Posts Tagged ‘video advertising’

Pay per interaction video ads

February 21, 2008

Just as I had briefly mentioned about ads being sold on engagement, VideoEgg offers a pay per interaction ad model. It’s not excatly the same as paying a varibale rate depending on level of interaction, but it is a step closer. Rates range from around $.20 to$1 per interaction. They are defining an interaction where a user mouses over and the flash video clip loads.

As marketers still try and find a scalable branding solution online, performance based models dominate the online spend. This enables marketers restrained to only doing performance advertising like CPC or CPA to now look at video advertising. It will be interesting to see how this sticks and if large brand marketers adopt this model as it reduces their risk from the traditional CPM model.

Microsoft has been the first large advertiser to work with VideoEgg and the AdFrames product. They are currently paying less than $.50 per interaction. That is probably a lot better rate than they are paying for CPC terms.

Advertisements

Impression vs. engagement – What’s worth more??

February 14, 2008

A simple post.

With all the buzz about video advertising and engagement marketing, I ask a simple question. What is worth more to the advertiser, and how does the compensation align?

A campaign with a media buy of 1,000,000 impressions with an average view time of 5 seconds which equates to 83,333 minutes of total viewership.

Or:

A campaign with a media buy of 500,000 impressions with an average view time of 25 seconds which equates to 208,333 minutes of total viewership.

As for the media spend, the second is much less, theoretically half, and the return in terms of engagement is over 100% better. As media buyers and planners begin to normalize the advertising process, I ask that they look at different compensation models than standard CPM. If reps are so confident that their networks are the best and provide great results, back a price into per second engaged. Maybe not, just another acronym would be formed in the land of media buying and planning.

Online video soars in December

February 12, 2008

comScore announced that December 2007 set a new record for online video viewing. Not a surprise! With the writers strike and more and more people posting random video’s on Youtube and other video sites, its natural that more people will watch. The interesting thing is that Google bought Youtube so they could cash in on this trend and so far have been unable to crack the traffic/monetization issue.

Various companies have tried pre-roll, mid-roll, post-roll, tickers and other ways to offer ads, but no one has cracked the nut. My suggestion is let the producer in on the cash flow and everyone might be in for a bigger  piece of the pie.

If someone can figure out a way to monetize all this traffic effectively, I can bet there will be a nice paycheck coming their way form our good friend Google.

Future of TV media goes online with Youtube video

January 19, 2008

I read an article about how Chris Bosh created a self promoting video for the 2008 NBA All-Star game for only $20. As of this morning, it had over 397,000 views. If I look at trying to attain that through traditional media, the cost would be enormous, not to mention the production cost. I believe this is going to be the leading edge of future athletic advertising geared to athletes. Crispin launched a new campaign targeting serious runners with the new Nike ads, but why not save money and shoot “endorsed” athletes that resonate with actual runners and load them on YouTube. I am suggesting shoot twenty different marathon runners that are household names with the audience and have them tell their stories through videos.

The cost savings alone would allow a lot more scale and versions, not to mention more endorsed content that could speak to individuals, rather than a TV spot of a guy looking at a treadmill after a montage of clips. I have heard Nike has a similar video to Bosh’s featuring Steve Nash and the production cost was around 20k. I have never worked in TV production, but I am willing to bet you can get more reach and frequency through several well done videos posted on YouTube than producing one TV spot and then buying the media to support. I am not even going to argue that the YouTube model would get more engagement as well, cause it does.

AOL Ticker ads….The new pre-roll?

November 19, 2007

AOL has announced they will introduce “Ticker” ads that will run through streaming video content, rather than forcing users to watch the traditional pre-roll advertisements.  AOL’s video ticker ad appears at the bottom of the video player 10 seconds into the video stream. When clicked by a user, the ad expands while the video pauses. If the user does not interact with the ad, it will dissolve after 15 seconds leaving the branded text link. Clicking on the branded text link, located at the top of the video player, will relaunch the ticker.

They are claiming that it creates a more interactive user interaction than other overlayed advertising mediums that have been suggested on video advertising. The “Ticker” ads will be available across their network of premium video content.

I am not sure if I agree that this will cause a more interactive user engagement or not. I personally believe the people will tune out the ticker while watching the video content. I must admit it will most likely reduce my irritation to watching online video clips if it removes the standard :15 pre roll, but I am not sold on the fact that this is where video advertising is going. Just like I am not sold on Facebook’s ad platform.