Posts for 'Advertising'

Last week the WSJ broke the news that YouTube is in talks with Lionsgate, Sony, MGM and Warner Bros. about launching streaming movie rentals. On the surface this is an intriguing proposition: the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world tantalizing Hollywood with its massive audience and promotional reach. However, when you dig a little deeper, I believe it's a dubious distraction for YouTube, which is still trying to prove that it can make its ad model work.

I appreciate all the possible reasons YouTube is eyeing movie rentals. To evolve from its UGC roots, the company has been anxious for more premium content to monetize. But with Hulu locking up exclusive access to ABC, Fox and NBC shows for at least the next year and a half or longer, full-length broadcast TV shows are largely unavailable. And now TV Everywhere threatens to foreclose access to cable TV programs. All this makes movies even more attractive.

Then there's Google's uber mission to organize the world's information. YouTube executives are savvy enough to know that not all content can be delivered solely on an ad-supported basis - not yet nor possibly ever (for more about the challenges of effectively monetizing broadcast TV shows, let alone movies, see my prior posts on Hulu). To succeed in gaining access to certain content, offering a commerce model is ultimately essential. Since YouTube has already put in place some key commerce-oriented infrastructure pieces like download-to-own and click-to-buy, rolling out a rental option is less of a stretch. Lastly, YouTube can position itself to Hollywood as a more flexible partner and viable alternative to Apple's iTunes.

Regardless, YouTube movie rentals are still a dubious idea for at least 3 reasons: they're a distraction from YouTube's as yet unproven ad model, there are too many competitors and too little opportunity to differentiate itself and the revenue opportunity is relatively small.

Focus on getting the ad model working right - Given its market-leading 40% share of all online video streams, I've long believed that YouTube is the best-positioned company to make the online video ad model work. YouTube has made solid progress adding premium content to the site that it can monetize, but it still has a lot of work ahead to make its ads profitable. As I wrote in June, Google's own senior management cannot yet clearly articulate YouTube's financial performance, causing many in the industry to worry about YouTube's sustainability. Some might assert that YouTube can keep tweaking the ad model while also rolling out rentals but I disagree. With the ongoing ad spending depression, YouTube must stay laser-focused on making its ad model work, and also on communicating its success.

Too many competitors, too little differentiation - It's hard to believe the world really needs another online option for accessing movies, and mainly older ones at that. There's Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Xbox and soon cable, satellite and telcos rolling out movies on TV Everywhere, just to name a few. Maybe YouTube has some secret differentiator up its sleeve, but I doubt it. Rather, it will be just one more comparably-priced option for consumers. And in some ways it will actually be inferior. For example, unlike Netflix and Amazon, YouTube's browser-centric approach means watching movies on YouTube will remain a suboptimal, computer-based experience. Unless YouTube is willing to pay up big-time, there's also no reason to believe it will get Hollywood product any earlier than proven services like Netflix and iTunes.

Revenue upside is small - It's hard to estimate how many movie rentals YouTube could generate, but here's one swag, which shows how limited the revenue opportunity likely is. Let's say YouTube ramped up to .5% of its 120M+ monthly U.S. viewers (assuming it had U.S. rights only to start) renting 1 movie per week (not a trivial assumption considering virtually none of YouTube's users have ever spent a dime on the site and there are plenty of existing online movie alternatives). YouTube's revenue would be 600K rentals/week x $4/movie (assumed price) x 30% (YouTube's likely revenue share) = $720K/week. For the full year it would be $37.4M. With YouTube's 2009 revenue estimates in the $300M range, that's about 12% of revenue. Nothing to sneeze at, but not world-beating either, especially as compared to YouTube's massive advertising opportunity.

Given these considerations, I contend that YouTube would be far better off trying to become the dominant player in online video advertising, replicating Google's success in online advertising. Like all other companies, YouTube has finite resources and corporate attention - it should focus where it can become a true leader. There's enough quality content and brands willing to partner with YouTube on an ad-supported basis to keep the company plenty busy, and on the road to eventual financial success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is a first look at comScore's rankings for video ad networks' "potential" reach for July '09. The rankings, which have not yet been publicly shared, reveal a relatively tight clustering of 5 video ad networks - ScanScout, Tremor Media, YuMe, Broadband Enterprises and BrightRoll - with ScanScout capturing the number 1 spot in its first month being fully measured by comScore.

The "potential reach" aspect of these rankings is important to understand. As I explained in June in "Unraveling comScore's Monthly Viewership Data for Online Video Ad Networks," the potential reach numbers account for the aggregate number of viewers of all the sites that the ad network has the right to place ads on. However, as I discussed with Tania Yuki, comScore's director of product management, it's not a perfect measure, though comScore is continually trying to improve it.

The rankings are determined through a combination of the ad networks' self-reported publisher list and comScore's own tracking. If a video network reports that any one publisher accounts for 2% or more of its viewers, comScore requires a letter proving the business relationship. There is also a self-policing mechanism as comScore provides a "dictionary" of all publishers that each ad network reports. Competitors can review the dictionary and appeal to comScore if something appears amiss. Still, there's some looseness in the methodology, and having spoken to a number of industry executives, also a fair amount of concern that it is accurately portraying the industry's true performance.

comScore recognizes the limitations of the potential reach approach and that it is just one way of understanding a video ad network's value. Actual monthly performance is equally important, and comScore has been working with ad networks to implement this reporting as well. As I wrote in June, the "hybrid" approach requires ad networks to insert a 1x1 beacon in their video players. Though this approach also has its limitations, many of the biggest video ad networks are now implementing the beacon, and soon comScore will likely begin reporting actual as well as potential reach.

Video ad networks are a very important part of the online video ecosystem, responsible for placing millions of dollars of ads each month. Importantly they allow a level of targeting and reach that brands seek, but are often unable to attain on their own with a handful of direct site relationships. With the online video medium still relatively new, buyers require data helping them understand their options. However, the comScore data is just a first filter, diligent buyers still must dig in to understand how each network, or individual site meets their needs.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 27th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for August 14, 2009.

In this week's podcast, Daisy and I discuss "The Future of Internet Video," a new research report released this week by eMarketer. Coincidentally, we had each read the press release about the report and found ourselves disagreeing with its conclusions.

As Daisy explains, the report essentially asserts that for online video advertising to continue to grow, the viewing experience between the computer and TV must converge. The logic is that TV's "lean-back" viewing mode is a preferred context for advertisers, and therefore for advertising against online video to grow, the video must be accessible on TVs.

Daisy takes issue with this, arguing that while convergence is great, there are indeed times when watching on a computer is preferred by consumers. A "new norm" has emerged with the computer as a parallel viewing platform. Rather than looking at this as an obstacle, advertisers should embrace consumers' behavior, and capitalize on it.

My main disagreement is that eMarketer believes that a "lean-back" TV viewing mode is preferred by advertisers over the "lean-forward" computer viewing mode. While eMarketer argues the computer mode creates viewer distraction and incents clicking away from ads, I see it the other way around: when watching video on computers, ads cannot be skipped, calls to action can be easily implemented (e.g. "click here to receive....) and everything of course can be measured. Contrast this with the rampant ad-skipping that now occurs in DVR-enabled homes.

Listen in and draw your own conclusions.

Separately, I can't resist touching on the topic of "authenticity" of broadband video I wrote about earlier this week in "How I Got Punked by the Megawoosh Waterslide Video." I received lots of feedback on this post, with plenty of people 'fessing up that they got punked too, while others called me the "poster child for gullibility!" Either way, authenticity of broadband video is a fascinating topic.

Click here to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 58 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of July 27th:

New Pew research confirms online video's growth - Pew was the latest to offer statistics confirming that online video usage continues to soar. Among the noteworthy findings: Long-form consumption is growing as 35% of respondents say they have viewed a TV show or movie online (up from 16% in '07); watching video is widely popular, draw more people (62%) than social networking (46%), downloading a podcast (19%) or using Twitter (11%); usage is up across all age groups, but still skews young with 90% of 18-29 year olds reporting they watch online vs. 27% of 65+ year olds; and convergence is happening with 23% of people who have watched online reporting they have connected their computers to their TVs.

FreeWheel has a very good week - FreeWheel, the syndicated video ad management company I most recently wrote about here, had a very good week. On Monday, AdAge reported that YouTube has begun a test allowing select premium partners to bring their own ads into YouTube, served by FreeWheel. Then on Wednesday, blip.tv announced that it too had integrated with FreeWheel, so ads could be served for blip's producers across their entire syndication network. I caught up with FreeWheel's co-CEO Doug Knopper yesterday who added that more deals, especially with major content producers, are on the way. FreeWheel is riding the syndication wave in a big way.

Plenty of action with CDNs - CDNs were in the news this week, as Vusion (formerly Jittr Networks) bit the dust, after going through $11 million in VC money. Elsewhere CDN Velocix (formerly CacheLogic) was acquired by Alcatel-Lucent. ALU positioned the deal as fitting with its "Application Enablement" strategy, supporting customers' needs in a "video-centric world." Limelight announced its LimelightREACH and LimelightADS services for mobile media delivery and monetization (both are based on Kiptronic, which it acquired recently). Last but not least, bellwether Akamai reported Q2 '09 earnings, that while up 5% vs. year ago, were down sequentially from Q1. Coupled with a cautious Q3 outlook, the company's stock dropped 20%.

IAC is making big moves into online video - IAC is making no bones about its interest in online video. Last week the company unveiled Notional, a spin-out of CollegeHumor.com, to be headed by that site's former editor-in-chief Ricky Van Veen. Then this week it announced another new video venture, with NBCU's former co-entertainment head Ben Silverman. IAC chief Barry Diller seems determined to push the edge of the envelope, as IAC talks up things like multi-platform distribution and brand integration. With convergence and mobile consumption starting to take hold, the timing may finally be right for these sorts of plays. At a minimum IAC will keep things interesting for industry watchers like me.

Click here to see an aggregation of all of the week's broadband video news

Broadband-only producers got a boost yesterday as blip.tv, which provides technology, ad sales and distribution for thousands of online shows, announced a variety of new deals as well as product improvements. The deals offer blip's producers new distribution, new monetization and new access to TVs. In order:

Distribution: blip's new deal with YouTube means that producers using blip can deliver their episodes directly to their YouTube accounts, eliminating the two step process. With YouTube's massive traffic, getting in front of this audience is critical to any independent producer. Since my first conversation with blip's co-founder Mike Hudack several years ago, the company's mantra has been widespread syndication. Blip already distributed its producers' shows to iTunes, AOL Video, MSN Video, Facebook, Twitter, and others. Vimeo is another new distribution partner announced yesterday.

Monetization: A new integration with FreeWheel means that ads blip sells can follow the programs it distributes wherever they may be viewed. I've written about FreeWheel in the past, which offers essential monetization capability for the Syndicated Video Economy. With the blip deal, FreeWheel delivered ads can be inserted on YouTube. This follows news earlier this week that YouTube and FreeWheel had struck an agreement which allows content providers that use FreeWheel and distribute their video on YouTube can have FreeWheel insert their ads on YouTube (slowly but surely YouTube is opening itself up to 3rd parties).

Access to TVs - Last but not least is blip's integration with the Roku player which will help bring blip's shows directly to TVs (adding to deals blip already had with TiVo, Sony Bravia, Verizon FiOS, Boxee and Apple TV). While Roku's footprint is still modest, it is positioned for major growth given current deals with Netflix and Amazon, and others no doubt pending. At $100, Roku is an inexpensive and easy-to-operate convergence device that is a great option for consumers trying to gain broadband access on their TVs. Gaining parity access to TV audiences for its broadband producers is a key value proposition for blip.

In addition to the above, blip also redesigned its dashboard and work flow, making it easier for producers to manage their shows along with their distribution and monetization. An additional deal with TubeMogul announced yesterday allows second by second viewer tracking, providing more insight on engagement.

Taken together the new deals help blip further realize its vision of being a "next generation TV network" and provide much-needed services to broadband-only producers. This group has taken a hit this year, given the tough ad sales and funding environments, so they need every advantage they can get.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

One might think that the depths of the worst economic recession in decades would be a lousy time to begin asking penny-pinching consumers for additional payments to access content. Yet this is exactly what many video providers plan to do, as a variety of broadband-delivered video subscription plans are beginning to take shape. Based on conversations I've been having with industry executives and what I've been reading, various subscription plans are now underway. This leads me to think that "subscription overload" is on the horizon.

Interest in getting consumers to pay has several sources. Many executives have concluded that advertising alone is an insufficient model, even as the cost of delivering broadband video is actually plummeting. Some of this concern relates to the widespread advertising slowdown, where even established players like the big broadcast networks are being forced to accept rate cuts. These declines cannot be made up with greater ad quantity as there's prevailing worry about just how many ads can be loaded into a broadband-delivered program before the viewer gets turned off.

There is also significant fear of not learning from the demise of the U.S. newspaper industry, which largely adopted an ad-only online business model that hasn't worked (causing some like the NY Times to now consider reinstituting subscription services). Newspapers' woes have become a touchstone in practically every conversation I've participated in recently. Last, but not least, there's no small amount of envy toward cable networks, whose dual subscription/advertising revenue model has allowed them to weather the recession better than most.

Subscription plans seek some combination of differentiators: offering premium video in better windows, at better-quality, with deeper selection, across multiple devices and with some degree of exclusivity. The thinking is that these enhancements will allow subscription services to be distinguished from and co-exist with free ad-supported services. The implicit bet is that these differences will be understood and valued by consumers.

Subscription plans are beginning to leak out, as happened last week in remarks by Disney CEO Bob Iger. Many in the industry (including me) anticipate that Hulu will launch a subscription service soon, particularly as it seeks to become a part of cable operators' TV Everywhere initiatives (which themselves seek to enhance the value of current cable subscriptions).

Other plans are on the drawing board. When I read yesterday, for example, about NBC's Ben Silverman jumping to IAC to form a new video venture, I suspect it's almost a given that the venture will consider some type of premium model. The growth of mobile video is another factor fueling subscriptions. This is what MLB is doing with its new At Bat 2009 subscription app for the iPhone, which builds on its highly successful MLB.TV broadband subscription service.

Still, with broadband allowing video providers direct access to their target audiences, their well-known brands as powerful enablers, and the crummy advertising climate showing no letup, it is no surprise that the pendulum is swinging heavily toward subscriptions.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

MTV Networks released some interesting research yesterday on the optimal way to present advertising in short-form online video. Its "Project Inform" looked at how multiple ad presentations from 3 blue chip advertisers performed and were liked by users across 50 million video streams on MTV.com, ComedyCentral.com, VH1.com, NickJr.com and CMT.com. The research was conducted in partnership with InsightExpress using Panache's video ad platform.

The research found that the most effective ad product was a "lower 1/3 product suite" consisting of a 5 second pre-roll combined with a 10 second lower 1/3 semi-transparent Flash overlay that began about 10 seconds after the video itself began. Effectiveness was defined as brand lift, measured by metrics like unaided awareness, aided awareness and purchase intent. The research also measured consumers' likeability of each ad product. This finding provides support for why overlays seem to keep popping up; for example I now see overlays on most of the video clips I watch on YouTube.

In second place was a conventional 30 second pre-roll which did well on both effectiveness and consumer likeability. That surprises me somewhat because I've believed for a while that 30 seconds is way too long for an ad where the content itself may only be 1-3 minutes in length. Granted it's a subjective judgment, but my personal experience has been that 30 seconds feels like an eternity when I know the content I'm accessing is going to be pretty brief. In fact I've noticed a clear trend toward 15 second pre-rolls accompanying short video clips, which I assumed suggested content providers had thankfully come to a similar conclusion.

In third place in the MTV research was a "sideloader product suite", which included a 5 second pre-roll with a 10 second custom unit that slides out of the right side of the video window 10 seconds after the video itself began (so it sounds like the lower 1/3 product suite except the overlay is on the right instead of the bottom). I've never seen a unit like this, but to the extent that it may block valuable content in the right side of the window I could see users feeling it was intrusive.

There's lots of research underway about different ad formats' effectiveness, and the MTV research adds to the industry's collective knowledge about best practices. There's still a ways to go though as industry participants launch and test new types of ad formats in search of the ultimate ad presentation.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I'm back in the saddle after an amazing 10 day trip to Israel with my family. On the assumption that I wasn't the only one who's been out of the office around the recent July 4th holiday, I've collected a batch of industry news links below so you can quickly get caught up (caveat, I'm sure I've missed some). Daily publication of VideoNuze begins again today.

Hulu plans September bow in U.K.

Rise of Web Video, Beyond 2-Minute Clips

Update on New Channels

ABC Content Now on Hulu

Nielsen Online: Kids Flocking to the Web

Amid Upfronts, Brands Experiment Online

Clippz Launches Mobile Channel for White House Videos

Prepare Yourself for iPod Video

Study: Web Video "Protail" As Entertaining As TV

In-Stat: 15% of Video Downloads are Legal

Kazaa still kicking, bringing HD video to the Pre?

Office Depot's Circuitous Route: Takes "Circular" Online, Launches "Specials" on Hulu

Upload Videos From Your iPhone to Facebook Right Now with VideoUp

Some Claims in YouTube lawsuit dismissed

Concurrent, Clearleap Team on VOD, Advanced Ads

Generating CG Video Submissions

MJ Funeral Drives Live Video Views Online

Qik Raises $5.5 Million

Why Hulu Succeeded as Other Video Sites Failed

YouTube's Pitch to Hollywood

Invodo Secures Series B Funding

Comcast, USOC Eye Dedicated Olympic Service in 2010

Consumer Groups Push FTC For Broader Broadband Oversight

Crackle to Roll Out "Peacock" Promotion

Earlier Tests Hot Trend with "Kideos" Launch

Mobile entertainment seeking players, payment

Netflix Streams Into Sony Bravia HDTVs

Akamai Announces First Quarter 2009 State of the Internet Report

Starz to Join Comcast's On-Demand Online Test

For ManiaTV, a Second Attempt to be the Next Viacom

Feeling Tweety in "Web Side Story"

Most Online Videos Found Via Blogs, Industry Report

Cox to Turn "MyPrimeTime" Dial to 100

How to Start a Company (and Kiss Like Angelina)

Below is the 23rd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for July 2, 2009.

This week Daisy shares additional information about ESPN's Ad Lab for emerging media. The Ad Lab, which was first disclosed by ESPN last year, is intended to various ad formats in the ESPN video player. It is one of many different tests and research projects in the market. As Daisy and I say, everyone's trying to learn how best to monetize the nascent online video; this creates a lot of valuable data, which market participants then need to parse through to fully understand.

I get into further details on my post yesterday, "Video Companies Raised $64M in Q2 '09, Notching Another Stellar Quarter." Despite the recession and the slowdown in venture capital investments, at least 26 industry companies have raised at least $219M over the last 3 quarters, which is impressive by any measure. Still, it hasn't been easy, and one indicator of what investors prefer is that not one of the 26 investments is in a content provider or video aggregator.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 24 seconds)

(Note, with vacations planned, our next podcast will be July 24th)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

If you haven't heard of Rhett and Link, you need to check them out to understand another of the myriad ways that video is being democratized, advertising is being reimagined and value is being built in YouTube. My wife brought Rhett and Link to my attention after hearing a report about them on National Public Radio last night.

Rhett and Link are two engineers and lifelong friends who operate out of a North Carolina basement writing and performing short comedic songs. Emboldened by family and friends they've created over 200 videos that have generated 16 million views and a loyal following on YouTube and their own site rhettandlink.com. No doubt you'll agree their songs and videos are funny, clever and very memorable.

Calling themselves "internetainers" and having generated a signature style, they are now being contracted by advertisers to turn their talent toward developing promotion songs. Their folk song drive-through order for Taco Bell has generated almost 1 million views on YouTube. And their hilarious spot for Red House furniture store in Highpoint, NC, which spoofs race relations, has generated almost 1.5 million views. There will certainly be more of these promotional songs in the hopper. That's because given what these advertisers are probably paying for these spots, their ROIs must be off the charts, especially compared to traditional advertising tactics. And with Rhett and Link's following, all new promotional songs now have a built in viral tailwind.

Rhett and Link remind me of Lee and Sachi LeFever of Common Craft, who I recently wrote about. They are all part of an emerging group of talent who would be considered "non-professionals" by the traditional standards of entertainment, advertising and communications. But with their own authentic and engaging approaches and direct access to audiences, they have been able to break through and attract large followings.

A key linchpin to all of their success is YouTube, whose massive audience and viral sharing is unmatched. Even as it strives for partnerships with premium quality video providers, YouTube's value to the Common Crafts and Rhett and Links of the world is undeniable. If leveraged properly, as it has been by these creators (and by others like Demand Media), it can also lead to genuine businesses opportunities.

When I repeatedly say that YouTube has massive franchise value - even though it is currently unprofitable - it's these kinds of examples, which put YouTube in the center of an emerging grassroots video ecosystem, that I'm thinking of. There's no other site that comes close to YouTube's reach, brand awareness or viral sharing potential.

If you have other examples along these lines, please send them along!

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 21st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 19, 2009.

Daisy discusses highlights from the OMMA Video conference that she organized in NYC this week. Daisy recaps the keynote from Eileen Naughton, Google's director of media platforms in which she said that child YouTube sensation "Fred" is pulling down a six-figure income. She also reviews comments by Andy Markovitz, Kraft's digital marketing and media director who recommended the online video ad industry needs more scale, better targeting and more format choices. Those sentiments were echoed by other speakers. Daisy has more details here.

This week I discuss my post from yesterday, "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube is Losing?" I recognize I took a somewhat contrarian standpoint here, and admit it feels a bit irresponsible to suggest that YouTube's losses don't matter much (except to Google of course). It's always been great sport to debate how much money YouTube is losing. But the fact is, as long as Google has the financial wherewithal to sustain YouTube's losses (whatever they actually are), and deems the site strategic in the long run (which I strongly believe it is), then the size of its losses is really pretty much irrelevant. I know lots of you disagree with my assessment; feel free to post a comment and explain why!

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 40 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

comScore's traffic reports are extremely important for the online video industry's growth because they are a key source of data for advertisers, media buyers, agencies and others looking to tap into this new medium. Ad networks in particular are an important part of the online video ecosystem because they provide significant reach, targeting and delivery technology, all of which are required by prospective advertisers.

A key part of the current confusion is that each month comScore's Video Metrix Ad Focus report - which details the total audience of unique viewers for online properties and ad networks - combines both the actual audience of destination properties with the potential reach of video ad networks. For example, here's the top 10 for April:

As you can see, 5 of the top 10 listed are ad networks, whose measurement is potential, while the other 5 are actuals. "Potential" is supposed to represent the aggregate number of viewers of all the sites that the ad network has the right to place ads on. However even the validity of this number is amorphous, because networks are only required to provide comScore proof of their relationships if the site accounts for more than 2% of all streaming or web activity.

Recognizing the need to provide more clarity, comScore has recently made available the option for networks to participate in a "hybrid" measurement approach, meant to track networks' actual viewership. To participate, networks need to place a 1x1 pixel, or "beacon" inside any video player where their ads appear. comScore takes the data reported by the beacons and combines it with its 2 million member panel of users whose behavior it tracks. It reconciles differences between the two through a "scaling" process that looks at the intensity of users' non-video behaviors.

To give a sense of the difference between potential and actual, comScore reports BrightRoll - which along with Nabbr are the only video ad networks to have implemented the beacons by April - as having 26M actual viewers vs. the 62M potential reported.

comScore's hybrid approach, which fits with its recently-announced "Media Metrix 360" service, is an important step forward in providing more clarity on how video ad networks are actually performing. Still, as Tania explained, even the hybrid approach has its own idiosyncrasies. For example, some publishers resist having a network's beacon incorporated into their video player, because they want to receive traffic credit themselves. Further, it is a voluntary program. Tania said that in addition to BrightRoll and Nabbr, other networks like BBE, YuMe and Tremor are all working through the implementation currently.

The actual numbers are important for buyers, so that ad networks' viewership can be assessed on an "apple to apples" basis with online properties, as well as non-video options. Tania said that media buyers tell comScore they value both potential and actual numbers. Though that sounds right to me, I think that for the online video medium to mature, buyers are going to put increasing emphasis on actual performance, particularly as it relates to existing media. That's why recent efforts from YuMe and Tremor to translate online video's impact into TV's gross rating points (GRP) paradigm are also important.

In short, comScore seems to be doing its part to improve reporting clarity. However, this isn't going to resolve itself overnight; the market will continue to experience reporting confusion for some time to come.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Looking back over the past week's news, there are at least 4 industry items worth noting. Here are brief thoughts on each:

Today I'm pleased to introduce "VideoNuze Forums," a periodic opportunity for online video industry experts to contribute their thoughts and ideas to the VideoNuze community. I'm a firm believer that only through the industry's collective ideas and energy will online video reach its ultimate potential.

In this kickoff post, David Graves shares his thoughts on how advertisers can collaborate with online video producers to fund original online entertainment, while leveraging the syndication model. David is a veteran media executive who I've known for years; he's served in executive roles at Yahoo and Reuters, and more recently founded PermissionTV. He's now consulting with Global Capital Strategic Group.

Please contact me if you're interested in contributing. I can't guarantee I'll run everything, but I welcome your ideas.

A New Old Model for Making Money with Original Online Entertainment Video

by David Graves

In the very beginning of television, advertising agencies worked directly with creative people to produce the dramatic programs they wanted to put their ads in. Now, 60 years later, it's time for them to do so again, on the Web.

Between then and now, distributors such as TV networks have become the ones who financed and controlled video programming and acted as the middleman between creatives and advertisers. But today there aren't enough distributors with both the will and the resources to speculatively fund large volumes of online entertainment video.

There are many creative people who would like to produce for the new online medium, particularly now that it can be done for historically low costs. But it's hard to make money. Even so, some dramatic video like Strike.TV is getting produced on the hopes that it will attract an audience that might get sold to advertisers. This is nice but inefficient and usually unprofitable.

In order for the Internet to develop as a substantial platform for original entertainment video, a new model has to form that gives producers some additional upfront confidence. There needs to be a better chance of generating a profit in order to encourage Internet producers to produce and people with money to fund them. Since the paid model is still highly challenged, even for well-known, branded fare (e.g. broadcast network programs), advertising is the most likely source of revenue.

Advertisers are clearly open to the potential benefits of online video advertising. To begin with, they love TV commercials over every other form of advertising. Online, their ads can't be skipped, can be better targeted and offer the possibility of an immediate response or interaction on top of the branding value. What's not to like?

But experiments with advertiser-created programming have by and large been disappointing. That's because it doesn't make sense for advertisers to be the ones financing, creating or distributing video. It's not what they do. On the other hand, partnerships like that of Alloy Entertainment and Johnson & Johnson, to create the "Private" Web series for teen girls, which debuts next month, exemplifies the potential. Brands like Neutrogena will be subtly integrated into the shows.

The model that will work is one where advertisers hook up directly with creative programmers to help encourage show ideas they like. Some call this "branded entertainment" and it can take many forms. For example, it could be an advertising commitment at an agreed-upon CPM, contingent on seeing the finished product. Or a pre-buy that helps fund the production in return for a lower CPM. Even a smile and a wink would have value.

Below is the 19th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 5, 2009.

Daisy was in New York this week for the "NewFronts," a day-long meeting that Digitas sponsored, mainly for independent online video creators and media buyers/agencies. The goals were to educate the market and fuel advertiser interest. Daisy reports that despite the mixed news coming out of the independent video world this year, it was an upbeat gathering.

I provide additional detail on Microsoft's announcement this year of new entertainment-oriented features for XBox 360. The gaming console continues to take on more of a convergence positioning, with new instant-on 1080p video, live streams, Zune integration, etc. With an installed base of 30 million users, Microsoft has a prime opportunity to drive convergence and get a video foothold. The new Xbox 360 features coincide with last week's Hulu Desktop announcement and this week's YouTube XL unveiling.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 47 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

I was intrigued by news yesterday from Tremor Media, the ad network and management company, of their rollout of a new ad format called vChoice. Advertising continues to be the primary business model for premium online video, yet there's wide consensus that pre-roll ads, the most popular ad format today, leaves a lot to be desired. I spoke to Tremor's CEO, Jason Glickman to learn more about vChoice, and its benefits vs. pre-roll.

By shortening the upfront message, and presenting more options to the user, the goal is to deepen engagement. vChoice is geared to advertisers who either already have videos that could be logically clustered and offered to users (e.g. a car model which multiple promo videos) or are interested in creating new stories for non-linear consumption (like the example below from Warner Bros). Either way, as Jason notes, vChoice offers much greater creative freedom and engagement potential than a typical 15 or 30 second passive spot.

Tremor just finished a beta of vChoice with Microsoft, P&G, Ubisoft and Warner Bros. The results are impressive: 200% lift in engagement, as defined by multiple metrics, and a click-through rate of 3-6% vs. sub-1% for typical pre-rolls. Tremor's also using Quantcast data to provide demographic profiling of these engaged users. The early results, plus the creative potential, is what Jason says has advertisers most excited.

Jason also added that there are two keys to making vChoice possible: the company's Acudeo management platform, which allows multiple in-stream ads to run within a single unit, while also delivering full analytics, and the scale represented by 900+ sites in Tremor's publisher network. Importantly, there's no extra charge for additional views in a vChoice experience. That means for users who watch multiple videos, the advertiser's cost/impression keeps declining.

Jason doesn't see vChoice obsoleting pre-rolls, but rather offering more value in the online video medium. vChoice's success depends on whether users will be sufficiently enticed by the enhanced choices the advertiser offers to divert from their original viewing intentions. Key to driving that behavior is getting media buyers and creatives to understand the new value of these units and to then to invest in them. As this happens, the full potential of online video advertising will begin to be realized.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I have to say, I chuckled a little when I read this morning's Online Media Daily story, "Opening a Pandora's Boxee" about a new report from Laura Martin at Soleil Securities titled "Content's $300B Gamble." I haven't read the report, but the article says that it expresses concern that ad revenues for programs watched online could be 60% lower than when watched on-air, "threatening TV's the TV platform's price umbrella."

The reason I chuckled is because I've been saying the same things for months now (for example, see "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband is Accelerating Demise of Their Business Model" and "OK, Hulu Now Has ABC. But When Will It Prove Its Business Model?") It's nice to see others starting to understand these important issues as well.

Recently I've had a number of conversations with TV and broadband executives who are similarly concerned about what role Hulu is going to play longer term for the broadcast industry, given the current absence of a proven business model for the site. There are some pretty strong feelings out there, ranging from "Hulu is totally misguided and will be the downfall of the broadcast industry" to "the Hulu team is so smart, they're bound to figure it out." One way or the other, with Hulu's growing popularity, I continue to believe that the broadcast industry's fortunes are increasingly tied to Hulu's financial success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

While broadband video consumption continues to surge, mobile video usage is also now showing strong signs of growth, mainly due to the iPhone's popularity. In fact Nielsen just reported last week that iPhone users are 6 times as likely to watch mobile video as are other mobile subscribers. And for Q4 '08, it reported that 11.2M people watched mobile video, with 51% stating they're new to the medium, viewing for less than 6 months. This is still small compared with the 150M or so people (U.S.) watching broadband video each month, but with an onslaught of new or upgraded video-capable smartphones hitting the market, mobile video is poised to grow rapidly.

All of this is very good news for content providers, for whom this "3rd screen" (after TV and PC) opens up all kinds of new opportunities. Many have been participating to date in carrier-provided (e.g. VCast, FLO TV) and other (e.g. MobiTV) subscription services that have achieved solid growth. But with still advertising the primary business model for many content providers, they've been eager make ad-supported video available to growing base of mobile video users as well.

NBC for example has been pursuing ad-supported mobile video, and last summer, made a big mobile push with its Summer Olympics coverage. Still, as Stephen Andrade, NBC.com's SVP and GM and Robert Angelo director web/mobile, told me recently, inserting ads in its mobile-distributed video has been painfully laborious and grossly underoptimized. To address these issues, NBC recently struck a deal with Kiptronic, an ad serving firm that specialized in non web-based content.

Stephen and Robert explained that their overarching goal with NBC.com video is to "publish once, distribute everywhere" - a goal I often hear from other video content providers as well. However mobile-distributed video was siloed and not fully incorporated into its online/broadband work flows. This was especially problematic on the ad side, where mobile inventory wasn't exposed in DART, on which NBC has standardized its ads. As a result a lot of mobile inventory was unsold, and even when it was sold, advertisers were required to jump through a bunch of new hoops to get their ads to NBC, which itself then "hand-stitched" the ads to its mobile-distributed video.

After looking at multiple solutions to address these issues, NBC chose Kiptronic's kipMobile. Stephen and Robert said the key was kipMobile's flexibility in plugging into NBC's existing content management system and work flow. Now when an NBC producer uploads video, upon preset instructions kipMobile transcodes the HD source file into relevant mobile formats and transfers them to Akamai (NBC's CDN). When a mobile user calls for a video, kipMobile determines which format is best-suited for that particular device, dynamically grabs appropriate ads from DART and combines the two into a file which Akamai then serves to the user.

Beyond dramatically simplifying NBC's work flow, Stephen and Robert are also excited about the new revenue potential, given NBC's booming mobile usage (Q1 '09 video streams jumped to 9.6M from 2.5M in Q1 '08 with mobile page views increasing from 32M to 96M in the same period). Looking deeper into the usage patterns, NBC sees more than half the mobile video usage occurring at home, as users increasingly look at their mobile device as an alternative screen when the TV isn't available. While 75% of NBC mobile usage is iPhone-based today, they're seeing strong adoption by non iPhone devices. Though still early, geo-identification is creating yet another ad opportunity unique to mobile.

NBC and many other content providers are going to be riding the wave of surging mobile video consumption. kipMobile and other monetization solutions will become increasingly important as these content providers seek to unify their online/broadband and mobile work flows and to fully monetize their views.

Amid the steady stream of sneak peek press releases I'm sent each day, one I received late Tuesday from Tremor Media, the video ad network and monetization platform, caught my eye.

The release cited March data from comScore indicating that Tremor's network now had potential reach of 137M unique users and 57M unique video viewers (both unduplicated). The former number is from comScore's Media Metrix Ad Focus report and the latter from its Video Metrix Ad Focus report.

In particular, the latter number stuck out because I recalled comScore numbers from just 2 weeks ago that revealed the viewership for the top 10 video sites. Google (YouTube) was #1 with about 100M viewers, and Fox Interactive (mainly MySpace) was #2 with about half the amount, 55M.

comScore's new data meant that Tremor's potential reach was second only to YouTube's actual reach. And if you make the argument that much of YouTube's viewership is still UGC, while Tremor's network focuses solely on premium publishers, Tremor would be #1 in potential reach against premium video, a key point of the release. It's also worth noting that 2 other video ad networks focused on premium publishers also show up in comScore's top 10 for potential unique viewers- BrightRoll with 56M and YuMe with 41M.

First, it's important to read these numbers carefully, as there's a little bit of apples vs. oranges going on. The Video Metrix Ad Focus report combines actual viewership by the destination sites (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo, Hulu, etc.) with potential viewership by the ad networks. The report clearly denotes what's considered "potential." If I understand it correctly then, the comScore numbers for ad networks should be read as "here's the total potential audience of viewers you have access to." However, what percentage of this accessible audience actually gets an ad served by the ad network is only known by the ad network itself.

VideoNuze readers will recall there's been a lot of sensitivity around these comScore numbers, since last summer a minor kerfuffle broke out over comScore's ranking of YuMe's traffic. Initially it attributed MSN's full audience to YuMe, but later revised YuMe's ranking down by only included pages against which YuMe ads could be served. comScore also stated that on an ongoing basis it would report "potential" reach for ad networks based on documented agreements and "actual" reach for those networks that included certain tags. The new Tremor numbers reflect this potential reach measurement.

It's also important to remember that comScore filters its data to arrive at unduplicated reach. As I understand it that means that if for example Tremor had USAToday.com and Fox.com in its network (note Tremor doesn't disclose its publishers except to its advertisers) and a single user watched video at both sites, the user would only be counted once in Tremor's potential reach. I don't know how exactly comScore de-duplicates viewership, but let's assume it's accurate.

The extent of Tremor's reach (along with BrightRoll's and YuMe's), particularly against premium video is an encouraging sign. I've written in the past that key inhibitors of TV ad dollars moving over to online video are both scale and various friction points in the ad buying process. The comScore data demonstrates that a cluster of ad networks is emerging that can deliver against TV ad buyer's reach expectations, while adding new targeting and reporting capabilities unavailable in TV. There have also been recent enhancements to these companies' reporting/analytics (particularly around GRPs) to synch up with TV ad buyers' expectations.

The ad management company Adap.tv has taken the wraps off its new "Player Partner Program" this morning. Initial partners include Brightcove, thePlatform, Mogulus, VMIX, Twistage and Kaltura. All are now integrated with Adap.tv's "OneSource" ad management system.

Yesterday, Dakota Sullivan, Adap.tv's VP of Marketing told me that though the company has been working with Brightcove and thePlatform informally to date, the new program will provide more structure to partners. Included are a central location on the Adap.tv web site for partners for promotional purposes along with other co-marketing and technology updates. No cash is changing hands with partners though, as Adap.tv tries to maintain neutrality.

These types of partnership programs are springing up all around the broadband video ecosystem, as companies continue to carve out their specific niches, and seek to benefit from partners' marketing efforts in a resource-constrained environment. I expect we'll continue to see them get rolled out.