| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSThat issue aside, online video ads are making a big splash right now. As the preroll format in particular seems to be getting bigger and bigger every day, I see a few additional problems that I think ought to get fixed pretty quickly:
The "video outta nowhere." Folks, it's fairly well-established Netiquette to let people know if you're linking directly to a video asset. I don't know precisely when this guideline was abandoned, but I've been noticing a disturbing trend lately, particularly on news sites. A link spawns a video player with no advance warning, and I'm left thinking, "Hey, where's the text? I didn't want to watch a video now." Back button ensues.
The thing is, it's completely obvious why some sites are doing this now. They're doing it because they want to drive more traffic to their videos so they have more video ad inventory to sell, and some sort of visual cue that a video is on the other end of the link would decrease traffic to it.
But what about the people on handhelds, slow connections or incompatible devices? Forgot about them, did we? Videos outta nowhere are rude. Cut it out.
Contextless prerolls. Speaking of videos without warning, could we please provide some context for the people who click to see a video of, say, three guys smashing a network printer to bits with a sledgehammer, and end up seeing an Acme commercial? As much as we'd like to think that people have an expectation of preroll ads before they get to see content, that just ain't so.
It's certainly not the expectation for YouTube videos, or clips from sites where video prerolls don't underwrite the content. And last I checked, these guys were serving more video than the folks running the prerolls do. So let's give these preroll ads some context so that people don't end up thinking they've clicked on the wrong link. How about something along the lines of "The video you selected will begin in a moment, after a word from our sponsor"?
Lack of creativity with the preroll format. Joseph Jaffe puts together a much better creative rant than I do, so I won't step on his toes. That said, allow me to point out that no one ever said :30s and :15s were the preroll standard. If you can get your message across in 17 seconds, why not do it? Your online buyers will find a way. And if you can't cram everything you need to say into a :30, why not try a :43? By all means, get your point across as quickly as possible, but don't simply shovel your TV :30s online because you don't feel like taking advantage of what the interactive media can offer.
Expectations of viral infection. Just because a video exists online doesn't mean there should be an expectation that the video takes off virally like the next "All Your Base" or Jib Jab political spoof. Ads have to offer something of value before they're passed back and forth in any volume. It might be humor value, informational value or something else entirely, but by and large viral passalong doesn't really happen to run-of- the-mill commercials. I mention this only because quite a few of my online advertising colleagues have mentioned to me lately that their clients' expectations involve some sort of viral component, as if viral success is some sort of magic pixie dust that agencies can sprinkle on creative to make it infectious. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no creative agency that can consistently induce a viral effect when their client has 100 percent control over the message. That's just how it works. Sorry.
Online video will continue to be hot for at least a little while, so let's try to keep these things in mind as we shape this ad offering.
RSS FEEDS
C* - SuBRepublic (co-founder) subrepublic@subrepublic.net
If I want pay-per-view, I'll click my cable TV remote.
Yes, the end user is always in control, but the biggest mistake advertisers, marketers and the media business in general has made with the Internet is to treat it as a one-way medium.
I won't go so far as to say that passive communication online is dead (it's not), but I will say that I think more communication value is derived from human interaction online than from pushing messages at them.
I don't think they will. But, I do think the Internet's broad pipes will create the next generation of TV, not 500 channels, but 5 million channels. And, just like in this generation of TV, their will be live streams and VOD.
FYI, I work for a company that has been developing, producing, and managing Business-TV networks for more than 10 years. And, we are now turning our attention to Internet TV channels. Today, they are interesting, at best, for all the reasons you suggest regarding why people "use" the Internet. But, when that broadband pipe gets connected to your TV, the amount of content available will explode.
I think it will be a Christmas in 2007 or 2008 when the game consoles, the DVDs, DVRs, and TVs all have a simple broadband internet connection built in. That will be something to see.
I would be interested in writing an article about this. Anyway, I would be interested in what you and/or anyone else thinks about my comment(s).
Thanks, Troy
thanford@fc-tv.com http://www.fc-tv.com
Conclusion:
1) Advertising usually is irrelevant and woefully inefficient. 2) Couple the forcefully captivating nature of video with irrelevant ads and you're left with a compounding problem.
Online video ads may have a place, but hopefully their challenges will signal the larger, broken state of video advertising -- particularly on network and cable television. And the answer is NOT ad-skipping technology.
While Web 1.0 and 2.0 may be all about interactivity, implicit in the strength of the Internet as a transport medium for all forms of communication is that the individual will ultimately dictate whether it's active or passive. Aren't you looking forward to a time when TomTV lets you program your own entertainment from billions of pieces available on-demand-pay-per-view content? I am (ChrisTV, that is).
It rarely fails. "Original Thinking" vs no knowledge.
"This stuff is so new and great that the old rules are no longer valid."
Acceptance of this thinking led to the loss of untold billions of dollars in the prior rush to web commerce "that will change everything"...
But not everything has changed. That much.
Foolishness over newness.
You can count on it.
Another thing I don't like is having stories on websites, such as MSN, that is only available in video format. I want to read the story. I don't want it to be said to me on video. Especially when I access news from work, where I don't have access to sound.