers were deeply confused. 

There are three reasons I’d like to inject an anti-virus penicillin into the arm of marketing.

  1. The term “virus” is not polite or accurate. Social media requires a new mindset where terms like “targets” and “bulls eye” aren’t exactly terms of endearment. Business is packed with war terms, as is sports. Even “retention” or “persistence” isn’t quite the same thing as winning a customer’s loyalty. So when you want a consumer to share your promotional message with their friends, a virus isn’t the connotation you’re after. The term even implies that the video spreads despite the carriers instead of as a result of their work.
  2. Second, it’s increasingly difficult to go viral and virtually impossible to predict much less guarantee. I’ve done more than 700 videos, and only a few have gone “viral,” if that’s defined as millions of views. Fewer and fewer brands will have promotion that is so dang compelling that it will be passed along by consumers.
  3. Third, going “viral” is hardly even a worthy goal. The “viral” obsession is based on a preoccupation with “total views” instead of the right views. In our hysteria to deliver big numbers, we’ve missed a core tenant of marketing that’s more vital than “reach, frequency and single-minded proposition.” It’s called targeting.

Example: Many of you WVFF readers may remember when Agency.com’s “Subway Pitch” process was documented on YouTube, and spread among interactive marketers and agencies. Agency.com lost the pitch, and the video reached key “insiders” of the medium even though it did not get many views by conventional measures. If I’m marketing a software product to human resource managers, I want my video viewed by HR people. Sure if it’s seen 10 million times, it’s likely some of them will be HR managers. But if only 2 percent are indeed my target, perhaps I’d rather 200,000 views on blogs read by HR managers.

So let’s get back to the basics. Online-video is growing wildly, and gambling on a “viral hit” is far riskier than identifying and promoting via select channels or video creators. There are two ways to help ensure online-video investment reaches the right people:

  • ensure media buys are focused on the right audience (demographics or otherwise). 
  • partner with popular video shows and creators (professional and amateur) that have already aggregated your most-valuable consumers. 

If you’re marketing a men’s health product called “Macho Cologne,” do you buy an ad in Men’s Health (or try to get an article written about your product). Or would you launch Macho Cologne Magazine, and pray people might find it, and read it? If I’m marketing cat food, I don’t want to create my own cat videos and launch a channel. I want my ads associated with already popular animal video channels and creators (and this is getting easier with Google keywords available on YouTube). And if there’s a popular pet show that features cats, an even higher-impact model would be to sponsor the creator — especially if they have a proven ability to attract regular crowds (not just a one-hit wonder, but regular viewers/subscribers). The combination of sponsored video and advertisements is just the right cocktail is more likely to work. 

 

Online Video

First Online-Video Star Receives Medal of Honor by NYC National Arts Club

35 Comments

thehill88 and naltsCaitlin Hill, known online as TheHill88, received NYC’s National Arts Club’s prestigious “Medal of Honor” this week (see press release which I just finished toiling over because I’m consulting with Hitviews.

The 20-year-old Australian video creator joins former medal recipients Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Leonard Bernstein, Salvador Dali, and Martin Scorcese. Three US Presidents have been members of the National Arts Club.

Caitlin was honored by top broadcast talent, pioneers of radio and television… and me.

 I’m seen in this photo, just minutes before I ate Caitlin’s dessert while she was giving her thank-you speech. After acknowledging guests, she remarked, “Nalts- I forgot you’re funny.” I’ll give you about 700 ways to forget, Caitlin.

Seriously, though. This room was packed with the who’s who of media, many whom have made private investments in Hitviews.

  • Reese Schonfeld, the former CEO of CNN.
  • Cousin Brucie Morrow, who introduced the Beatles in Shea Stadium in 1965.
  • Hitviews Founder Walter Sabo, who was one of the youngest VPs of ABC and NBC.
  • Allan Shaw, Centennial Broadcasting founder.
  • National Arts Club President O. Aldon James
  • Gary Slaight, a former owner of 30 radio stations in Canada, and Bob Weinstein, co-founder of Miramax, are also investors but did not attend the December 8 dinner.

Check out some of the brief talks honoring Caitlin (below). Again- I’ve been consulting with Hitviews because I kinda dig this model about rallying top online-video stars to reate branded entertainment. I think with this group of media investors — their experience and funding — Hitviews may change the game for creators and advertisers.

If you choose to watch the videos of the December 8 dinner, check out Allan Shaw especially (mustache guy). He’s got some inside knowledge as a YouTube viewer. And if you watch mine, I really, really am not interested on a count of how many “uh” and “ums” I had. It was past my bedtime. Check out Caitlin’s video at 3:00 where she gives her “Nalts” dig. Charming. Lovely. Read Caitlin’s accounts of the day here.


 

Online Video

Strike.TV Still Feels Like B-Grade TV Instead of Good Online Video

10 Comments

It’s hard to avoid Strike.tv in conversations or a story about new shows. And I’ll admit that I first tried not to like any of it, but I’m now trying to embrace the genre. I’m not there yet.

There are a few things that are unnerving about the increasing proliferation of quasi-professional online videos, even though the acting, production and writing is far 98% of YouTube videos.

  1. Because the quality is so much better than typical online-videos, I feel obliged to regard at it as low-class television instead of clever online-video.
  2. The 30-second prerolls set the bar higher than most can reach. Furthermore, many shows start with a Strike.tv bumper, and credits (like the one below). The ads eventually calm down (not every video), but a new visitor has no way to know that.
  3. It’s hard to know what’s popular or rated highly on Strike.tv, since it’s not very interactive. Many episodes have no comments, and the site doe little to foster a sense of community that is the backbone of YouTube. Commercial parodies like “Real Man Beer” or “Koolaid Sex” are just… flat.
  4. The site makes it hard to find a show, then track to the director to see what else he/she has done. You either need to search by actor, director or show. If we like something about a show, it’s not easy to find or “subscribe” to future work by that person/production.
  5. I like knowing how much of a video is left without having that obstruct the image. The timeline appears only when you mouseover. So when you find shows like this OnStar parody (which starts well, but the second episode became a deal killer), you’d like to know how much more of the predictable “evil OnStar” you must endure before claiming you “gave it a chance.”

I do like how when you select a show, it’s rather easy to identify the first episode, and progress through them to “catch up.”

And every once in a while I’m pleasantly surprised. Watch the acting of this “Faux Baby” episode, and you’ll talent that deserves a wider audience. Especially with the missing laugh tracks. Just watch out for ads and credits that sometimes equate to 10 minutes of introduction for a 30-minute sitcom.

Online Video

Burger King P’wns McDonalds in Viral Video

15 Comments

When we weren’t having “my dad can beat up your dad” debates as children, we had the “Burger King versus McDonalds” debate. Of course, now I go wherever my kids tell me because they’re not going to eat a thing anyway until the meal toys are edible.

But the WillVideoForFood 2008 “Fast Food Online-Video Award” goes to… Burger King. Don’t get me wrong- the freaky masked Burger King’s appearances in TV ads gave me Wes Craven nightmares too. But at least the brand’s recent online-video campaign “Cavalcade” makes sense (and I’m not even a Family Guy addict).

Seriously- this McDonalds “The Reality House” series is a classic example of a brand’s futile attempt to develop its own content on a desert island… it’s as tired as the old lady rapping. It’s as perplexing as McDonald’s first commercial. Contrast that with Burger King’s Seth MacFarlane Cavalcade program, which was a smart use of YouTube, a visible and high-engagement promotion for Burger King, and a brilliant way to leverage a known creator while “fishing where the fish are.” The deal involved a generous check to Seth (not to mention that the deal grew his own onlie audience), a healthy InVideo and homepage BK media spend on YouTube, and brief pre-roll promotion that didn’t interfere with the entertainment- in fact it was illustrated by Seth (or more likely outsourced child cartoonists that got axed by Martha Stewart).

For the love of God, agencies, please stop trying to create custom-branded programming with names like Menuaire, or expensive microsites packed with overly-baked video content. The result is that nobody cares, and then giant media budgets must be diverted to drive traffic to easily forgotten destination sites. If you’re buying Dove banner ads to engage consumers around natural beauty, that makes some sense (as long as you don’t run ’em against uploaded Ax ads). But please don’t promote a Dove web series written by frustrated screen writers slaving helplessly under the oppresive reign of a thick-accented agency creative executive with bad breath and untreated ADHD.

I’d rather see those ad dollars getting us to eat more burgers. I’m all about engaging customers with entertainment, but do it with people that know the medium or have proven they can draw a crowd. And put the billboards on a highway rather than erecting giant signs that say, “exit here to watch a mildly entertaining advertisement.”

When P&G wanted to access stay-at-home moms, they didn’t started a new branded entertainment network scripted by brand managers that spent more time with their heads in excel sheets than facing television sets. They convinced the big networks to write soap operas, left the writes alone to hydrate the insatiable drama thirst of moms, and jammed the shows full of ads. Today’s version might have involve product integration (her tragic car accident was a result of restless knee syndrome), but the model is fairly time-tested and simple:

  1. Promotion takes a quiet backseat to novel entertainment or nobody engages
  2. The content goes where people are already hanging… it’s extremely hard to compel someone to leave YouTube for advertainment.
  3. Leverage people who know the medium and have proven they can draw crowds in online-video (or in Seth’s case, leverage recognizable equity from television).

Just because entry costs to content production have dropped doesn’t mean brands should become entertainers. The result is often like watching a wedding slide show with cheesy Powerpoint transitions and random dissolves. Or that flier that screams “hey- I just learned desktop publishing, and look how many fonts and clip art I squeezed onto an 8.5×11!”

book, Online Video

Why Web Stars Can’t Act, and Why It Doesn’t Matter

13 Comments

A recent HBOLabs series titled “Hooking Up” has surprised people in two ways: those who expected TV/film-like acting performances from web stars have been disappointed. Those who expected another web series to be ignored were wrong.The show has had nearly 50K subscribers, and hundreds of thousands of views per episode (less for the vlogs).

So this proved that a web series that accesses the fame of known creators in 2008 and 2009 will draw larger audiences than with trained actors. Indeed by TV/film standards, web stars shouldn’t even be called actors.

Each medium creates its own stars… and some survive the transition from stage to radio to television to film and now internet video. But Hooking Up is a reminder of two indisputable facts about web stars:

  1. We are not the world’s finest script actors.
  2. We can (even me sometimes) attract sizable audiences (especially by web video standards).

The series would have floundered like many others had it not tapped into the vibrant audiences of its top stars. Kids that would watch Ishtar 2 as longs as KevJumba and LonelyGirl15 were in it.

Let this be a reminder that to be a popular video creator, there are a number of skillsets required that are far more diverse than acting. If a video creator is brilliant at a few, but lacks a balance, than he/she has far less odds of success than the one with decent skills across the board.

  1. Ability to connect with the audience as if each viewer is a friend.
  2. A unique and interesting approach to videos.
  3. Good looks (I make up in other areas).
  4. The commitment to interact with the audience in comments and e-mails.
  5. Editing skills. I have the power to turn horrendous acting into B-movie acting via this alone.
  6. Street smarts on what audiences want. This means watching a lot of video.
  7. Low costs. Big productions bleed.
  8. Acting.
  9. Self promotion and networking (among creators and industry folks).
  10. Most importantly, unwavering persistence,  thick skin, and the ability to reenvent.

I’ll bet on a web personality that has most of these, and can’t act before a brilliant actor that’s too shy to interact with other creators or audiences.

Here’s what’s interesting, though. I believe these requirements will change as larger players enter the arena. Remember 2 years ago you just had to be an interesting vlogger that caught the attention of a popular vlogger. So the rules are changing.

2009 will still require all of these skills, but in years ahead we may well see that larger productions will find these skills in a few people, allowing the “best in breed” instead of the “full service personality.”

Confidentially (which is why I’m only telling the 19 of you that read this blog) I didn’t care much for my own acting on Hooking Up, but I have two things that saved me. My appearance on The Retarded Policeman (which is Emmy-Award winning) and the fact that some of the Hooking Up acting was so bad I’m Shakespearean by contrast.

book, Online Video

Tribe Behavior in Online Video

39 Comments

I’ve always had a brain crush on Seth Godin, and used to preach his gospel when I worked at an interactive agency pre-bubble burst. But I had lost touch with the author since his Purple Cow book, and was glad to get a dose of his new “tribal marketing” insights last week in NYC.

Here’s a quick summary of Tribes:

  • A tribe is any group of people who are connected to one another, a leader, and an idea.
  • For millions of years, humans have been seeking out tribes, be they religious, ethnic, economic, political, or even musical (think of the Deadheads). It’s our nature.
  • Now the Internet has eliminated the barriers of geography, cost, and time. All those blogs and social networking sites are helping existing tribes get bigger.

As I continue to read about budget challenges with online-video advertising, I’m struck with the stark contrast between:

  • ads that surround or interrupt a video (and usually annoy they aren’t ignored).
  • the promotional videos I do (and urge other amateurs to make).

To use an exaggerated example, when Oprah gives away 276 Pontiacs we remember it. When she pimps an author, he becomes a best seller. But name one of the ads that rolled when you were watching Oprah (assuming you didn’t DVR her and zip past ads all together).

If I had time, I would have loved to explain YouTube’s tribe to Seth, and how I saw online video in a new light as I listened to him.

  • In effect, there are lots of different “tribes” in online video. Most top creators are, in effect, tribal leaders by Seth’s definition.
  • My favorite example are the Vlog Brothers. There’s a great pride among the viewers who strongly identify with the term “Nerd Fighters.” They rally, they meet locally, and it gives them a sense of belonging… to rid the world of suck and infuse awesome.
  • A long time YouTube advocate, Renetto, led an exodus to Vloggerheads and many followed. In fact the site is now populated with people who aren’t Renetto fans, and sub tribes have formed (dozens of groups).
  • Gay entertainment reporter Michael Buckley has developed such a regular following with his What the Buck show that even his vlog channel (Peron75) has 65,000 subscribers. His live shows on blog.tv draw hundreds.

I don’t think of myself as a tribe leader, and I try to entertain — not create a sense of intimacy and belonging among viewers. But there have been times where the community rallied on my behalf (like the time I asked for help to get into YouTube’s partners program with this NAPPY video). That video remains one of the most responded to video of all time.

  • What does this mean to creators? Considering your family of viewers as a “tribe” will probably foster a greater sense of unity and advocacy. This could result in a faster-growing audience, but also carries challenges and responsibilities. It’s like a second family, and some have time and desire for that, while others don’t.
  • What does this mean to advertisers? Despite what you’d hope, most people don’t care about your product or service enough to form a tribe around it (with maybe Mac and cars as exceptions). So your best bet is to join a tribe that exists. But that’s not about advertising in prerolls or even paying the creator to make a paid video. That’s going to involve something far more interesting, that has the tribe see the brand as a welcome member not a self-serving interuption.
Online Video

Friday’s Lesson: Fake Puking Offends More Than Fake Blood

14 Comments

It’s a parodox, but it’s one of those things we learn about humankind thanks to the “hot spot” insight tool available on YouTube. You see, now we know when people exit our videos relative to the norm of videos of that same lenght. The chart below shows that the “Videogame Violence & Your Children” parody was rather healthy. Until a certain part of the video when there was a fairly steep dropoff.

nalts pukes

  • Was it the blood?
  • Dora the Explorer’s arm getting shot off?
  • The Mario head?
  • The traffic accident in Frogger?

No folks. It was the oatmeal puke that did it. Let that be a lesson to you. Fake blood. No worries. Fake vomit? They’re gone. Or maybe it’s the difference between animation and video?