While I understand Matt's wariness and dislike of commercial intrusion in video blogs because it could, possibly, lead to the same mediocre tendencies we wee in mainstream media I ask that he give us video bloggers a little latitude. It's a pretty significant investment of time and energy to make this type of programming and we need to eat and even profit from our productive energies. And I don't think that individuals like Andrew and Ms. Kitka (who also wants to monetize her videos, no?) will be corrupted in the same way as mainstream media have been by the advertiser. That's why Andrew is reserving the right to refuse any offer. I'm not omitting the possibility that there will be Internet producers who are seduced by the almighty dollar to change their programming. But I think those seduced will lose their audience and the Internet will remain a place where truly independent voices will always be able to express themselves. Why can't we earn a buck at the same time? I'll be very happy to see RB or Ms. Kitka or myself monetize our videos. I'm a big fan of all 3 programs.
-David www.captainhumphreys.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "LeanBackVids.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ESPN.com's Motion averages about $25 CPM, but the advertiser buys > complete sections for a given amount of time and their ad is usually > shown in a rotation on almost all ESPN videos. > > Feed-based vlogs do not have this option because the video is > downloaded rather than streamed - meaning the ad is built right into > the video and not dynamically served. When ESPN.com sells "branded" > video, they charge more like $50 CPM. > > In my opinion, RB (or any other vlog) is not worth these numbers. The > viewership of RB isn't very niche - it is more like a normal TV > audience with a broad audience. Maybe you could call their viewers > techies, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Also, the demand > of RB to develop the ad themselves is a big risk for the advertiser. > Companies have marketing teams for a reason - they supposedly know > their product best (or at least better than RB does). > > In addition, downloads do not equal viewers so the measurement of > impressions is very hard to calculate, especially with so many iTunes > users who have to suffer the poor usability of keeping up w/ multiple > feeds. > > My point - I'll believe in vlog ads when I see it. Then again, I'll > probably be turned off by whoever does it. The beauty of vlog > watching for me is that it is not commercial. > > Just my two cents. > > -Matt > ----------------------- > http://vlogmap.org > http://ridertech.com > http://leanbackvids.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Ms. Kitka" <mskitka@> wrote: > > > > I'd be interested to see what the CPMs are like for ads playing on MSN > > Video before news segments. There must be a market out there that > > already has a set CPM rate, but the cost is probably similar to > > advertising on television because sites like MSN are gargantuan! > > Still, that does not negate the value of RB since CPMs work > > proportionately to your audience size. > > > > Besides, how do you put a value on ad space in videoblogs? Audio > > podcast time isn't as valuable because you can make an audio show that > > goes on for one hour... but video space is more valuable because of > > how quickly the size of the show escalates. It's hard to compress a > > show to a reasonable size and keep it looking good. > > > > A 30-second ad at the end of a 3 minute show like RB is a considerable > > size... so why not demand high CPMs? What Andrew is doing now is > > setting the market for the future of videoblogging. Let's watch, see > > what happens and offer our assistance when needed... this is what the > > community should be. > > > > Kitka > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "T.Whid" <twhid@> wrote: > > > > > > Andrew thinks the show is worth $50 - $150, that doesn't make it so > > > (or not so). There is a market for online video advertising and the > > > price is much lower than $50. Andrew believes that RB-type of video > > > is a whole new market that hasn't had a price set for it yet (please > > > correct me if I'm wrong). > > > > > > That's the purpose of an auction, it creates the price. The price is > > > what the market decides it wants to pay for it. Of course, Andrew > > > doesn't have to accept whatever this price turns out to be. > > > > > > On 2/7/06, Kunga <kunga@> wrote: > > > > Absolutely. There is no incentive for Andrew and Amanda to accept > > > > less than the true market value of their space. They have the option > > > > of going through ad agencies to get that if they want. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Ms. Kitka wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, $15,000 isn't a lot of money for a high profile show like > > > > > Rocketboom. As Andrew has previously mentioned, RB has > already been > > > > > talking about CPMs from $50-150. If this is so, why would RB > submit > > > > > to such a low paycheck when they're already having offers of much > > > > > more? > > > > > > > > > > If you take the minimum $50 CPM, that makes $50,000/week. > > Doesn't it > > > > > make $15,000 look like charity? > > > > > > > > > > Kitka > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
