Ha ha, thanks Bill, I thought I was finally getting it right. Darn.
Robyn _____ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Cammack Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:43 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: thoughts on this? --- In videoblogging@ <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "Robyn Tippins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <url: > http://www.marketin <http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/02/19/advertisers-seek-but-cant-f i> gvox.com/archives/2007/02/19/advertisers-seek-but-cant-fi > nd-enough-online-video/?rss1 > note for the group: using <> only works on long addresses if they're both flush against the edges of the url with no spaces. <http://www.marketin <http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/02/19/advertisers-seek-but-cant-f ind-enough-online-video/?rss1> gvox.com/archives/2007/02/19/advertisers-seek-but-cant-find-enough-online-vi deo/?rss1> > > Advertisers Seek but Can't Find Enough Online Video > > Despite marketers' desire to buy ads within online video, they are having a > tough time expanding into the format, reports > <http://adage. <http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=115049> com/digital/article?article_id=115049> Advertising Age. <url: > http://adage. <http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=115049> com/digital/article?article_id=115049 > > > Interested buyers are reportedly saying limited inventory, specifically > content created exclusively for the web, is one factor that's holding them > back. Also, the audience for web video is, to date, too fragmented to meet > the needs of buyers looking for significant reach. The lack of a single > model for the buying and accounting of video ads is also cited as a > contributing factor. I agree with all three of those points. The inventory is very limited as far as content that they can use for their purposes. It's not that there aren't tons of videos. There aren't tons of videos that they feel they can guarantee a ROI on. Part of the reason for that is #2, that the audience is too fragmented. People that frequent youtube are the main audience for youtube videos, but not necessarily any other videos. Same thing for Revver. Same thing for DailyMotion, etc. There's too much selection to be able to guarantee that a certain number of eyeballs are going to be on such-and-such video. If you can't guarantee the viewers, you can't persuade the companies to buy advertisements on those videos for any worthwhile amount of money. Even if you could guarantee the eyeballs (views), there are a lot of different ways to place ads on or around videos. There's no guarantee that if someone sees the ad, they're going to click on it. If it's a post-roll ad, there's no guarantee the person's going to watch the video all the way to the end. Except in a very few cases, most of which we know about already, there's nothing that will allow advertisers to justify making the deals they want to make. Even if you have the eyeballs on a video, there's no way to quantify the demographics. If a video gets 100 views and 50 of them were from 8-year-olds with no buying power and no interest in clicking on lawnmower ads after watching a video of a kid falling off of a skateboard, the client isn't getting ROI, and the advertiser isn't doing his/her job properly. A lot of the behind-the-scenes of television is testing. Understanding the demographics. Understanding what group is likely to watch your show from 8-8:30pm on Tuesday night. If you know a bunch of 30-somethings are watching syndicated Seinfeld episodes (from the data you collected in testing), you know who to go to to sell advertising time... the companies that have products to sell to 30-somethings. You can't do that [yet] with the internet, because there's no telling who's using what computer, and there's no telling how many times that same person watched the same video. With television, you know how many people watched the shows because they all have accounts with the cable company. Maybe they all have special boxes that take account of when they watch what and report it back to a particular agency. If you can't quantify the audience, you can't justify the $$,$$$ expenditure to your client. No sale. The reason Super Bowl ads are so important is because so many people are GUARANTEED to be watching. The ROI on the money spent on A) creating the ad, and B) buying the air-time right before Prince performs live makes the whole proposition worthwhile for everyone involved. > The dollars for online video buying are expected to come from television > budgets, but until the online audience expands some marketers appear > unwilling to make that shift. Estimates have buyers spending just 10 percent > of their TV budget on streaming video by 2010, with most of that money going > toward professional content from mainstream media. That's where your Joost and other companies come in. You can watch "television" without having a television. Choose your channels and watch video on demand. The same old thing in a new wrapper with some value added like chatting and rating and making your own search channels. > Bolt Media CEO Aaron Cohen says if independent producers are going to tap > into serious advertising dollars, there needs to be effective syndication of > content that can bring audience reach to niche videos. Aaron had some interesting things to say @ last month's NY Video 2.0 meetup: <http://reelsolid. <http://reelsolid.blip.tv/file/138393/> blip.tv/file/138393/> > Even so, the lack of a universal rating and measurement models continues to > be a stumbling block to advertisers who need to justify their expenditures. Yep. No guarantees = No sale. For instance, ad agencies don't just make commercials because they feel like it. They have Ad Execs and Art Directors and all types of other creatives and executives that sit in on edits giving their two cents about what they think we should use. More relevant to this thread, they use "focus groups" to test out their ideas. You get a bunch of average people and sit them down and have them watch several commercial concepts that the creatives and execs made up. Whichever one has the best effect on the crowd has a much better chance of actually being made. It doesn't matter which one is the flashiest or has the best-looking people in it. It matters that after the lights come back on, the average people got the message that they need to go out and buy this product. They remember the name. They remember WHY they need it. They remember why it's the best thing for them. As long as the message gets through to the focus group it has a good chance of being filmed and aired. You can't do that on the internet [yet] because there's too much choice. There are too many communities to be able to guarantee eyeballs. That's why MySpace and YouTube sell for so much money. The eyeballs are already there. The companies that bough them out gained access to those captive audiences so they could run their own ads and push their own agendas like all those games with politicians as cartoons where you have to help them win. Until there's some form of standardization, which may never happen... Advertising on a show on the internet is a shot in the dark. That's not how ad execs operate. They're statisticians, not gamblers. -- Bill C. http://ReelSolid. <http://ReelSolid.TV> TV http://blog. <http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/directory.html> fastcompany.com/experts/directory.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
