iMedia on a roll today May 19, 2009
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentWow, what a great newsletter today from iMedia- really topical and interesting stuff.
There is a great article on 4 costly metrics misconceptions
Another on “How Twitter and email can benefit targeted marketing.”
How we screwed up online advertising, and finally some guidelines for successful video advertising.
By the way, if you want to make sure that your online advertising buys are working as hard for you as they possibly can, or if you are interested in optimizing your video campaigns you can always take all the guesswork out and give us a buzz.
News Corp.: Video ads to get premium pricing July 24, 2008
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentHALF MOON BAY, Calif. – Looking at big money-making opportunities online, News Corp. (NWS) President Peter Chernin pointed to video, mobile and overseas markets as good long-term bets.
In an interview with Fortune editor at large Richard Siklos at Brainstorm Tech on Tuesday, Chernin said advertisers still haven’t completely embraced the online opportunity, and that they continue to have a television mindset. He said an advertiser recently told a MySpace sales rep to come back when the social network has a “SuperBowl-level” event. What the advertiser failed to recognize, Chernin said, is that the MySpace homepage has as many viewers every day as the SuperBowl has once a year. (Of course, there’s a good argument that MySpace visitors aren’t quite as engaged with the content as SuperBowl viewers are.)
He also addressed the challenges News Corp. faces in getting a decent price for ads on MySpace. (The company partners with Google (GOOG) to monetize the site.) The answer, Chernin said, may be to look beyond banners and text ads. “What drives ad prices is scarcity,” he said. “The place that is most promising is probably in video. By definition there’s more scarcity in video, and there’s even more scarcity in premium video.”
READ THE REST OF THIS CNN/FORTUNE ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
YouTube: You Created the Content, Now Sell the Ads June 9, 2008
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentGoogle, Looking to Monetize Video Site, Is Letting Content Producers Sell Advertising on Their Branded Channels
<!–
–>
Published: June 09, 2008
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Google has struggled to find the best way to monetize YouTube. The latest idea: Let content creators sell ads.
Professional content producers — those who come equipped with their own ad-sales teams — are now able to sell advertising on their YouTube channels. That includes the click-to-expand overlays that run across the bottoms of YouTube videos and display units on the page that hosts the video player. The revenue is split between the content creator and YouTube, just as it would be if YouTube sold the ads.
YouTube is by far the largest video site, with more than 4 billion videos viewed in March, according to ComScore, but it has not been able to translate that audience into significant dollars. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said better monetizing of YouTube is priority No. 1 in 2008. Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck pegs YouTube’s revenue at about $90 million this year; other estimates have it as high as $200 million. Even at the high end, that would be just a touch more than 1% of Google’s total revenue. (YouTube’s head of monetization, Shashi Seth, recently left the company to join a Silicon Valley start-up.)
For many professional content creators and producers, being able to control the inventory that surrounds their videos is an important factor when they consider where and how to distribute content online. Revision3, the online-video-production company behind shows such as “Diggnation” and “Techzilla,” is selling advertising on YouTube, starting with GoDaddy, a sponsor that’s regularly integrated into the content of its shows. Many Revision3 shows have integrated sponsors, and the company’s CEO, Jim Louderback, said the ability to pair companion YouTube advertising in and around the videos is appealing.
Targeting
For YouTube, such deals give the site’s sales force additional representation within ad agencies and a carrot to dangle when trying to get high-quality-content creators to distribute on the site.
“They’re really interested in packaging together all their distribution potential, including YouTube, and using that to surround their anchor and tell a story just like our sales force would sell on our platform,” said Shiva Rajaraman, product manager at YouTube. “So we’ve started to work with these partners that do have that capability, essentially enabling them to sell their own inventory on YouTube.”
YouTube targets advertising by channel or vertical, such as comedy or music, rather than around specific videos. Because of that, there should be less channel conflict, Mr. Rajaraman said.
“We tend to do the bundled-audience sell,” he said. “They tend to do more sponsorship sales.” He wouldn’t address specific deals.
It’s easy enough to envision where YouTube could go from here: Content creators could not only sell ads that would appear next to their content but also extend the reach of those ads to third-party-created videos on YouTube. One hypothetical: Revision3 sells ads to GoDaddy to run not only on YouTube pages showing “Diggnation” videos but also on other third-party, tech-focused videos. Under such a deal, revenue could be split three ways: among Revision3, YouTube and the producers of the third-party content where the ad ran.
Good partner
60Frames CEO Brent Weinstein, who produces online-video content that is syndicated across a variety of partners, including YouTube, said the Google property has been a “very collaborative” partner that has helped video producers discover nuances in the environment and see trends. He didn’t elaborate what kinds of distribution deals he’s struck with the site, other than to say it has been easy to work with. “With their market leverage, you’d expect them to have diva quality, but they don’t,” he said.
Mr. Rajaraman said YouTube will conduct a series of brand-effectiveness tests, and it’s not finished experimenting in the ad space.
“We’ll be trying new formats, new ways to engage users,” he said. “No one knows quite how to crack video advertising yet.” Get more great content at Adage.com
Nike Risks Viral Backlash With Kobe Video On YouTube April 22, 2008
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a comment| Nike Risks Viral Backlash With Kobe Video On YouTube | |
| by Sarah Mahoney, Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008 5:00 AM ET | |
 The launch of Nike’s Hyperdunk recently, its lightest basketball shoe ever, is getting an unexpected boost from a viral video. But the footage, doctored to show basketball legend Kobe Bryant “jumping over” a speeding sports car, is sparking plenty of questions from observers-some about safety, and others about the role of authenticity in brand positioning.The 53-second video showing Bryant bounding over an Aston Martin has become a hit on YouTube, garnering nearly 2.5 million views in its different versions. In just a few weeks, it’s sparked lengthy-albeit fairly moronic-debates among viewers about whether it’s real or not. (Not, says Nike. Like the L.A. Lakers would let Bryant run the risk of turning into the world’s most expensive pancake?) On one level, it’s a marketing hit, too. “Just on the basis of word of mouth-are they building buzz and creating conversations? – it’s doing quite well,” says Pete Blackshaw, EVP of Nielsen Online Strategic Services and author of the upcoming Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000: Running a Business in Today’s Consumer-Driven World. “There are companies that brag when 2,000 people watch their viral videos.” But it’s also sparked a handful of teenage copycat videos, and safety advocates are concerned. While Bryant opens and closes the video with the obligatory “Don’t try this at home” legalese, “we’ve got a lot of kids who are looking to be famous online,” says Parry Aftab, a security, privacy and cyberspace lawyer. “They are bored, and live anonymous lives, and are looking for something that would put them on top of the pack for being brave or cool or funny.” Certainly, many YouTubers (not to mention cranky parents) agree. “So when is the YouTube video [appearing] of the kids getting run [over] by Mom’s Toyota trying this?” writes one. “Think no one is that stupid?” Adds another: “You are gonna have about 5,000 kid Kobe fans who try this and all the retards who came up with this idea are gonna have blood on their hands,” adds another, helpfully linking to a handful of videos, all posted pre-Kobe, of teens actually getting mowed down trying to pull off similar stunts. “THIS IS THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SHOE ADS!! THE WORST! LEAVE IT TO KOBE!” screams another. While the flattening of potential shoe-shoppers is a concern, “certainly, if people get hurt as a result of this, it will turn out to be a big negative for Nike,” says Ed Keller, CEO of the Keller Fay Group, a word-of-mouth research consulting company in New Brunswick, N.J. A separate question for marketers is whether this kind of buzz can drive sales. “If the online conversation is mostly about whether the ads are fake or not, and centers on how they created that effect,” he asks, “does that help with overall brand momentum?” Certainly, there’s a contingent of outraged watchers: “This is as fake as Kobe,” snorts one of the more polite Kobe and Nike bashers, and there’s much debate about which other basketball stars might be able to pull off such a leap-for real. But for the most part, viewers seem to be pretty fascinated with just how the spot was shot. “Most people realize that sports figures’ contracts usually prevent them from even riding motorcycles, let alone leaping over moving vehicles-and this is lighthearted enough that it won’t turn people off,” says Blackshaw. Bryant himself has described the shot in two words that say it all: “That’s Hollywood!” Even some safety advocates agree. “Most teens are savvy enough to see through this,” says Liz Perle, editor-in-chief of Common Sense Media, a San Francisco-based group that reviews media for parents. While she says the Nike video definitely “skirts the line” of what’s safe, “for most kids, there’s a real suspension of disbelief-they know about special effects and Photoshop.” Of course, she adds, that’s not to say some kid might not get hurt trying to recreate the Kobe jump. “But there will always be copy-cat behavior, and kids can find plenty of ways to hurt themselves without Kobe Bryant.” Aftab, who is also the founder of Wired Safety, a children’s advocacy group, disagrees. “At some point, I think the Federal Trade Commission will step in to rule on the safety of these viral ads, just as they do for TV.” Nike, meanwhile, maintains that the video is completely safe. “One of our goals at Nike is to always consider the safety of our athletes and others, and we wouldn’t want anyone to re-enact this,” says KeJuan Wilkins, a Nike spokesperson. “This was done with professional editing and something people practiced and rehearsed. ” Of course, whether it sells Hyperdunks is still to be determined-the shoe isn’t scheduled to hit U.S. stores until late July. “We wanted to get something out there to generate excitement and buzz as we head toward the Olympics,” says Wilkins. “The beauty of a project like this is that people can watch it as much as they want and as often as they want. And many of the kids we’re trying to reach live in this digital world.” Certainly, Keller says, “if you can put out a video and get a couple of million views, that will help seed a new product launch.” But it isn’t without risks. “This is the double edge sword of word-of-mouth and consumer-generated media,” says Blackshaw. “This is the new epicenter of consumer attention, but it doesn’t always cut in the brand’s best direction.”
|
Real Advertising in 2008? February 13, 2008
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a comment.
By Mark Blei
While looking at my Blogroll today I noticed that Giles Rhys Jones of Ogilvy London had been over taking a peak. Giles has a really excellent blog himself called Interactive Marketing Trends that I highly recommend. As bloggers are wont to do, I scanned over some of his content and found two great clips, one of them a funny little clip about WPP which I would post but won’t for fear my boss will steal my shoes when I’m wondering off for coffee, and then I caught this great video that was done by a group called Improv Everywhere.
Which Giles said and I agree was a great example of what he calls “real advertising” and compared it to the Sony Bravia Ad recently . It’s interactive clips like this that also bring the audience into the making of it, and by showing the crowd reaction from the perspective of the makers of the film, make it even more engaging to the viewer as they feel like they are part of the process of the creation of the art and less a passive viewer.
He also pointed out that 2008 could be the year that this new field of reality advertisement takes hold, which Giles postulates and I agree is a great way to spread both WOM and Viral advertising and shows how people can use sites like YouTube as a vehicle for their advertisement and both entertain and keep viewers engaged and looking for more.
Well done Giles! My curiosity however is peaked, and I must ask what Nick at Dartington meant when he commented on the WPP clip’s relevancy being due to the fact that he actually had an exotic dancer on stage recently.
Tell Nick to call me about any openings he might have in whatever department requires exotic dancers. I’m obviously in the wrong end of this industry .
This posting is a personal opinion article by Mark Blei who is in Business Development for Dynamic Logic Inc and the author of this blog. None of the content of this article is meant to be an opinion of Dynamic Logic, It’s parent company Millward Brown or anybody but the writer.
Starcom: TV Networks Make $120M in Online Video Ads December 3, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a comment
The stories draw viewers,
the bards make a pittance
As Hollywood writers strike over payment for online distribution, a new report details just how much money TV networks have made selling online video ads, reports The Financial Times.
According to media buying firm Starcom, the four major US networks stand to rake in $120 million in revenue selling ads in streaming video this year.
The agency report says advertisers are attracted to the increasing audience for hit shows online. The web also allows them to better target their ads; research shows higher ad recall among viewers when compared to traditional TV.
Studios have been reluctant to share how much they’re bringing in from streaming video advertising because of contract negotiations between themselves and the writers, which currently receive no compensation from having their work re-purposed for online, mobile or any other new distribution platform.
Starcom estimates the overall video ad market will reach $1.3 billion this year, more than double what it was in ‘06. Networks, with their recognizable brands and “safe” content, are positioned to receive the lion’s share of that spending.
How Much Involvement Will $1 Million Buy Me? November 26, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentby Gregory Wilson
Over lunch recently, an online publisher shared with me an RFP that he had received. The advertiser wanted to know how many impressions they could get for a million dollars.
The publisher looked at me and said, “See, they still aren’t getting it, are they?” When I asked what he meant by that, he said, “Broadband isn’t about building reach
It’s about building relationships. Broadcast is all about how many saw the advertising. Broadband is all about how much time they spend with the advertising.
“What advertisers should be asking is not how many impressions they can get for $1 million, but how much involvement they can get for that amount.”
“And you can tell them how involved viewers were in their advertising?” I asked.
“Absolutely,” he said.
He went on to explain how he had recently run a commercial for an advertiser on his site for six days. The commercial was two minutes and 20 seconds long. Rather than pre- or mid-roll, it was user-initiated, requiring the viewer to opt in.
Over the course of six days, he had 1,542 unique streams to this commercial. If an advertiser were buying reach or impressions, this sort of number would receive no more than a grunt at best.
But when you factor in that the average time spent with the two-minute and 20-second spot was one-minute and 50 seconds, well, it certainly impacts the “worth” of those 1,542 streams, doesn’t it?
After all, it means the advertiser received 169,620 seconds of time spent with his brand’s message. Or, 47 hours worth.
The cost to the advertiser? Three thousand dollars.
The publisher then asked me what I found to be a most interesting question. How much would it normally cost an advertiser to get 47 hours worth of time spent with his brand?
My answer was that there is no way of knowing, as advertisers aren’t asking for a measurement of involvement in their commercials. All they want are the number of impressions, regardless of whether the viewer is involved in the message or not.
Besides, in the intrusive methods deployed in broadcast, and now being adopted on broadband, there is no way of telling whether viewers are actually involved or not.
Yes, they are in the room, or in front of the screen, but involved? Who’s to say?
By allowing viewers to opt in to the advertising, this publisher was able to monitor the viewer’s intent rather than the advertiser’s intent. When viewers opted out, on average, after watching 78% of the message, he had an accurate measurement of time spent with the brand.
Now what’s interesting is that this publisher can still go and sell his site on a CPM or CPC basis. And, to media agencies, this will continue to be his strategy. After all, media agencies are paid to deliver eyeballs to, not involvement in, the message.
But he’s also starting to go directly to advertisers to talk about building relationships, rather than reach, on his site. He’s also letting advertisers know that he’ll help them optimize the different touchpoints across his site in an attempt to increase the amount of time that people spend with individual brands.
His logic, although quite simplistic, seemed difficult to refute. “There are only 24 hours in a day,” he said. So the more time a person spends with one advertiser’s brand, the less time that person has to spend with the competitor’s brand.
In this way, he said, “offering a good ‘return on involvement’ starts to offer the advertiser a pretty darn good return on investment.”
As for answering the question with which we started: How much involvement will $1 million buy?
If $3,000 was able to achieve 47 hours of time spent, then $1million should deliver around 15,666 hours of time spent with the brand.
Or, 652 days.
Which is why we feel that this just might be a question that more advertisers will soon be asking their media agencies.
And if they don’t know the answer — well, I happen to know a publisher who does.
| Gregory Wilson is founder and CEO of Red Ball Tiger, a Digital MindChange Company located in San Francisco. Greg’s ideas on rethinking advertising for the digital marketplace can be found at http://www.digitalmindchange.com. You can reach Greg directly at greg@redballtiger.com. |
Viral Videos Ads: No Marketing Panacea November 13, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentby Christina Goodman, Monday, Nov 12, 2007 12:15 PM ET IT’S NO WONDER VIRAL VIDEO advertising is being talked about. The lure of creating mass-market, high-impact communications without incurring the cost of media space is very enticing. The ability to reach the elusive and hard to influence audiences combined with the potential for creating positive brand fame is an attractive mix. However, the reality is that viral video ads will be able to offer only a handful of marketers the positive end results and rewards they seek. Most brands will be better off directing their energy and efforts into optimizing conventional targeting methods within paid-for media. When it comes to viral video ads, it seems that many within the industry may also agree. Earlier this year, a Dynamic Logic study among MediaPost readers revealed that most people thought viral marketing to be a fad and not a viable option for all marketers. In fact, when asked to rate it on a continuum from “fad” to “mainstream,” half rated it as more of a fad than a widely usable marketing tactic, and only about a quarter (24%) felt that viral was something that any marketer could create. Despite such little insider confidence in the future application of viral advertising, there is still increasing interest in creating viral campaigns. In this age where consumers have more and more choices, content and advertising are being controlled by what consumers want, how and when they want it, forcing marketers to rethink their old ways of communication. In some respects, viral advertising is a way of reaching consumers that gives them ultimate creation and viewing control — including the media platform they choose to watch it on, whether it is viewed on the Internet, or using their iPod or mobile device. Shifting focus and control to the consumer does not guarantee a promising outcome, particularly where viral videos are concerned, and marketers need to consider both the positives and negatives of launching a viral marketing campaign. Viral ads may not always end up enhancing the brand image carefully conceived and desired by the marketer. Viewers may find the video entertaining and funny, but may not recall the message or product associated with the video. In some viral video ads, the content may involve a brand or a product with an undesirable message that may negatively impact the brand image. That said, surrendering brand control is, to some degree, an inevitable part of advertising in the future. In a recent Millward Brown study where 32 different viral video ads were tested among 3,000 people, the results suggest that there is a strong correlation between ad enjoyment and endorsing it to friends. However, enjoyment alone was not enough to ensure the ad would be passed along. Now that certainly makes a successful viral campaign even trickier. So what are the keys to a successful viral video? According to this research, viral ads need LEGS, a convenient acronym that means viral ads have to have a Laugh out loud quality, Edgy content, must Grip your attention and most often have some Sexual content. Given that few campaigns (viral or otherwise) have LEGS, few will be able to create a successful viral campaign as Dove did with Evolution, and in most cases the reach is low. It comes back to the bottom line — a question of opportunity, cost, and return on investment.
Most Web Users Like Ad-Supported Content Model November 7, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a comment
Making bread for
the video star
Given a choice about how web content should be paid for, the vast majority (72 percent) of web users prefer that websites not charge them – and instead rely on advertising for revenue, according to a Direct Marketing Association (DMA) study, writes sister site MarketingCharts.
Among the findings of the study:
- 86 percent of consumers said they usually visit free websites where the content they use is paid for by advertisers; 10 percent said that the websites they access either charge them a subscription or pay for each download or use.
- 81 percent said the internet made their lives better by making it easier to gain access to products, services, and content such as news, video, or music.
- When asked about their internet shopping habits compared with two years ago, the overwhelming majority (86 percent) of web users said they were doing the same amount of shopping or more.
- When all respondents, online and offline, were asked whether they were aware that internet companies collect information regarding their web browsing, 30 percent said they had been unaware.
“A significant portion” of those who were not aware had not yet used the internet, the DMA said.
As the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) examines online behavioral targeting and some groups have called for an online “do-not-track” list, the DMA said providing relevant online marketing to consumers is helping to drive the growth of the internet.
“The verdict is in – consumers have overwhelmingly responded to an open internet supported by relevant advertising,” said DMA President & CEO John A. Greco, Jr.
About the study: A national survey of more than 1,000 adult consumers was conducted during the weekend of October 26-28 on behalf of DMA by ORC International of Princeton, NJ.
The Unspoken Truth July 31, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentThe Unspoken Truth
Posted July 31st, 2007 by Gregory Wilson
There is a lot of talk these days about measuring results and whether advertising agencies should be more proactive when it comes to finding ways to be accountable for their work.
To date, agencies have been somewhat hesitant. And, while the reasons are many, there is one universal truth that goes unspoken. For most agencies, it is far more lucrative to be paid for the possibility of success, than it is for the actuality of results.
The good news is that a new engagement study, recently released by Omnicom Group’s OMD, may encourage a few agencies to be more open to the idea of accountability.
What the results from the study indicate is that one engaged viewer is worth eight regular viewers. Not to mention that for the brands involved, factoring engagement into the equation increased measurable return on investment 15% to 20% over models that only factored in GRPs.
Coincidently, Nielsen/NetRatings recently announced that they would start measuring time spent rather than page views.
Why is this important?
Because if “time spent” is measurable on a page, which it is, then it is also measurable when someone clicks into and out of a commercial on a digital platform. When do they click out? Usually when the commercial becomes less engaging for them.
I know. Many will argue that time spent does not equal engagement. So for now, let’s just say that it does appear to be a fairly good indicator of engagement if the viewers are allowed to activate the commercial and leave when they want to.
Now what would happen if an advertising agency said that instead of receiving a fee for creating a commercial based on hours worked, they would like to be paid based on how long their commercial involved the viewer for?
In other words, the more engaging their work, the more the agency would make. The less engaging the work, the less they’d make.
Would advertisers be willing to work this way?
Considering that an engaged viewer is worth eight regular viewers, and that ROI increases 15% to 20% with engagement, you would think that advertisers would be motivated to take their agencies up on this.
Except for that unspoken truth thing: for most agencies, it is far more lucrative to be paid for the possibility of success, than it is for the actuality of results.
Fortunately, most is not all.
And there are a handful of agencies — Crispin, Goodby, Wieden, BBDO — that are, for good reason, confident in the work they create. You’d think that they would like nothing more than to be paid based on how well their work engages the viewer.
The fact is, under the current labor-based compensation model, engaging work and non-engaging work are compensated equally. As most agencies are better at the latter than the former, the outcry has been minimal. Failure, has in fact, proven to be quite lucrative for most agencies.
It’s only the truly brilliant shops that are leaving money on the table.
Should things remain the same now that we can determine engaging commercials from non-engaging commercials on digital platforms? And especially now that it seems as if engaging commercials are worth more to the advertiser?
The digital marketplace and its new measurement capabilities offer the opportunity to liberate advertising from the clutches of mediocrity. And to let those agencies that are better than the rest rise even further to the top — both in the work that they do, and in the way that they’re paid for it.
