Viral Video

All advertisers these days would love to get extra mileage out of their advertising. They ask us (their agency) how they what they should do as far as a viral video strategy. The problem is that the concept of creating a viral video is practically, although not completely (Nike), an oxymoronic concept.

Can any old TV :30 be a video with viral potential? Hardly. There has to be a hook. I mentioned Nike because if there is one company that has done an outstanding jobat creating amazing spots that consumers will watch repeatedly, it's Nike, by way of its long-time creative agency Wieden-Kennedy. Specifically, I'm thinking of the black-and-white basketball spot from a few years ago of NBA stars intermixed with streetballers dribbling and doing tricks. That spot was decidedly cool and resonated incredibly with basketball players everywhere, of all skill levels. By contrast, should another brand, not nearly as iconic as Nike, say a CPG, hope to do something with their TV assets, like put them on YouTube and count on additional exposure?

What downside is there to doing that? How much do marketers want to protect his or her brand? The downside is that a consumer stumbles upon the site and thinks, so what? What a waste of time. The downside is that on the Internet, once it's out there, it may be impossible to reel it in. What happens when there's a quick change in the brand direction? If the previous message was all about affordability (as an example) and there's a decision to move the brand upscale and emphasize quality, the old affordability video is floating out on the Internet. It may have been copied onto dozens of smaller sites or talked about in blogs. Does that matter?

Impact depends on the company. It may not matter. Creative with messaging about promotions or guarantees would be best not to be made available online. Creative with more enduring appeal (like the Nike basketball spot) definitely has a place.

Jarvis

New Research - Cannibalization?

The next wave of online video viewing is upon us. While initial research indicated that online viewing of long-form television content was incremental viewing, new research by IMMI indicates cannibalization.

A full half of viewing by people measured by IMMI were shows that aren't watched in any other way except online.

This threatened erosion of the television audience was what led the CW to eliminate online viewing of Gossip Girls in April.

The economics aren't yet working in the networks' favor. This indicates a few likely scenarios in the short term: (1) Networks scale back dramatically on making shows available online, (2) a week-long (or longer) delay in episode availability to encourage live viewing.

However, while the report implies cannibalization, it is also possible that the online viewing is incremental because the online availability of the show generates trial that may not otherwise have occurred.

ARF Audience Measurement 3.0

Co-presenting our video research with comScore. June 24, 2008.

Segmentation of online video viewers into four segments:

(1) Sight & Sounders
(2) On Demanders
(3) Television Devotees
(4) Content Explorers

Video Research Focus

The ad landscape for professionally-produced online video has advanced significantly in the past 12 months.

The initial research focus by the networks was determining whether online viewing was cannibalizing over-the-air viewing. It makes a difference because it doesn't cost the network any more to have 100k additional viewers over-the-air. However, if those same 100k viewers watch online, the network incurs significant bandwidth costs. (Content delivery networks are more smartly delivering download-and-play streams by pausing stream delivery when the video is paused. This prevents wasted bandwidth in case the viewer doesn't come back to watch the rest of the stream.)

With sufficient evidence (for now) that online viewership is incremental, the primary research focus by networks is optimizing the ad experience for viewers. They are sharing best practices with advertisers and agencies. Fewer advertisers are using the same spot throughout an entire episode (for which they "own" that consumer-viewing experience). Rather, they know that to enhance the user's experience, they have to rotate creative. For example, on Hulu, DirecTV rotated their TV spots about a fictional cable company it is mocking. You won't see the same DirecTV spot twice.

Four or five months ago, online viewers were barraged with the same TGIF or Palm Centro spot (with the mini-me's) four or five times during an hour-long episode. Not every show is an "owned" experience anymore, with creative wear-out concerns and negative repercussions very realistic possibilities.

Other general findings show that the more interactive and/or memorable the ad experience, the more positively it reflects on the advertiser. Hence, a "branded canvas" (during a commercial pod) with multiple interactive components rates significantly better than a flat 15-second or 30-second spot. A Media Contacts advertiser, Choice Hotels, is running on NBC.com with a Pac-Man like game during the break.

Video and BT

I agree with eMarketer's Hallerman in the most recent Behavioral Insider blog entry (Video is BT's new BFF) that behavioral targeting (BT) will eventually come into play when there's more video inventory. Besides, how can you not love a blog entry that uses the acronym BFF?

Even now it could be applied to UGC and short-form content. But my take is that UGC will be on the lowest rung of the video pricing ladder and will continue to be dominated by overlay units rather than any pre-, mid-, or post-roll. Many, if not most of this inventory, will be sold on a CPA basis, and video ad networks will come into the forefront - it's the monetization (and arbitrage) of remnant inventory all over again. So BT will definitely play a role.

Then, as we go the next rung up the video pricing ladder, BT can also play a role with short form professionally produced content as well.

As you go higher up the value ladder, BT will have the least influence with premium first run shows online. They will still command premium rates and there won't be enough eyeballs generating the supply, especially with the networks offering makegoods on audience shortages with digital makegoods. The most profitable aspect of BT is taking remnant inventory and tripling or quadrupling the CPM with data. You can do that high ROI at the bottom rung of the value ladder but not at the top.

Out-of-Home Video - The Real Third Screen

Mobile is touted as the third screen. Mobile video, though, has an unjustifiable amount of buzz as the hot topic. In the US, only 6% of subscribers watched video on their mobile devices (according to a recent M:Metrics release). Granted, that number will push upward with more 3G devices and especially widely popular ones like the 3G iPhone. But it will take a while for the penetration of mobile video to even approach 20%.

On the other hand, out-0f-home video is the real third screen. Ad spending reached $1.3 billion in 2007 and is forecasted to reach $3.2 billion by 2011 (according to DigitalSignageExpo.net). The potential reach is staggering because it can take so many forms in a variety of venues: gas stations, retail locations, bars and restaurants, taxi cabs, sports stadium, health clubs, doctors offices, movie theaters, and more. According to a recent study by Seesaw Networks (Digital Out-of-Home Media Awareness and Attitude Study), on average, people recall having seen digital signage in six different types of locations in the past week.

The variety of venues, screen sizes, and network operators make it a daunting medium to take on. The entities of CBS Outernet and NBC Everywhere , as umbrella networks with familiar content, will go a long way in bringing media agencies and advertisers to a comfort level for making buys in the medium. OVAB (the Out-of-Home Video Advertising Bureau) will be releasing some audience research this month. In addition, OVAB also has RFPs out to develop a planning tool.

IAB Digital Video Ad Format Guidelines

Last week, the IAB released video ad format guidelines for publishers, advertisers, and agencies. Because video encompasses a lot, the scope of the guidelines only covers in-stream video. The formats outlined by the IAB are exactly what's needed for the industry and covers the highest priority areas in a sensible manner.

In-banner video is covered under rich media guidelines. The most important aspect there, as part of the user experience, is that audio is user-initiated. In-text video is a minimal part of the user experience. Standardization isn't an issue.

The next area of standardization for publishers for video is measurement of each of these video ads. The key is determination of a set of measures that would be standard campaign reporting. Many of these are already provided in-depth by rich media providers like Pointroll for their ad units. This needs to extend to the publisher and/or ad server side, in terms of what is provided to advertisers and agencies.

Video ad impressions should only count when associated with user-requested content. For in-stream video, these impressions correspond to a specific piece of user-requested video content (URL). As part of a standardized set of metrics, publishers need to provide the percentage of impressions with user-initiated audio for the ad unit (where applicable), a key measure of the campaign's engagement (or at least eye-catching ability). As for video that automatically plays when a page loads (think the front page of espn.go.com), the page was still user-requested. However, the video was not specifically user-requested. Hence, it ought to be considered less engaging to the viewer than if he/she had requested the piece of video content. The counter example to ESPN would be a video URL linked from the CNN front page on which a viewer clicks. Ultimately, though, this differentiation of value likely falls to advertisers and agencies to assess among various publishers.