TubeMogul

TubeMogul was the first dedicated online video analytics firm, enabling content creators to track the performance of their videos over a number of online video services.

But that clearly wasn’t enough for the company, which has now launched Play Time, its video advertising platform. And the firm is already seeing results from the year-long beta.

Play Time

According to MediaWeek, TubeMogul is using its experience in video analytics to its advantage with Play Time. The company is aiming to be “far more open and effective than other video networks” and “the largest video ad network in the world.”

Which are big ambitions indeed, but TubeMogul is confident that by using the data from its analytics platform it can target video ads at exactly the right people.

Beta Testing Results

TubeMogul has been testing Play Time over the past year, running campaigns for the likes of 20th Century Fox, Coca Cola, Nestlé, and Kmart. Which are very big names with some very big advertising bucks to play with.

According to NewTeeVee, the company is already reporting higher revenues from this new part of its business than the analytics service it has been specializing in for the last few years. So expect this to become a larger part of the company’s business than it is currently is.

Indeed, Tubemogul has reportedly already started buying “inventory from the top 250 comScore sites.”

Conclusions

Rivals are seeing TubeMogul’s move into video advertising as a conflict of interests, but i really don’t see why. The company is merely attempting to use its experience and the data it has gained from one part of its business to its advantage in another field. And if the results from the beta period are anything to go by, it’s proving a successful strategy.

Related Ad

Buy the ‘Creating Flash Advertising’ book on Amazon

EyeView

The Web offers a whole new platform for advertisers to sell their wares. But as with every other medium, there are ways of increasing the success of campaigns.

EyeView offers video solutions for advertisers, having spent the last three years working for and with big names such as Google, YouTube, Yahoo!, HP, and eBay.

EyeView wants to know how much you know about works and what doesn’t in the realm of video advertising, and has created a Video Marketing Quiz which everyone can take.

Video Marketing Quiz

EyeView’s 2010 Video Marketing Quiz contains eight questions pertaining to the way video advertising can be used on the Web.

The questions cover the following elements, as well as many more:

• Whether auto-playing a video advert is more effective than letting the viewer decide when to start the promo.
• Whether video adverts are more effective than static banner ads.
• Whether the gender of the video voiceover person affects engagement.
• Whether the way the video advert is presented really affects click-through rates.
• Whether a lengthy video – more than two minutes – is a big no-no.

I took the quiz myself and only scored four out of a possible eight points. Mainly because as a consumer rather than marketer myself, I answered intuitively, and not all the answers proved to be so.

Conclusions

EyeView’s Video Marketing Quiz offers an intriguing glimpse at a world which most consumers and Web users will know little about. Which is why companies such as EyeView exist in the first place: to help companies and brands maximize their use of video advertising.

YouTube Mobile

YouTube’s mobile site is a version of the online video leader built especially for mobile phone users. It isn’t the same as the specially-created YouTube interfaces on iPhone and Android, although users of these two platforms can visit the mobile site at m.youtube.com.

The YouTube mobile site is surprisingly popular, boasting “millions of people all over the world … streaming tens of millions of videos every day.” That isn’t even close to the main YouTube Web site, which now boasts over one billion videos viewed every day.

However, with growth quoted as “over 160% in 2009,” and that likely to rise even higher in 2010, Google is keen to wring every drop of revenue possible out of YouTube as it endeavors to make a profit from the site.

Mobile Advertising

Google today announced it was rolling out advertising on the YouTube mobile site. At least in the U.S. and Japan. The decision follows a trial last summer which was successful in terms of “click-throughs, user experience, and brand awareness.”

Banner ads will now appear on the Home, Search, and Browse pages, but none will yet appear on the actual videos.

Google has been filling the full-fledged YouTube Web site with ads, including overlays and pre-rolls on the videos themselves. But the lack of Flash on handsets and the range of different standards throughout the industry means they aren’t yet available on the mobile site. Google is planning to introduce overlay and pre-rolls in the future though.

Conclusions

With big name advertisers including Sony, Kia, Land Rover, and L’Oreal having already bitten the YouTube mobile advertising bullet, the future looks positive. It seems most advertisers will now want to be present on the mobile site as well as the main Web site.

Which can only aid Google’s effort to turn YouTube from being the online video standard to the ‘profitable’ online video standard. How close it is to managing that is open to interpretation.

Related Ad

Buy ‘Supercharge Your Brand in the Exploding Wireless Market’ on Amazon

Hulu U.S.

In the U.S., Hulu is doing phenomenally well. It hit the one billion video views in a month milestone in December 2009, bringing a great year to an even better close. And 2010 is likely to see traffic increase even more.

This year will also see Hulu likely experiment with a paid subscription model alongside its free model. However, Hulu is currently limited to the States, with those of use who reside outside America blocked from watching content.

What Hulu needs to do is move abroad and go international.

Hulu U.K.

Hulu has actually been trying to do exactly that for a while now. With the U.K. chosen as the testbed for a larger international roll-out.

In March 2009 it hired someone to oversee its international operations. And in May Hulu began negotiations with several British broadcasters and content providers. A September 2009 launch was envisioned, though that date came and went without anything happening.

An ITV deal was considered close in August yet Hulu was already extending its launch plan into 2010.

Talks Stall

According to The Telegraph, Hulu has now set its sights on June 2010 to launch in the U.K. But even that seems optimistic considering the state of negotiations with the main channels.

ITV is undergoing a “10 week strategic assessment” and will not be moving talks forward in that time. While Channel 4 and Five are balking at Hulu’s demand that it controls the sale of advertising around the broadcasters’ content.

Both want to be able to sell the advertising around their own content so that they control what advertising appears attached to their programs and retain the majority of the revenues generated. Hulu doesn’t think this will make a U.K. site a viable business for itself.

Competing With YouTube, SeeSaw

The problem Hulu has is one of timing. Channel 4 and Five have signed deals with YouTube and SeeSaw in the meantime, both of which allow them control of their own advertising inventory. Neither will want to give that control up to the new kid on the block.

The bigger problem is, of course, that Hulu has lost the chance to get Channel 4 and Five on an exclusive basis. And if the same content is going to be on the broadcasters own sites, YouTube, SeeSaw, and Hulu, it makes me wonder whether Hulu should even bother trying to get a foothold in the U.K.

The Present

At the present time, online video viewers are lucky. And I say that as one of them. Most video sites are free, with advertising (both text and video-based) paying the bills and ensuring we get to watch good content without having to pay.

What’s more, the advertising is nowhere near as intrusive or as frequent as it is on traditional television. There’s probably four times as much advertising on TV as there is on the Web, on average.

However, according to AdAge, that could soon be set to change.

The Future

Starting in September, Nielsen intends to unify its data collecting to include both TV and the Web. So the advertising attached to a particular show, whether it be online or off, will be noted. This may not seem important to us, the end consumers, but from February next year it will be.

That is when the data is expected to begin being used for advertising negotiations. And to make the data accurate for this purpose, shows broadcast online would have to show the same ads as when they’re shown on TV. Which will mean a significant ramping up of advertising against online video.

TV Vs. The Web

This is all part of the convergence which is happening between traditional TV and Web TV. More and more consumer electronics are Internet-enabled, and that means people have multiple options for watching TV other than the box in the corner.

Time Warner and Comcast’s ‘TV Everywhere’ is a reaction to that, giving consumers more viewing options while still retaining the ability to squeeze cable subscriptions out of people’s pockets. As TV and online video meld into one, more advertising is almost guaranteed.

Keeping It Free

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as advertising is the only way content is going to be made available for free in the future. There are only two options for media companies seeking to make a mint from the Web: a subscription paywall or enough advertising to keep the content free.

And I know which one I, and the majority of other people, would choose.

Conclusions

So I say increase the amount of advertising. So long as it coincides with a commitment to keeping the sites free and an increase in the amount of premium content which Web TV viewers are crying out for.

Related Ad

Buy ‘The Online Advertising Playbook’ on Amazon

Kangaroo – SeeSaw

SeeSaw has risen out of the ashes of Project Kangaroo, the joint project between BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 that would have seen all strands of British TV brought together in one Web video portal. That was until the Competition Commission killed Kangaroo off after BSkyB and Virgin Media pledged complaints.

The BBC and its partners have gone on to create Project Canvas, a much more ambitious effort that seeks to create a new standard and platform for IPTV in the U.K. Set-top boxes are even part of the plan.

Arqiva bought the Kangaroo infrastructure last July for an estimated £8 million ($14 million).

SeeSaw Starts

SeeSaw entered its beta testing period on Tuesday (Jan. 26). Anyone resident in the U.K. can sign up for the beta, with invites sent out on a first-come, first-served basis. I applied on Wednesday and received mine on Friday.

Up to 10,000 invites will be sent out during the beta period, and I’d assume most people who apply will receive one. While Arqiva hasn’t announced its final launch date, the beta is expected to last around a month, with feedback welcomed during that period.

Content Deals

SeeSaw currently has content from the BBC, some old, some new, Channel 4’s 4oD, and Five. But there is more content on the way, with Arqiva thought to be keen to do deals with a number of other content providers.

According to PaidContent, independent U.K. producers Shed Media and talkbackTHAMES are on board, as are U.S. producer RHI Entertainment, Distributor Digital Rights Group, and Perform, which specializes in sports content.

Conclusions

I’ve only used SeeSaw briefly so far, but hope to have a full, first-impressions review up in a day or two.

As with every online video service, content is key, and that is what Arqiva needs to focus on if it’s to succeed as a service that not only wants to offer content for free and paid for by advertising, but also content it can charge for.

Whether it can do this will not become clear until well after the beta period has ended and the full service is up and running.

Conan Vs. Jay

The Tonight Show is an American institution, and its presence in the TV schedules, and who is presenting it, are subject to debate and controversy. It happened with Dave Letterman in the 90s and has now happened with O’Brien.

Conan took over The Tonight Show from Jay Leno last year, with the latter hosting his own prime-time chat show. But eight months on and NBC decided neither show was pulling in the expected ratings, which started a long battle which ended with Leno taking The Tonight Show back and O’Brien leaving the network altogether, albeit $33 million richer.

O’Brien’s Future

O’Brien is free to join another network from September 2010, and there are likely to be plenty after his skills as a presenter and the audience he’d no doubt bring with him.

However, Conan does, of course, have another option: taking his show to the Web and forgoing the need for a network altogether. After his experience with NBC, this must be an attractive option for O’Brien, especially as it would give him complete control over his destiny and see the rules on what he can say and do relaxed.

To Web Or Not To Web

The New York Times made the case for O’Brien to move to the Web, arguing that the Internet means people consume television in different ways now anyway. The whole argument over The Tonight Show centered on its time slot, but that is a somewhat moot argument when DVRs and online video rule the roost.

MediaPost took a different view, arguing that the world isn’t yet ready for the likes of O’Brien to take his show exclusively to the Web, mainly because it would be a lot harder to sell advertising for a Web-only show than it is for a traditional TV show. And even if the advertisers do bite, revenues would still be a lot less.

NewTeeVee estimates that The Tonight Show was worth about $200 million a year to NBC based on the 2 million viewers it got. Viewing figures would drop dramatically on the Web, and with lower CPMs expected (although not guaranteed), revenue would probably be limited to $20 million a year. And I’d suggest that’s generous.

Conclusions

There is no doubt in my mind that the Internet is becoming a pervading force for all media, TV, movies, and music. And Web-only offerings have seen some success, with Seth MacFarlane’s Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy immediately springing to mind.

However, it’s probably too soon for someone with the stature of Conan O’Brien to make the move lock, stock, and barrel. Give it a few more years though and we’ll definitely be at that point.

YouTube Goes Long

YouTube began as a bit of a Wild West of online video, but soon settled down to become the number one site for short, user-generated clips in the world. Mainly under Google’s ownership and tutelage.

But it has recently been trying to add more professional, long-form content as well. Some old movies and TV shows are now available on the site, and in the U.K. it has recently inked a deal with Channel 4 to have its archive of programming added to the site.

However, while Channel 4 is happy to sell its wares to YouTube for advertising revenue (alongside 4oD), most content creators and television networks aren’t so ready and willing to license their content. At least not merely for a share of advertising revenue.

Cue alternative revenue models.

Revenue Options

In September we reported how movies could be coming to YouTube, offered on a $3.99 rental basis similar to the standard set by Apple iTunes.

Then just a few weeks ago we reported how TV shows could also be added to the mix, with YouTube charging $1.99-per-episode.

This wouldn’t be going against the grain as Hulu is almost guaranteed to be preparing to charge for some content, while Apple is thought to be considering a $30-a-month eat-all-you-can subscription plan.

Subscription Plans

And now, according to Reuters, Google’s vice president of content partnerships, David Eun, has paved the way for YouTube to start a similar plan.

He said:

“We’re making some interesting bets on long-form content; not all content is accessible to us with the advertising model.”

In which case YouTube would like to offer content partners the option which works best for them. So the ones who are happy to take a share of the advertising revenue generated on the site can do, with others being able to opt for alternatives.

As well as rentals and downloads, monthly subscription fees are being considered. Which would put YouTube in direct competition with Cable companies.

Conclusions

This kind of deal would make sense for content creators and television networks which can see the future is in online video but which doesn’t want to give up the right to make a ton of money on licensing content.

The danger for YouTube is trying to be everything to everyone. And the site could end up cannibalizing itself by not focusing on one particular aspect of online video. Which until now has been short-form UGC.

It has a platform that is connecting forward thinking companies wishing to utilize the reach of online video with various blogs, websites and social media platforms.

Put simply if you have a video that you want to get more exposure and views on YouTube then ShareThrough can help. It does this by getting your video on popular websites and apps to get it more exposure, for a price of course.

On the other side of the coin if you run a popular website, blog, facebook app, iPhone app etc. that could show sponsored videos to users to get more plays, then there’s the opportunity to partner with Sharethrough as an advertiser.

Does it Work?

I had the pleasure of visiting the ShareThrough offices in San Francisco where founder Dan Greenberg highlighted how the video campaigns work.

In addition to running webtvwire.com I occasionally consult on online video promotion. I was impressed with how ShareThrough works, and that it is actually effective, especially on large budget campaigns, although low budget campaigns might not see the benefit (more on this in a minute).

Examples of ShareThrough’s successful videos it has promoted on behalf of advertisers include a movie trailer, a fearlessweb video, and a Christmas themed Motorola ad. Between them they’ve had a few million views.

Sharethrough has managed to bridge the gap between those sites and apps able to give viral videos exposure, and advertisers that will pay for such exposure. Up until now it’s been difficult for a company to get guaranteed exposure for their video campaigns with a simple out of the box solution.

Hot Videos & Seeding

One of the strategies that is very important in making a video go viral is what I call ’seeding’. You plant the seeds for your video to blossom into a viral hit.

It doesn’t matter how good your video is if nobody sees it, so seeding ensures your video gets off the ground and sets the viral wheels in motion. Once a video reaches a ‘viral threshold’ it starts to get picked up by blogs, shared on Facebook, promoted on reddit and digg, emailed to friends etc. etc.

I use a variety of cost-effective techniques to ‘viralize’ a video, some of which are listed here, and using ShareThrough is one of those that could be added to the mix.

Expensive?

However, just to get a video off the ground you can need a lot of views. The viral threshold varies for each video depending on a few factors, namely how much people like it – the more they like it the more they share.

This can be anything from 5,000 views to 100,000 views depending on the video and where those views are from. So if your budget is limited then using ShareThrough can get expensive, and may not be effective at creating a viral hit if your budget runs short.

Prices per video play start at $0.05 for worldwide traffic, and $0.25 per play for U.S traffic. This can quickly add up with 10,000 U.S viewers costing you $2,500.

Expensive is a relative term though as it really depends on whether the campaign brings you a return on investment or not.

For a large company wishing to advertise its products and brand to a mass audience it could certainly be worthwhile, and would most likely be far more cost-effective than traditional TV advertising.

However, an independent video producer trying to get his YouTube comedy channel off the ground will seriously struggle to turn a profit. If your video is not the sort that will go truly viral then the ROI will be even lower.

My point of view on expense is slightly tainted though since I’ve run viral campaigns to generate hundreds of thousands of page views a day to my own websites, on miniscule budgets, but that is my profession.

If you compare ShareThrough to Google Adwords where traffic typically costs between $0.10 to $1.50 a click (and often higher) then the value of ShareThrough does begin to look better.

I should also mention that ShareThrough does provide tracking and statistics so you can measure how well your video campaign is doing.

Self Service

ShareThrough typically works with big brands and media agencies one-to-one offering consultation as well as a video distribution service.

However, it has recently released a self service product which allows anyone to purchase video views through their system. It will only charge for the views generated through its own system, so if your video goes viral or generates views from other sources you won’t pay for those.

Be careful not to burn through lots of cash by buying thousands of views if you are not sure on the ROI of your campaign, or only have a small budget.

The Past

When YouTube began it was, like every young online video startup, a lawless place with all sorts of content. But that couldn’t continue, and Google’s buyout along with Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit meant the site had to ‘go legit’, with copyrighted content a no-no.

This meant that UGC was focused on almost solely, with YouTube building a reputation as THE place to go for amateur-shot videos.

But that alone wasn’t going to see Google spin a profit from its massive investment. So YouTube aimed to place more professionally produced, copyrighted content on the site. Alongside both the deals that made it legal and the advertising to (hopefully) pay for it.

‘Shows’ & More

YouTube has since done plenty of deals to this end. Clips from some media organizations and full-length videos from others are now available to watch perfectly legally in most countries YouTube serves.

But it’s greatest achievement is in the U.K., where the company persuaded Channel 4 to make all its 4oD content available on YouTube.

The British YouTube now has a ‘Shows’ section with videos (some preview clips and some full episodes) from Channel 4 and 60 other broadcasters. But it still needs people to know about this if it’s to prove successful and pave the way for other, similar deals.

YouTube’s Got TV

According to The Guardian, YouTube is embarking on its first offline advertising campaign to do just that. For a company that was built on word-of-mouth and is still growing thanks purely to the Web, this is quite a change of pace and strategy.

The campaign is called YouTube’s Got TV and will comprise of poster ads on public transport, full-page ads in newspapers and magazines, and even the taking over of a shop in London’s Carnaby Street.

Anna Bateson, YouTube’s director of marketing, said:

“We know that YouTube users enjoy the huge range of content on the site, but there’s a growing demand in particular for full-length programming – so this campaign aims to tell our users that the full-length TV content has now arrived. The Shows section of the site is a major new opportunity for our partners and advertisers to reach new audiences.”

The Future

This clearly means YouTube means business. It wants professional content to be a big(ger) part of the site in future and therefore needs deals such as the Channel 4 one to be successful for both parties.

The U.K. could possibly be a testing ground for a wider roll-out of this kind of thing. It certainly wouldn’t hurt YouTube to have statistics showing how successful such a deal could be when trying to woo the big U.S. television networks and content creators.