Why advertise around online video?

I was recently asked to summarise the reasons to advertise around online video. I came up with four broad factors:

1. User Experience

  • Users are actively choosing to watch a clip
  • Adverts generally can’t be fast-forwarded
  • Ads can be interactive
  • Ad breaks are shorter than TV and so spots have a greater chance of standing out
  • Online is a “lean forward” medium with viewers closer to the screen and in a more attentive state

2. The ways in which it can be bought

  • A specific number of impressions can be bought and capped
  • The variety of metrics it can be bought by (though this will vary by site)
  • It can be bought alongside display and other forms of advertising to maximise exposure

3. The way it complements TV

  • Audiences with TV and online are strongly positively correlated
  • TV and Online work together
  • Advertising within catch-up increases reach
  • Advertising within clips increases frequency and engagement among a show’s biggest advocates (and fans of shows tend to be more positive to the ads)

4. Effectiveness

What do people think? Any suggestions to add to this?

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/warmnfuzzy/

Buying online advertising alongside TV

Over the last few months, I’ve visited a lot of media agencies (nearly all of the bigger ones) with my presentation on online video on demand.

The overwhelming theme that has emerged from the presentations is that there is very little information on VOD out in the market, and that agencies are desperate for knowledge on the format.

Today’s announcement doesn’t help matters.

With such a new format, uncertainty is inevitable. Even in agency structure, it is apparent that no consensus has yet emerged. In some companies, VOD is bought by TV people; in some it is bought by digital people; in others a new team has been created specifically for the format.

Different structures lead to different conversations and different outlooks.

My number one recommendation – no matter what the set up – is for digital, TV and VOD guys (they may be the same people; they may not be) to be in continual conversation with one another.

This is because TV and VOD complement one another.

In simplistic terms, online catch-up increases reach and additional made for broadband content increases frequency/immersion/engagement.

Online doesn’t work against TV; it isn’t independent. It is positively correlated.

Furthermore, as different platforms, the advertising is consumed differently. TV is about mutual viewing and simultaneous consumption and conversation. Online is about opt-in and a high level of involvement. Reach and attention.

Therefore, those that are booking TV well in advance should look to online as a means of adding to the campaign – either incrementally or through deeper engagement.

Whichever the aim, money shouldn’t be redirected from TV to online. Campaigns shouldn’t be spread thinner. Incremental spend is required to accumulate the benefit.

Buy catch-up to increase reach. Buy made for broadband content to increase frequency and tap into the most engaged advocates of a show.

Not all agencies have this overarching level of communication across their buying teams. They should.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidclow/

PS I’m here this weekend, so there won’t be a link update.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The four types of Online Video – which is best to advertise around?

This has been something I’ve been pondering for some time. It is still a work in progress, and feedback or suggestions are welcome.

I believe that online video can be categorised into four broad categories:

Reference – Largely, this is the how-to guides such as Videojug which relay advice and practical tips. They will have a steady, but most likely small, stream of visitors looking for specific content. For how-to, specific content is related to the genre or topic but not necessarily the producer.  I am also grouping the long tail of video on demand into this category. Arguably it could be a fifth type as the content producer is now key, but I believe the specific nature of the search is enough to group it within this category. People that watch Buffy on the WB (US only) will go there specifically looking for Buffy – few viewers will arrive there via another method with another show in mind

Scheduled – Web series and TV catch-up fall into this category. The Secret World of Sam King had a new video every weekday; the latest episode of Spooks (UK only) arrives on the iPlayer shortly after it is aired on BBC1. Similar to reference videos, people will seek out scheduled videos with the specific content in mind. The key difference is that time is now as important as a mindset, and viewers are more likely to visit after an external prompt – such as a TV guide for catch-up, or email reminder for a web series – rather than a simple desire to view.

TopicalThis differs from reference videos because they represent the long tail, whereas topical videos are the short head. TMZ will get a spike in traffic whenever a celebrity has a “moment” (such as Mel Gibson or Michael Richards), and the news sites will see growth whenever there is a major story such as an election (NB: the link refers to unique users, but the trend holds for video). Topical videos continue to get small levels of traffic in the long-term, but nowhere near the levels of when the story is breaking. Portals and news sites will be the primary vehicles for this type of video as their superior resources will ensure the fullest coverage.

Viral – Youtube’s bread and butter. A viral video can be attempted by anyone, but success is far from guaranteed. They may be corporate (Nike has a good track record at viral videos), user generated or a combination. If you ignore the fact that Youtube is now the primary mechanism to consume music for free, the top videos on the site include a stand-up show (Evolution of Dance) and a home video of a newborn and his toddler brother (Charlie Bit My Finger). Not content people would necessarily have predicted to have enjoyed the success they have done. Virals don’t seem to have many rules – they can break instantly or after bubbling under a surface; they can come and go or they can hang around.

But like Creative Commons licences, these categories aren’t mutually exclusive. Examples where content can straddle multiple categories include:

Scheduled/topical – Liam’s death in Coronation Street had three alternative endings uploaded to ITV.com after the episode showing the chosen fate aired. It received 650,000 views over that weekend

Reference/viral – the Japanese art of T-shirt folding has circled the Internet on more than one occasion

Viral/topical – political out-takes such as the Sarah Palin/Katie Couric interview or John Prescott punching a protester.

Viral/scheduled – Web series such as Kate Modern that encourage interactivity

Viral/scheduled/topicalTina Fey-lin got the short head, but the long tail shows no sign of abating

Of these four broad types, which would be the best for video advertisers to target? The best choice will be campaign dependent but each format has its advantages and disadvantages

NB: A previous post of mine details the advertising options available around online video. Given the swift evolution of the medium, I may need to write an updated version soon.

Viral – these tend to have the biggest numbers but success or failure cannot be legislated for nor accurately planned. It would therefore be best for open-ended campaigns, but even then the quality or content of the viral video needs to be carefully moderated

Topical – these will be short-term so the campaign needs to be perfectly timed with an immediate call to action

Reference – likely to be special interest and so the audience will be more targeted and efficient. Good for niche brands, but the numbers may not be there for those with a more mass appeal

Scheduled – using the traditional TV model, these can be planned in advance to a greater degree of accuracy. But TV flops show that predicted audiences are an art rather than a science, and the large growth in online gives an extra degree of uncertainty compared to the gentle fragmentation of TV audiences. Scheduled content means quality can largely be vetted in advance and so the advertiser has reassurances of their investment, but this sort of model may come at a premium.

However, this premium can be justified. When asked to choose, the vast majority prefer professionally produced content to amateur work, and people are also more accepting of advertising around this content.

As an employee of a TV owner making forays into online video, I am biased but I do believe that for the most part advertising around scheduled content is the best method to use. There is nothing preventing multiple video formats being utilised (after all, each has unique advantages) but in most situations, I believe scheduled content should be the primary focus.

Viral clips may provide mass reach, but scheduled content has the advantages of

  • Easy incorporation into a media plan
  • Assurances over the quality of content
  • Acceptance from viewers willing to sit through ads in exchange for free, premium content

A “best practice” ad model is yet to emerge, but there are interesting experiments going on, and it will be fascinating to see how this develops.

sk

Image credits: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atencion/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/pagedooley/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Online video: Today and tomorrow


Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/blake/

MediaGuardian reports that the BBC iPlayer is seeing significant growth while ITV.com has been left “trailing”. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for ITV, nor the other commercial broadcasters. In this situation, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is better than a large piece of a small pie. With new and emerging technology, the major battle is for it to gain traction and acceptance among the mainstream. Fortunately for ITV et al, not only does the BBC have the muscle (and the inclination) to do this, but its unique status means that there will only be limited opportunity for advertising revenues. Once the technology embeds, this leaves it the smaller, commercial rivals to battle it out with the Joosts, babelgums and so on for the cash.

Furthermore, there is a rather large Kangaroo looming on the horizon, and it has yet to be finalised how this is to fit in with these different offerings. At the launch it was announced:

BBC iPlayer content will be listed within the new service, while Channel 4’s website will host a catch-up service which will see 4oD “evolve into the new [Kangaroo] service”.

Channel 4 are suitably vague, while there is no mention of how ITV.com, Five Download (notably absent from the launch) and any other eager player will fit in alongside this service.

Interesting, a quote from the article read:

“Right now, however, the big winner is YouTube, which accounts for over a third of online video viewing, according to comScore,” “This suggests that short-form entertainment may be more appealing to internet audiences.”

Can the iPlayer and the Kangaroo buck this trend, or will it be the clips that drive online video usage. For me, that will be decided by future broadband speeds. My online viewing is rarely planned, and so I prefer to stream low quality clips than plan a high-quality download. If only I lived in Japan.

sk