• Dynamic Logic Inc. Online Research Blog
• About Us, TOS and Privacy
• Connect With Us On Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn

Have a great weekend all. January 23, 2009

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ3d3KigPQM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0]

Via Dave Knox from a Hard Knox Life January 21, 2009

Original Post HERE
German ad agency Scholz & Friends releases great video on how the world of Brand Management has changed from the 1940’s through today.

YouTube Lets Advertisers Peddle via Search Results Pages November 14, 2008

n a continuing push to monetize the site, Google will begin selling space to advertisers on YouTube search results pages.

Advertisers can bid to promote themselves via YouTube Sponsored Videos; the ad results will appear on the right-hand side of the YouTube search results with a small image and some text, writes The New York Times. As with Google search, advertisers can set a maximum price per click; they are charged each time a viewer clicks on the ad. How high the ad appears within the results depends on a number of elements, including not only how much the advertiser is paying per click but also how much interest the message has generated in the past, AP writes.

Read The Rest—>YouTube Lets Advertisers Peddle via Search Results Pages

YouTube Tests 'Click-to-Buy' Ads October 8, 2008

NEW YORK YouTube has begun testing new ads that direct users to purchase items featured within individual videos played on the popular Google-owned site.

These text-link ad units — called “Click-to-Buy Ads” — appear just below YouTube’s video player alongside the common community tabs that allow users to share and rate clips. Google has initially inked deals with iTunes and Amazon to sell various products using these links, including songs from EMI Music and the recently released Electronic Arts game Spore.

Though in the past YouTube has been able to target e-commerce advertisers’ messages to specific content channels and genres, click-to-buy marks the first time the company has enabled brands to cherry pick individual videos, said Google officials, who indicated that the new offering would eventually be tested by marketers across numerous industries.

Read the rest HERE YouTube Tests ‘Click-to-Buy’ Ads

Media companies joining YouTube and profiting August 18, 2008

YouTube to keep user details away from Viacom July 15, 2008

YouTube: You Created the Content, Now Sell the Ads June 9, 2008

Google, Looking to Monetize Video Site, Is Letting Content Producers Sell Advertising on Their Branded Channels

<!–

–>

By Abbey Klaassen

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

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.” Sarah Mahoney can be reached at sarah@mediapost.com

YouTube's filtering issues still not 'moot' April 22, 2008

Can you tell I’m playing catchup? yea , well we had a break.

Anyway Social Networking watch drove me over to this great article on Cnet about YouTube

LAS VEGAS–A year ago Wednesday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt delighted an audience of TV and radio broadcasters when he promised to roll out a system that would mean the end of piracy at YouTube.

“We are in the process of developing tools which are called ‘Claim Your Content,’” Schmidt said at the National Association of Broadcasters 2007 conference. “If people tell us this is a licensed copy, our computers will automatically detect that an illegal copy has been uploaded and then automatically delete it.”

Schmidt went on to say YouTube was “close to turning this (system) on” and once that happened, copyright violation at the site “becomes a moot issue.” But following through on that promise has proven a challenge.

Executives with two entertainment companies that provide YouTube with feedback on its Video Identification system said the company’s filtering technology has fared well at times but is nowhere near perfect and overall test results are “inconclusive.” The sources, who requested anonymity because of the ongoing relationship with YouTube, added that managers at the video-sharing site continue to try and refine the system.

“Since launching in October, our Video Identification system has shown terrific results in its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and scalability,” a YouTube spokeswoman said in an e-mail. “Over 100 partners from independent content creators to large media companies are currently using Video ID to easily manage their content. Many have found it to be a helpful tool in generating revenue and exposure for their content in the world’s largest online video community.”

For a long time, numerous copyright owners accused YouTube and Google of profiting from piracy and deliberately dragging their feet in developing a way to cleanse the site. They argued that the availability of professionally created content–uploaded by users–is what draws people to YouTube and without that the site would lose much of its luster. YouTube has always denied the accusations.

Nonetheless, the controversy has damaged some of Google’s relationships in Hollywood.

Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google last year. That case is expected to last years before being resolved and it could help decide what, if anything, a Web site’s responsibilities are when it comes to policing for copyright violations.

Copyright clips abound
Certainly at this point, it’s hard to see much change at YouTube since launching Video ID.

Available on the site are literally countless clips from feature films and TV shows produced by small production companies as well as the largest entertainment conglomerates–including Viacom.

Key into YouTube’s search field the names of the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category and scenes from each will appear. Want to watch the first 10 minutes of the gangster flick, The Departed? They’re there. Someone else posted a series of 12 separate scenes from the film, presumably to get around YouTube’s 10-minute clip limit.

Fans of Clint Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby can watch the “Mo cuishle” episode on YouTube as well as the coin toss scene from last year’s best picture winner No Country For Old Men.

Identifying video is not easy, YouTube execs have long said. About 10 hours of video is uploaded to the site every minute. In addition to policing an enormous volume of video, YouTube must first obtain high-quality copies so it can create a digital fingerprint of the film or show. Ideally, the automated system will recognize when someone uploads an unauthorized copy.

While copyright videos are still plentiful on YouTube, there are seemingly fewer complaints from Hollywood. The sources who are part of YouTube’s testing say the entertainment industry has shown a willingness to give YouTube time to improve filtering.

Some content owners may have also concluded that some degree of piracy is inevitable.

“We still see our content pop up on YouTube,” CNN.com Executive Producer Sandy Malcolm told the Associated Press this week. “You deal with it. You try to work with them on rights and things, but I don’t think you can completely stop it. You just try to beat the tide and try to get your content out as fast as you can.”

Google execs continue to say they respect copyright and are working to protect it. Schmidt said protecting copyright was in Google’s best interest.

“We are critically dependent upon the production of copyright content,” Schmidt told the NAB audience a year ago. “Literally, people come to Google to get to somewhere where there is something of value. It’s very important that we not violate copyright.”

Is Inappropriate Video Content A Convenient Excuse? November 28, 2007

Posted November 27th, 2007 by Nigel Hollis

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to listen to Jeben Berg, product marketing manager at YouTube, talk on the subject of how advertisers can best engage YouTube’s users. It reminded me just how many people engage with the site and focused my attention on an old issue. Many brands have fought the idea of advertising on YouTube because they fear being placed next to inappropriate content.
Everyone knows YouTube and how big it is — but even so, some of the statistics Berg threw out were mind-boggling. The site now contains hundreds of millions of videos, with an average of 8 hours of content being uploaded every minute. Every minute! And what is more, that content comes from only 2% of the site’s user base. These “creators” are at the heart of YouTube’s success and sit at the top of the user eco-system that includes “collectors,” who generate playlists for every topic under the sun, “critics,” who add their often irreverent and off-color comments to the content, and then finally the “consumers,” the silent majority who just watch the videos that have been posted.

Berg was keen to point out that YouTube is a platform, not a media company. He stated that YouTube makes no decisions over what is shown and said that it simply provides the means for people to express themselves. Of course, that has led to many advertisers expressing concern over placing their advertising in such an environment. It is all too easy for a brand’s ad to end up in close proximity to content deemed undesirable to the brand’s positioning.

In the course of the presentation, however, Berg addressed this issue directly by putting up an iconic image from the Vietnam War: Nick Ut’s photo, “Napalm Strike,” which shows terrified villagers fleeing from a napalm strike on the village of Trang Bang, Vietnam, in June 8, 1972. Berg asked why advertisers seem happy to advertise in newspapers and magazines that carry disturbing images like that one, and yet they shy away from doing so with video content. Is it really worse to have Tiffany’s and Armani ads appear next to pictures of bomb blast victims in Newsweek than to have videos created for Coca-Cola and McDonald’s show up next to Paris Hilton’s sleaziest on YouTube?

On reflection, the question seems justified. Is it simply that we are more comfortable with the juxtaposition of such images in static media because those forms of communication have been around so much longer? Or is it an excuse that advertisers use to avoid having to create content that will work in the free-for-all environment of YouTube?

Up to now I had accepted that concern at face value. Berg’s presentation certainly gave me reason to question that assumption.

Share This

• Subscribe Via Email

  Enter your email address:

  Delivered by FeedBurner

• Spam Blocked

  14,941 spam comments blocked by
  Akismet

• Recent Comments

  • Tweets that mention Dynamic Logic Inc. Online Research Blog » Scott Gendleman writes about Online Video -- Topsy.com on Scott Gendelman writes about Online Video
  • Joe Green on Scott Gendelman writes about Online Video
  • research companies | ONLINE MARKET RESEAR on David O’Brien talks about SafeCount.
  • Tweets that mention Dynamic Logic Inc. Online Research Blog » Meg Reardon Talks about the power of looking “Beyond The Click” -- Topsy.com on Meg Reardon Talks about the power of looking “Beyond The Click”
  • Tweets that mention Dynamic Logic Inc. Online Research Blog » Creative vs. Research – Can’t we all just get along? By Christopher Bian -- Topsy.com on Creative vs. Research – Can’t we all just get along? By Christopher Bian

• Our RSS feed

  • Jessica Mitidiero adds more heaft to AdAge’s- Making Online Ads Suck LessMark Blei
  • Scott Gendelman writes about Online VideoMark Blei
  • Spring is in the air! Alissa Coronna’s clients are warming up to digital.dynamiclogicbeaty
  • Danny Wysocki talks about coming to terms with not being a psychic in evaluating creative effectivenessMark Blei
  • A Research Ode to Jerry Maguire: Help Me Help You By Jayne HickeyMark Blei
  • David O’Brien talks about SafeCount.Mark Blei
  • Madeline Mulero- Keywords that translated to actions will help you build client and team relationships to bring resultsMark Blei
  • Ogi Radić asks- Can finding out what drives online ad awareness help create better ads?Mark Blei
  • Lauren Rodas Discusses Recruitment On Video Ad Networks And Caribbean Office EnvyMark Blei
  • Michelle Eule discusses the relationship between click though rates and branding metricsMark Blei

• Archives

  • May 2010 (1)
  • April 2010 (3)
  • March 2010 (6)
  • February 2010 (3)
  • January 2010 (8)
  • October 2009 (3)
  • September 2009 (4)
  • August 2009 (4)
  • July 2009 (8)
  • June 2009 (15)
  • May 2009 (3)
  • April 2009 (15)
  • March 2009 (5)
  • February 2009 (16)
  • January 2009 (33)
  • December 2008 (87)
  • November 2008 (91)
  • October 2008 (80)
  • September 2008 (58)
  • August 2008 (34)
  • July 2008 (71)
  • June 2008 (31)
  • May 2008 (27)
  • April 2008 (26)
  • March 2008 (5)
  • February 2008 (12)
  • January 2008 (19)
  • December 2007 (35)
  • November 2007 (49)
  • October 2007 (19)
  • September 2007 (12)
  • August 2007 (19)
  • July 2007 (86)
  • June 2007 (73)
  • May 2007 (241)
  • April 2007 (194)
  • March 2007 (187)
  • February 2007 (113)

• Pages

  • About Us, TOS and Privacy
  • Connect With Us On Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn
    • Web Site Terms and Conditions of Use

• Feeds

• Full
• Comments