“2012 is the year of Web-based, episodic video content.” That’s been the buzz for who knows how long now. We’ve all heard it, and for the most part, we’ve all pretty much accepted it as true. But are we even really sure we know what that means? People love to talk in generalities, because it’s safe. But generalities don’t allow us to plan, or to analyze data in a meaningful way. So before would-be script writers start to head out to Starbucks with their laptops, and before VCs start opening up their checkbooks to the next creative genius with a great idea for a show, we should try a come to a more detailed understanding of what the future potentially holds in terms of content. So let me set the playing field right off the bat. Personally, when I talk about Web-based, episodic video content, I’m talking about the Web as we watch it on a desktop or mobile device -- not online video streamed to the living room TV set. Yes, technically when Netflix or Hulu stream content onto our television sets, it’s Web-based content, in that it originates from a server. But as far as the viewing public is concerned, it’s TV. Where the shows come from only matters as far as show and channel availability, price and image clarity are concerned -- outside of that, when the typical American family sits on their couch to watch their favorite shows on the large black console mounted to the living room wall, they’re watching TV. So while it’s all very exciting that Netflix has gotten into original content production, and released the entire season of its new series “Lillyhammer”all at once, I’m not including this achievement as part of my discussion of online episodic content. But to understand the root of the original prediction, and whether or not it’s viable, the definition of “Web-based episodic video content” needs to be broken down even further. A cooking show is episodic, in that it has individual episodes, each with a unique topic. A talk show is episodic, as is a variety show. And these work online. They take very little emotional investment on the part of the viewer, who doesn’t need to get to know characters, or understand storylines. They can be consumed in shorter segments, and don’t need to be watched in any specific order to be enjoyed. Most importantly, though, they don’t need to be discussed. Shared, maybe, but not discussed. An engaging would-be chef creates a two-minute video showing you how to make double chocolate cookies. The cookies look good, seem easy to make, and it’s something you think others might be interested in trying, so you click the share button and post the video on your blog or favorite social network. Easy enough. The investment on both sides is minimal -- the producer can make the videos with relatively little time and money, and the viewer can enjoy them with relatively little time and energy. It’s a narrow gap, so it works. On the other side of the spectrum, though, is what people most likely really mean when they talk about episodic content: a series of shows that string together to tell a complete story, the types of shows we’re used to watching in prime time on TV. This is where episodic content won’t work on the Web. The problem is that the viewing experience is so dramatically different. Our living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms act like small theaters, with the TV being the screen or stage. There’s room for more than one person to watch without anyone feeling too crowded, and the distance between our faces and the screen allow us to relax more, with the intention to sit still for awhile and free our minds. And because TV gives us a schedule of when new episodes will air, we arrange our lives around our favorite shows, and look forward to discussing them with friends afterward. That conversation, after the first airing of a new episode, is part of the viewing experience. few people, after all, discuss the cliff hanger between episode 6 and 7 of a TV drama when the show is in reruns -- what would be the point? Online viewing of episodic content that follows a storyline lacks the ingredients necessary to maintain an audience. The experience is uncomfortable -– there are so many people that can comfortably squeeze together around a monitor before you need some breathing room –- so viewing is a more solitary experience. And what the Web gives us in terms of convenience -- we can watch anything we want, whenever we want -- it takes away in terms of urgency and the ability to talk with others about what you watched at a certain time. Of course, much of this is conjecture and opinion. So let’s look at some hard numbers taken from the analytics of my network from Jan. 1 through Feb. 29. Looking at the most popular pages among viewers who started on our Home page, the most popular category was Food and Drink, followed by Health & Fitness and Women’s Interests. Rounding out the back, behind even the About Us page and recent new updates, was Web Episodes -- episodic video content. Even worse, the time spent on that page was among the lowest. Content providers can find a home on the Web, and ongoing series are certainly primed to take center stage versus single, one-off videos. But for Web-based episodic content to really take off, producers need to consider the differences in environment, and steer their efforts toward what really works.
Every week the news blog The Daily Beast pulls together the top ten “buzziest” videos, representing a cross-section of the most viral and most viewed clips and commercials on the Internet. You might think that the bizarre and the Kardashians get the most buzz -- but no. For the last week I looked at while writing this, political videos took five out of 10 Daily Beast spots. And this was the week after Whitney Houston tragically passed away. Just goes to show you that while Kevin Costner’s heartfelt eulogy topped the buzz overall, the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle dominate. It’s a consistent pattern that is bound to intensify as the 2012 campaign for president ramps, and as more local races take wing. Political viral video may not get 50% of all video views on a weekly basis, but it is arguably getting half of the attention. Let’s define online video on a political level. There are the astute informational spots that campaigns and PACs create, often cleverly accented with “video bites,” the pithy moments that capture audience attention. Then there are the 15-second video moments –- professionally produced or just clipped from the nightly news -- that often define the moment’s conversation, like President Obama singing “Sweet Home Chicago” or Mitt Romney riffing on his car ownership profile. It’s the video bites that most often go viral. Getting a video to go viral is a marketer’s dream. But in politics it can cause one to take two aspirin and go to bed. Fair or not, it’s unfortunately the bloopers that often go viral -- those curious moments hard to control and even harder to erase once they’re out there. What to do when that happens? Ask yourself, “What would Old Spice do?” I’m serious. Political campaign managers and ad executives need to channel Old Spice. In 2010 Procter & Gamble executed one of the best viral video initiatives the Web has seen - the “Smell like a man, man” campaign, an enormously successful campaign by any measure. The Old Spice team saw that the Twittersphere and even YouTube was lighting up with positive responses to the campaign’s clever creative. Rather than just stand back and passively observe, the team jumped into the discussion by creating over 250 response videos to consumer tweets and video submissions. The result? Over 13 million views and -- more important, a rarely achieved, highly prized bond of trust and goodwill between a brand and a consumer audience. The takeaway here is that when a negative video goes viral, there are two choices: ignore it until it goes away or, as P&G did (admittedly for a positively received video), engage in the conversation. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, but consider the latter. Engaging in the conversation with response videos is an opportunity to influence the message and its impact. It’s an opportunity, as in the case of Old Spice, to establish trust and goodwill. It’s easier than you think. Plug-and-play Web-based platforms can ramp your video ad initiatives overnight and take advantage of the engagement opportunity that viral video distribution presents. As you approach this strategy, meeting constituents where they live (online), consider the following: 1. Make sure you can measure campaign impact. Campaign personnel need to be able to wake up in the morning and have one unified view of campaign performance across all campaigns media buys -- aka “site by site performance.” If a campaign is getting five different reports from five different media placements, it’s not easy to gauge performance. Use a video ad platform that will give you all the reporting you need, all in one place, and in a way that will inform decision-making. It’s also important to have detailed reporting, such as whether or not the interactive elements in the video ad are resonating or not. Are viewers clicking on your Facebook link? Good video ad platforms provide this level of detail. 2. Don’t forget about mobile. On average, 7% of all Web traffic occurs on mobile devices, whether smartphones or tablets. Don’t add to negative viral ads by creating a response that doesn’t work. Some video ads will “break” on devices, including the iPad, if the video ad doesn’t render in HTML5. 3. Target, target, target. Video platforms can enable you to target your impressions down to the zip+4 level so that you’re not wasting impressions. Some can even change the message in your video -– or even show different videos -- based on who is watching and from where, what their political affiliation is, their gender, their age, and so forth. Bottom line for campaigns: Get active. As of Feb. 9, the top 10 Super PACs in the US have spent $44.9 million in advertising on behalf of 2012 campaign efforts. It remains to be seen how much of total campaign spending will be devoted to online, but rest assured it will eclipse the percentages spent in 2008 when ad budget allocations were in the sub-10% range. Video ads were in their infancy in 2008. Today the story is wildly different. In December (2011), the U.S. internet audience watched 23.2 hours of video online on average representing 43.5 billion video views. More than 20% of all American adults now owns a tablet computer, and 40% use it while watching TV (by the way, multiscreen exposure increases recall).