| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSS
Recently, there has been a greater push to define video engagement metrics in a more concrete manner. In order to compare and contrast the ROI of different video-based and non-video-based marketing tactics, the industry needs a new and better definition for video engagement, sensitive to the new ways in which people behave and interact online. This definition can be used to set the expectations of what one can expect from any video marketing effort.
We can't use old definitions to flesh out new engagement metrics.
In the domain of video marketing, formats like interruptive ads in contextually relevant placements (e.g., interstitials played during episodic content) typically offer higher value than regular in-page video ads. This value, in turn, is most accurately described using metrics other than click-through rate -- metrics like reach and frequency.
Even this, though, provides an incomplete picture. Reach, frequency, click-through rate, and other traditional metrics can't capture, for instance, the value of someone sharing your branded video content with their friends and other networks. As a result, more and more marketers are moving forward on defining clearer video engagement metrics.
As a start, they've been focusing on two key objectives: 1) incorporating more granular measurements of user behavior, and 2) tying patterns of user behavior to bottom-line results like increased brand awareness or sales. In turn, the convergence of these two areas informs a higher-level understanding of total video engagement. Granular stats like viewer drop-off rates among demographics exemplify this new understanding; a brand could use this metric to verify that its videos are resonating with the same demographic that represents its traditional audience.
While there's still a long way to go, marketers and service providers are iterating quickly in order to refine these new video engagement metrics. It's very likely that these formulas will continue to be tweaked and improved as marketers continue to run and measure their video campaigns online.
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
Think we are missing the point when we talk about video ads v video advertising, the market for video ads will outstrip video advertisers by a factor of 4;1, why because lower cost and wide availability of channels will allow small and medium business owners to use video ads if not video advertising
I cover some of it here: www.techmediatalk.com (Whose Watching Online Video, Part 1 and 2) and (Brand Advertising on the Internet - Is Old New Again?).
This is another interesting read from Randall Rothernberg of IAB: http://www.randallrothenberg.com/2009/02/heartbeats-and-mouseclicks-manifesto-on.html
Once we have this in mind and since there is always a cost to measurement we can now set our priorities in where we want to measure and how we want to do it and what we might be able to improve based on the improvements we may be able to achieve. for more thoughts on this, go to www.Marketing-calculator.com.
Thanks for starting the discussion.
All the best!
It is indeed a challenge to educate clients about newer metrics of tracking engagement, but I find that by working with clients on their first few campaigns by tracking both metrics, and explaining what each data point is telling them, it's often a lot easier to make believers out of them.
On a sidenote, Mehype.com looks like neat idea, would love to chat more with you about it offline. Drop me an email at tyler@involver.com