VideoNuze Posts

WHAT TYPE OF ONLINE ADS DO YOU BUY?

We buy pre-rolls, mid-rolls, in-line video ads. The only thing we have not bought much of are ads around user-generated content.

WHO ARE SOME OF YOUR CLIENTS?

Sears, K-Mart, Fidelity Investments, Amtrak, Tyson, Choice Hotels, Volvo, Air France, and Reckitt Benckiser, to name a few.

ARE ALL OF YOUR CLIENTS BUYING VIDEO ADS?

Many of our clients are placing ads in online video.

IS IT A "MUST HAVE" ON THE MEDIA PLAN?

We're definitely see it grow in importance and yes, it is a "must have" on some media plans. What I can say with more certainty is that online video advertising is becoming, and for some clients is, as important as display advertising. What remains a more consistent "must have" are search buys.

WHAT ARE THE SIZES OF SOME OF YOUR BUYS? WHAT ARE THE CPM TRENDS?

A buyer considers two things: scale (will it reach enough people) and the size/cost of a buy. It depends on the overall size of the campaign. For instance, in a large campaign a buy is south of $50K, may not make the plan, unless we're going to do it for the intelligence of the buy or because the CPM is very discounted. On a smaller campaign $50K might be the entire campaign so you will see much smaller video purchases. There is a huge swing for CPM range depending on the content. Everything hinges on the content. We see CPMs ranging from $15-$40 for non-UGV content in-stream units. UGV, the lower-end quality content CPMs tend to be in the single digits. In-banner video is generally on the lower end of the single digit range.

HOW LABOR INTENSIVE IS AN ONLINE VIDEO AD BUY?

Relatively speaking, it is a lot more labor intensive than a broadcast buy. In the online world, there are a lot of steps in the process to create, buy, optimize, build and analyze a video ad campaign.

WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR SELLERS TO KNOW BEFORE THEY COME AND PITCH YOU?

I'd like sellers to be informed about our clients, their campaigns, and goals so we can build the best possible idea. I want someone to bring me a solution, not just sell me their unsold inventory.

IS THE "BUY" ALL ABOUT SCALE?

I think it's about audience fragmentation, the inverse of scale. People buy TV because they can aggregate a large audience; it is the best mass media vehicle. As TV ratings decline, a buyer has to buy an increased mix of television to achieve the same scale they did previously. Now the consideration shouldn't just be TV, it should be all video.

WHO DOES THE BUYING? BROADCAST BUYER? ONLINE BUYER?

Both online buyers and broadcast buyers do the buying but like anything, it depends on the buy. Pure online purchases (like Hulu, Veoh, YouTube), the online buyers are in the lead. On the network side (such as buying from ABC), it's a little bit different because there are instances where media is bought by network buyers with the assistance of online buyers.

WOULD YOU BUY FROM AN INDEPENDENT WEB STUDIO OR THEIR CONTENT?

I would consider such a buy but it goes back to the issue of scale. Would we buy directly from the programmer or buy from a network? In a world where I'm trying to aggregate reach, they may fall out of the category due to their limited audience size.

QUOTE

"We're bullish on online video, the performance we've seen from it is highly encouraging."

For Internet-based content, recommendations have to be one of the toughest nuts to crack. There are just so many variables in play - analyzing and characterizing the initial piece of content consumed, building a large enough database of content to match it against, understanding individual user's peculiarities, presenting results in a meaningful way, etc. Still, effective recommendations are powerful because they enhance the user's experience, increase consumption and drive more ad inventory.

One company trying to crack the recommendations nut for video content is Israel-based Taboola. I recently caught up with their CEO/founder Adam Singolda to learn more about their approach and progress. The company's ViDiscovery system analyzes both the content provider's video and its users' behaviors. The combination of the two then drives Taboola's recommendations, which can be presented in a number of different formats depending on the content provider's preferences.

You can see several examples of the recommendations in action. At CNN.com, a little tab in the bottom left of the video window prompts for "Videos Like This" which in turn opens a horizontal scroll bar with recommended videos. In some cases the recommendation work very well, matching specific news stories with one another. But in other cases the experience was mixed. For example, when watching a video about the "Zooz Beat" music app the first recommended video was an update about Hurricane Gustav from August '08 and the second was about a refinery workers' strike in the U.K. Hmm, if there's a correlation between the three videos, I'm not sure I see it.

Still, Taboola's team has an impressive pedigree and has raised $6M to date, plenty for a small team to continue refining its algorithms and results. The company's primary model is ad-based, with it receiving a revenue share for incremental video viewing that it drives. That kind of success-based approach will endear it to resource-constrained content providers eager to generate additional usage and revenues without extra expense. It's easy to implement Taboola by just adding a line of code to the player or web site.

High-quality recommendations are not easy to pull off, but if Taboola can get its system really humming with demonstrable case studies of success it could gain very quick traction.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

By any measure this is an impressive start. For perspective, this may well be the largest number of people who have connected broadband to their TVs using an external device. More have probably connected their computers directly to their TVs, but as for devices I can't imagine any other having close to a million (Apple TV? Vudu? Roku?). In addition, simple math suggests that these users would already be watching the equivalent of around 1 movie or so per week (1.5 billion minutes divided by 1 million Xbox users divided by 12 weeks = 125 minutes viewed per user per week). Obviously this is just an average and also doesn't account for the ramp up in users over the 3 months. I think consumption will steadily increase especially if Netflix can expand WI's library of 12K titles.

Xbox must represent the largest footprint of Netflix-connected devices, simply because the number of Xbox LIVE Gold members is far larger than the number of owners of TiVo or the Blu-ray players that connect to Netflix. The Xbox adoption rate underscores the validity of Netflix's approach to make WI a value add for its subscribers and to integrate with third-party devices.

VideoNuze readers know I've become extremely enthusiastic about Netflix's broadband activities. The Xbox numbers are a positive early indicator of success. I only see more good news coming down the road.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The Super Bowl ads are continuing to generate all kinds of buzz and continued chatter. In the spirit of "everything's been said, but not by everyone," here are a few additional broadband-related thoughts.

Doritos user-generated contest is a big winner - Doritos snagged 2 of the top 5 placements in the USA Today Ad Meter popularity rankings, displacing Anheuser-Busch for the first time. The fact that the Herbert brothers of Indiana could have created an ad more popular than all of those by the pros is impressive enough. More interesting though to me is Doritos is steadily morphing its brand into one which its customers control. This was the 3rd time Doritos handed over its Super Bowl advertising to fans to both submit ads and also vote on them. I've written about other brands' UGV contests, but Doritos is clearly the furthest along in embracing this concept. It's a great differentiator for the brand and will only build further momentum in the future.

The ad development process usually starts with identifying key brand attributes (e.g. "convenient," "affordable," "wide variety," "hip," etc.). Did the Hulu marketing team start with attributes like "deceitful" or "creepy" or "offbeat?" Seemingly so. Although the spot was fun, it didn't do anything to articulate Hulu's great value proposition. Further, is Hulu now going to pursue this creepy positioning further? If they do, does that make sense for the brand? But if they don't, wasn't the ad a waste of effort, with little continued momentum? I'm not an ad expert, but I'm not clear on what Hulu was trying to do here, other than get some great yucks.

How about some more "behind-the-scenes" and "making-of" video - Ad executives don't seem to understand what filmmakers discovered with DVDs years ago - that the backstory around the final cut is often even more interesting to fans. Since DVDs offer the capacity to provide director's notes, explanations of special effects, outtakes, actor interviews, etc they often do. This stuff is fascinating. Same with broadband; it offers brands the ability to provide a lot more video than just the ads themselves on their web sites, which some did indeed do.

But many others who could have done so, did not. Two that come right to mind: Coke, whose fascinating ad with insects stealing a sleeping man's bottle had some of the best special effects ever. How about some interviews with the computer animation team that did them? That would be fascinating. The other: E-Trade's talking babies. How'd they do that? Would love to know.

Should ads be rated or filtered? Ok, here's something controversial to think about - should Super Bowl ads be rated or filtered somehow? This is supposed to be family entertainment after all, isn't it? Does the woman getting stripped in the Doritos "Bus" ad or the suggestive GoDaddy girls belong in prime-time? I wonder. Or maybe the online galleries should rate the ads somehow? Maybe the racier ones deserve a parental warning? Just a thought.

Ok, that's it for the '09 Super Bowl, on to other topics...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in January:

Broadband video marches to the TV - At CES in early January there were major announcements around connecting broadband to TVs, either directly or through intermediary devices (a recap of all the news is here). All of the major TV manufacturers have put stakes in the ground in this market and we'll be seeing their products released during the year. Technology players like Intel, Broadcom, Adobe, Macrovision, Move Networks, Yahoo and others are also now active in this space. And content aggregators like Netflix and Amazon are also scaling up their efforts.

Some of you have heard me say that as amazing as the growth in broadband video consumption has been over the last 5 years, what's even more amazing is that virtually all of it has happened outside of the traditional TV viewing environment. Consider if someone had forecasted 5 years ago that there would be this huge surge of video consumption, but by the way, practically none of it will happen on TVs. People would have said the forecaster was crazy. Now think about what will happen once widespread TV-based consumption is realized. The entire video landscape will be affected. Broadband-to-the-TV is a game-changer.

Broadband video advertising continues to evolve - The single biggest determinant of broadband video's financial success is solidifying the ad-supported model. For all the moves that Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and others have made recently in the paid space, the disproportionate amount of viewership will continue to be free and ad-supported.

This month brought encouraging research from ABC and Nielsen that online viewers are willing to accept more ads and that recall rates are high. We also saw the kickoff of "the Pool" a new ad consortium spearheaded by VivaKi and including major brands and publishers, which will conduct research around formats and standards. Three more signs of advertising's evolution this month were Panache's deal with MTV (signaling a big video provider's continued maturation of its monetization efforts), a partnership between Adap.tv and EyeWonder (further demonstrating how ecosystem partners are joining up to improve efficiencies for clients and publishers) and Cisco's investment in Digitalsmiths (a long term initiative to deliver context-based advanced advertising across multiple viewing platforms). Lastly, Canoe, the cable industry's recently formed ad consortium continued its progress toward launch.

Broadband Inauguration - Lastly, January witnessed the momentous inauguration of President Barack Obama, causing millions of broadband users to (try to) watch online, often at work. What could have been a shining moment for broadband delivery instead turned into a highly inconsistent and often frustrating experience for many.

In perspective this was not all that surprising. The Internet's capacity has not been built to handle extraordinary peak load. However on normal days, it still does a pretty good job of delivering video smoothly and consistently. As I wrote in my post mortem, hopefully the result of the inauguration snafus will be continued investment in the infrastructure and technologies needed to satisfy growing demand. That's been the hallmark of the Internet, underscored by the fact that 70 million U.S. homes now connect to the 'net via broadband vs. single digit millions just 10 years ago. I remain confident that over time supply will meet demand.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Once again it was an incredibly exciting Super Bowl. And once again, the ads were a broadband fumble. I've been saying for three years now that broadband has introduced a whole new opportunity for Super Bowl advertisers to derive more value and drive engagement, making the ridiculous $3 million per ad that they pay far more worthwhile. Regrettably, the brains behind most of the Super Bowl's ads seem hopelessly oblivious to this notion.

I've watched all 56 ads this morning to see which ones had a broadband or online component. Here's what I found:

• 37 of the ads (66%) were tagged with the advertiser's URL (though some of them went by so fast it would have been nearly impossible to remember or write them down). Akamai has reported traffic spikes for many of these sites. For the online sites like Priceline, Overstock, Monster and CareerBuilders, tagging works very well to reinforce the brand.
• 19 of the ads (34%) were not tagged with the advertiser's URL. Oddly, this includes all of the Budweiser ads. From the people that brought us Bud.tv one would think they'd have a little more appreciation for the role of the web.
• Of the 37 ads with a URL shown, only 6 contained an explicit call to action to visit the web site (GoDaddy "Continues at GoDaddy.com," Disney-Pixar "Up" movie, "To see a special first look go to Disney.com," Universal Heroes, "Visit site for a free 7 day ticket," Monster.com, "Never been a better time to go to Monster.com,", Frosted Flakes, "Help decide where at FrostedFlakes.com," and Vizio, "Visit us at Vizio.com to check out 55 inch million dollar event."). These show solid attempts at engaging the audience beyond the on-air ad itself.
• Upon visiting the web sites of the 37 advertisers who tagged their ads with their URLs, 29 of them contained some video. But of these only 13 offered some video beyond just a replay of the ad. That means that of the total 56 ads, just 23% leveraged broadband video in some meaningful way.

What are a few examples? GoDaddy was surely a hands-down video winner again, by urging viewers to visit their web site, presumably for even more titillating video of the GoDaddy girls and Danica Patrick. Bridgestone Tires offered behind the scenes of how their Potato Head ad was created. Three films, "Year One, " "Up" and "Monsters vs. Aliens" all provided some first look or behind the scenes video. Gatorade introduced the "MissionG" reality series that the brand is sponsoring. NFL.com which showed the winner of its "Super Ad Contest" (Usama Young) also has the full gallery of all the players' ads. In addition, Discovery told me that Toyota has a very cool "Making of" video for its Killer Heat ad for its Tundra playing on HowStuffWorks.com. Unfortunately, there was no promotion of it during the ad itself, or even on Toyota.com.

Three years ago I thought for sure this would happen, and as a result I was speculating that Super Bowl ads could eventually fetch $10 million. But with each passing year I'm getting a little more skeptical that big brand advertisers and their agencies actually understand what's happening with broadband video and how it opens up new horizons for them. Maybe 2010 will be different...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The NY Times reported this week that YouTube is in talks with the William Morris talent agency about a possible deal to have some of its clients create videos especially for YouTube.

Nothing's confirmed at this point and who knows if an actual deal will result. However, if one does it would be a major strategy change for YouTube and I believe would create lots of new issues for the company to deal with. YouTube has always insisted that it is not a content creator; rather its goal has been to be a platform partner for premium video providers seeking to get the most out of the broadband medium.

The company has made significant progress on this front while recognizing that its vast collection of user-generated video will always be valued by its users but will be largely unmonetizable. Still, YouTube has been viewed cautiously by large media companies wary of its reach and disruptive potential. There's still lingering concern about why it took so long to get its Content ID system in place to protect its partners' copyrights (lest we forget the residual of that delay is the Viacom lawsuit that still looms).

From my perspective YouTube risks its credibility with its premium partners if the Morris deal happens. It is going to reopen the debate about what YouTube wants to be when it grows up: distribution partner or content creator. Other questions abound: Will the YouTube-Morris content compete directly with certain premium partners? Will the Morris content receive preferential promotional treatment? And how about the risk that data YouTube keeps about its premium partners' channels could be shared with Morris to help guide its content strategy? The questions go on. YouTube may feel it can finesse these questions and/or that its 40% video market share gives it leeway to push the envelope.

I've long thought that YouTube would find it irresistible to eventually get into the content business itself. The logic flows from precedent. For example, in the cable TV world, TCI was once the largest cable operator. It recognized the enormous financial leverage it enjoyed if it evolved beyond simply being packager of others' channels. As partner in channels in which it owned equity, it guaranteed them distribution, which in turn created viewership, ad and affiliate revenues and big-time value. In fact, TCI's content activities were so successful that it ultimately spawned a whole new company, Liberty Media, to manage its programming investments.

Similarly for YouTube, its access to millions of eyeballs creates a lot of temptation to have its own content properties, all the more so as broadband finds its way to the TV. No doubt YouTube has been pitched on this idea repeatedly over the years. But if it chooses to proceed this time it will no doubt hear concerns raised from its partners. Can it be a neutral, committed distribution partner while it also tries to build up its own content portfolio?

Further, there's the specter of Google and its potent monetization engine backing YouTube's content properties, which could also be viewed as competitive with its partners' ad sales efforts. Put all of this together and the potential Morris deal creates lots of new issues. If it comes to fruition it will be interesting to see how YouTube navigates them.

Click here for previous podcasts (Jan. 16, '09, Dec. 23, '08)