Mars needs women, and the online video universe needs more ads. That was the startling opening salvo from yesterday's OMMA Video conference here in New York. Tania Yuki, comScore Director of
Product Management, kicked us off with a stat that bowled most us over. While watching TV, up to a quarter of time spent is with ad media, when it comes to online video viewing, only 1% of our
streaming time is spent with ads. To be sure, the way-unmonetizable inventory of low-quality user-gen media skews the averages. But even when you look at high-end "professionally produced"
entertainment sites with TV content online, the share of time spent with ads only amounts to 8%. In other words TV is monetizing so much more effectively than the Web in part because it is leveraging
much more inventory.
Web video needs more ads, and there is some evidence to suggest that the consumer can bear more ads here than we have led ourselves to believe. In comScore's user survey
of people who watch TV content online, only 38% cited fewer ads as a primary reason to do so.
And by the way, the relative dearth of online ads (compared to TV) is not resulting in superior
attentiveness to the ads people do see online. Many assume that the lean-in medium has superior engagement for ads than does TV. There are fewer distractions online. People don't leave the room during
pre-roll commercial breaks, etc. Not necessarily true Yuki argued. It turns out that people don't pay closer attention to the ads online, and, in fact, are slightly less likely to watch
commercials online than they are on TV. I am not sure what mechanisms people use to avoid ads in the videos they watch, but I know my habit is to deliberately click away from short clips that have the
audacity to throw a :30 in front of a 2 minute clip.
Yuki's point is that the Web audience can likely bear more ads and almost certainly needs to expand the ad load in order to realize the
kinds of monetization it deserves. I agree, but I also think that in an interactive environment there is naturally more of a quid pro quo sensibility to video watching. I don't mind the pre-roll, but
there has to be proportionality and a blend of formats. I already know which content providers tax me with pre-roll units that are way outsized for the video I am consuming and I avoid them or just
work in another window while their familiar repurposed TV ad is running. I know other publishers who blend their ad units so that the pre-roll hits you on your first video viewing during a session but
then overlays kick in on subsequent videos.
But I think a more meaningful and ultimately impactful ad load would combine frequency with brevity. Some of the most memorable ad campaigns I have
seen approach subliminal advertising. They are five second or shorter pre- or mid-rolls that reiterate across several video viewings. The best mobile video ads I have seen for instance (also online)
are the 7-second Windows 7 ads with fast-talkers touting a favorite feature of the new operating system. They made enough of them to rotate different creative to the viewer if he accessed multiple
videos from the site.
Okay, go ahead and increase my ad load, but keep in mind users are doing their own back-of-the-envelope calculations on what share of their consciousness to give in
exchange for that free video.