What the Web lacks and was/is television's ace, perhaps, is programming. Only if you program the content better do you create the kind of economics and environment that will make advertising work online. Of course, given the democratic nature of the Web, that might be impossible.
When you look at the 21st century, a long time after early innovations appeared like the lightbulb or the phone, to later innovations such as the Arpanet protocol, or search engines and portals, you might ask yourself what the future of innovation will look like. Will it be about solving a problem, with something never done before on a global scale (see above list) or will it be about mashing existing things together and making them better at a global scale? Google made the world's information accessible. Apple made the world of devices simpler/prettier. Facebook made the world closer. But …
Two items reported in the news this month demonstrate how oft-overlooked media consumer preferences are beginning to shift the landscape and business model for ad-supported T/V (television/video).
Once Facebook bought Instagram, some wondered if it was a matter of time before Google would acquire Pinterest. Indeed, once something becomes huge (like Pinterest), Google wants it. But if a young, small company addresses one of Google's problems earlier on in the company's lifecycle, Google thinks it can do it itself, in-house.
With both digital and TV upfronts just a few weeks away, a number of brands are reassessing where they'll put their marketing dollars next. There are many compelling arguments for investing in online video, but there are a lot of questions as well. Specifically: For brands that are just getting started, what do they really need to think about if they're investing in digital video?
Remember that comic strip of two dogs talking, suggesting that on the Internet, no one really knows you are a dog? Well, with pre-roll video ads, no brand knows if a user is looking at content on another tab of your browser, texting a friend, or counting ceiling tiles. When CMOs go to evaluate campaigns, the campaign metrics and measurements just don't consider the reality that consumers willfully avoid or tune-out during these ads.
Maybe it's the 15 years I spent running a marketing agency. Maybe it's my love of brand building and advertising. Or maybe it's my annoyingly persistent sense of fairness. Whatever the reason, I find myself increasingly disheartened by the prevalent and seemingly universal acceptance by video networks that it's okay to demonize the brands that pay our bills in the name of keeping viewers happy.
We've all seen "the slides": the ones where former Morgan Stanley analyst and current Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist Mary Meeker tells us that mobile is an oncoming train in the computer's rearview mirror. It's true. It's happening. It's a matter of time.
Roughly 179 million U.S. viewers watched more than 38 billion videos this past February, according to comScore, which should leave no surprise that video is an important part of every digital marketing plan. But as brands dedicate more budget to video, the pressure increases for agencies to show that money is spent efficiently while delivering maximum impact and a clear ROI. With the spotlight shining on video, it's obvious that agencies need to own online video if they are truly going to deliver for brands.
Traditional TV dayparting -- the practice of determining the most effective time of day for ads to play -- is being redefined by digital video. Prime time is no longer just evening TV from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. (Nielsen People Meter). Prime time varies across different media and is highly influenced by the habits of "millennials," the Webification of older consumers and the emergence of digital video platforms that target users anywhere, anytime.