Category Archives: Video and Virtual

Google as the Connector, not the Creator

The TV biz is the latest to get nervous about Google. Marissa Mayer is currently in the UK, assuaging skittish TV execs who are worried about Google’s muscling in on their turf. Mayer’s message is that Google is a technology company, not a media company.

If you look at the nature of Google’s position, you would realize why it doesn’t make sense for Google to try to churn out content. Google’s point of strength, and the one they should be focusing exclusively on, is to retain it’s position as the preferred connection between users and content. It’s a connector, and as long as it continues to function as such, it’s holding all the cards. Google is the pipeline that the lion’s share of web traffic will pass through, even momentarily. And that’s the beauty of Google’s plan. It doesn’t have to worry about producing content, it can focus on facilitating the connection, and then monetizing that connection.

If you’re a connector, there’s no overhead. There’s none of the costs or headaches involved with producing the content. You just have to point the right way to it, and collect your toll for each head that passes through. It’s clean, it’s simple and it’s tremendously profitable. That’s why Google can afford to cut some pretty sweet revenue sharing splits with current content producers. If they can corner the “connection” market, they can effectively cut out the competition.

If I were the TV execs, it wouldn’t be Google I would be worrying about. It would be the millions of bored teenagers that have a camcorder and nothing better to do in an afternoon than make a stupid video. These are the clips that dominate the all time most viewed videos on YouTube. It may be easy for the established production houses to dismiss this content as amateurish and inconsequential, but these clips are precursors of the democratization of video production, as consumer generated content becomes better and more readily available. Again, it goes back to my view of the deconstruction of tradition distribution control points. Video used to have only a handful of distribution points, so tight partnerships with content creators were possible. The internet is moving the distribution point online and away from the traditional control points, and Google is very wisely trying to grab a big piece of that pie. They can remain agnostic to the source of the content, as long as they can control the access.

The thing that worries me a little is that the execs in charge of the traditional control points don’t seem to realize the magnitude of the change that’s coming. They’re focusing their attention on an easily identifiable but false threat coming from Google, without realizing that the rules of the game are being completely rewritten and the real threat is coming from their own audience.

Gore Impatient about the Speed of Change with Internet Video

Here’s an interesting op-ed piece from MediaPost’s Tobi Elkin on the blurring of the lines between the power of television and the power of the Internet, this time from Al Gore (hey..didn’t he “invent” the Internet in the first place?). It’s not that long, so to save you the hassle of logging in, etc, I’ll just quote the whole article:

So former Vice President Al Gore addressed a group of British TV execs yesterday in Edinburgh, Scotland and told them that while the Internet is a great democratizing force, TV remains the most influential form of media and people should have more control over its programming.

Gore, whose Current TV venture hinges upon participatory/citizen journalism and user-generated video, told the assembled execs that so far, the Web can’t replicate “television’s power,” according to a Reuters report. “Most of what’s happening in the encounter between television and the Internet has been the Internet cannibalizing television,” Gore told the execs.

Gore recommended finding ways to use the Internet to give consumers access to TV and the way it’s programmed. He suggested that citizens can participate in the democratic process by challenging inaccurate comments made by politicians, particularly in TV ads.

Gore noted that while user-generated Web communities and sites are powerful , they don’t reach mass audiences. “You can stream that, forward it, store it, time-shift it, you can do lots of things, but you cannot broadcast in real time to millions of people over the Internet,” Gore told the execs, according to the Reuters report. “The Internet is now creeping into the television domain, but it’s still not creating the change that many anticipate will come.”

Still, YouTube is streaming about 100 million video clips a day, and Current TV reaches nearly 20 million homes; nearly 30 percent of its programming is user-generated.

Is Gore underestimating the power of Web communities and the power of the Web to attract mass audiences? Or is he merely issuing a clarion call to denizens of the Web–all of us–to wake up and make our comments and opinions count? Either way, it’s clear that regular people have the power to create and distribute media and make it matter. I think Gore is looking to put a fire under us to challenge the status quo and en masse, call out politicians–and anyone else, for that matter, who veers from the truth. It’s a good fire to light, and we’re up for the challenge.

Do not, I repeat, underestimate the power of the Web and its denizens. Internet users are capable of calling politicians, and anyone else for that matter, on the carpet–and biting them in the ass.

Tobi Elkin is Executive Editor, MediaPost.

I agree with Tobi. Trying to assess the Internet’s future role in shaping interaction with, and the creation of, television programming is like trying to forecast the effects of a tsunami before it’s begin. We simply have no idea of the forces that are being unleashed here. What Gore is referring to are the first few ripples in what’s to be a full force tidal wave in the next two decades. The whole notion of programming, who controls it, and who calls bullshit on who are all about to be twisted, torn up and reformed in a way we won’t recognize.

The other issue is the Web’s ability to attract an audience. Again, the nature of engagement with video is just being defined. I for one think there are some fundamental issues with how we engage with essentially linear media in a multi-tasking environment, the infrastructure required to deliver high quality video to us, and some pretty basic human-computer interface challenges that have to be addressed. Again, we’re seeing ripple effects, but just below the surface, an earthquake is ready to erupt. Given the nascent stages of this communication channel and how our society is adopting it, the fact that YouTube is streaming 100 million clips a day should be scaring the hell out of someone, rather than prompting Gore to complain about the “creeping” pace of the Internet. This is all about tipping points, and we’re getting very close to one.

If Gore is telling us to wake up to this possibility, then go for it. But it’s way too early to be laying bets here. Still, that said, I do like how Gore is reinventing himself. Between the crusade behind “An Inconvenient Truth” and his awareness of the democratic potential of the Net, he seems to be grasping at the notion of the fundamental reweaving of society’s fabric that’s happening, and the potential to address some apocalyptic issues before it’s too late. He’s going for the big ideas, a refreshing change from the insular navel gazing that seems to characterize much of what’s happening in Washington.

Engagement with Video Online

In the past week I’ve read a number of articles precipitated by Google’s move to show video ads across their network. The introduction of video to online seems to be heralded as “the next big thing” by almost everyone, and I admit I’ve taken a turn on that particular band wagon.

Yet, this weekend, I pondered the nature of our engagement with online video and find it wanting in many respects. Why? The particular event that triggered this train of thinking was my trying to watch the documentary “Loose Change” on my computer. If you haven’t seen the video, it’s a Michael Moore-ish type investigation of the events of 9/11. Whether you believe it or not, there’s little doubt that the subject matter is engrossing. I watched Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 on my television and had no problem watching them in one sitting. I was highly engaged and was pretty much oblivious to other distractions, including children.

With Loose Change, I’ve been trying to watch the documentary for 2 months now, and I’m only half way through it. It’s not that it’s less interesting. It’s that my environment is different.

When we sit at a television, we’re used to being passive. I think the past 50 years have conditioned us to expect to relinquish control and be willing sponges for whatever happens to flash on the screen. Recently, remote controls and DVR’s have given us some degree of control over the box, but we’re just beginning to exercise that control. When we sit down in front of a TV set, we’re not expecting to “do” anything with it.

The other place where we tend to watch sights and sounds is the movie theater. Again, we expect to be a passive audience here.

But when we sit in front of a computer, we usually do so to accomplish a task. It’s the most useful box in the house, and I believe it’s this very usefulness that may be keeping video from being more engaging online.

Look at the videos that tend to be watched online. They’re short, they have to be highly stimulating and we usually only watch them because a trusted source has labelled them a “must see”. Either a friend has emailed us a link with their recommedation, or word of mouth has spread about the video and it’s the latest viral craze. And usually they require no intellectual engagement. The most watched clips on YouTube fit these criteria to a T. #1 is the Evolution of Dance, watching a (undoubtedly talented) comedian morph from one dance to another in 5 minutes. #2 is a lip sync done in a bedroom of two teenagers in an ode to Pokemon. And #3 is the live version of the Simpson’s intro. Production values are usually minimal, and there is no intellectual content. There is a kind of counter-culture, anti establishment feel to them, which probably adds to their viral appeal.

If a video meets all these criteria, then it will be watched online.

Now, what do we do with our computer, whether it be a laptop or a Media Center, if we want to watch a show on it in the same manner as we would on TV?We maximize the window, blocking out the other stimuli and making it a TV set.

Let’s go back to Loose Change. While arguably this has been a viral success online, it has still been a struggle for me to watch. Why? Well, it’s long, at an hour and 20 minutes. It’s online resolution forces me to watch it in a window, with other stimuli surrounding it. And I have to think and absorb, it’s not mindless.

When I’m watching a video in these circumstances, I find it very difficult not to be distracted by what surrounds it on the page. I feel this innate guiltiness, thinking that there are a hundred other useful things I should be doing rather than watch this video. In fact, we have been conditioned to consider watching a video as a “waste” of time. We can justify it if it’s a few short minutes out of our day. It’s mindless entertainment. But otherwise, guilt starts eating at us. An inexplicable anxiety starts, with the feeling that there has to be something more useful to do with my computer.

Back to my original point. I think we have to reinvent the paradigm through which we engage with video online. I don’t think moving the types of videos we used to watch on TV to our computer screen will work. And my prediction is that advertisers will spend millions of dollars to discover this. Probably the biggest success online has been the Subservient Chicken for Burger King. And the key? It’s different, and it’s interactive.

With Google’s announcement, there will be many who throw video online, in the assumption that it will be more engaging than a simple graphic ad, or even a text based ad. Don’t count on it. The rules are different, and they’re still being written.

Lights! Camera! Google!

Google will be rolling out user initiated video advertising across it’s AdSense network.

Broken record time. I applaud Google’s decision to keep engagement with the video in the hands of the user.

But on a more fundamental level, I have to question the whole level of engagement with display advertising on sites. It seems like the harder advertiser’s scream, the more determined we are to ignore them. On a recent eye tracking study we did for MarketingSherpa, we were absolutely amazed with the small amount of scanning done in the typical ad positions on a page. Less than 10% of visitors even looked at these sections (top banner, right and left rail) of the page. Now, the purpose of the study wasn’t to look at this aspect specifically, but the scan patterns were undeniably clear. Interestly, text based ads that appeared within the flow of the main content had higher scanning levels, even when they appeared well below the fold.

Of course, these numbers are probably not terribly surprising, given the fact that visitors aren’t there to look at ads, but it makes you question the whole idea of paying by impression. If you’re buying based on a CPM model, realize that for every 1000 impressions, only 60 or 70 people are actually seeing the ad, even for a split second. Suddenly, those low clickthrough rates start to make sense.

Tivo Now in the Search Game

This just in: Tivo is going to let viewers search for the advertising content they’re interested in!

Brilliant! Imagine, letting consumers chose to look for product information when they’re actually interested in it. I think this has far reaching implications. Imagine if we could do something similar with websites..some sort of thing where we could search through all the content on the web so if there was a product we were interested in, we could find the right site. We could call it a…search engine!

But seriously, there is one quote from the story that reinforces everything I’ve been saying about search:

Users will be able to search through ad and product information spots ranging in length from 1 to 60 minutes from five different ad categories like finance, travel, and lifestyle.

See the word “search”? That’s the key. Consumer control absolutely requires search. Whether video search is done through Tivo or a search engine (and search engines will win this battle) the act of searching is the important thing. It’s that simple, fundamental concept that will power the entire future of marketing. It’s the connection that makes everything else possible.

Another interesting tidbit was the major brands jumping on this “brand”wagon. It was probably an easy sell, unlike search branding has been. But then, search isn’t nearly as sexy as being able to tap into a new generation of ad zappers.

DVRs Skip $8 Billion in TV Revenue

Read this morning that JupiterResearch calculates that as much as $8 B in TV revenue could be lost through ad skipping. That’s a little over 10% of the current TV spend. Apparently, 53% of DVR users skip ads, and if they skip 100% of the time, that accounts for the loss. Actually, I’m surprised only 53% skip. I know I do it all the time.

Forecasts of DVR penetration vary, but one report predicts that integrated DVR (incorporated into TV’s and satellite and cable boxes) sales will grow to 27 million by 2008. Currently, it seems that DVR penetration is around 8% of the market, but all agree that it will grow rapidly. Let us remember that any version of Vista with integrated Windows Media Center turns your PC into a DVR. So let’s say that between integrated DVR, stand alone sets and PC based DVR’s, 50% of the homes have DVR’s by 2010. Of those, 53% skip. That’s the erosion of a lot of advertising revenue.

Ironically, I also received a research brief that shows clicks on sponsored search ads continue to climb. Google say a 50% increase in the number of searches that included sponsored advertising and Yahoo had a 30% increase. What’s even more interesting is that across all searches, on Google, almost 12% of the clicks were on sponsored ads, and on Yahoo, it was 11.4%. Remember, those percentages are for all searches, including the ones where sponsored ads don’t show. In our studies, we see between 20 and 35% click through rates on SERPs were sponsored ads show. A recent study saw 30% click throughs on the top sponsored ads alone, not even including the side sponsored ones.

So, a little comparison here. When we’re watching TV, given the choice, over half of us would not ever want to see a commercial, let alone react to one. But when people are using search for commercial purchases, almost 3 out of 4 of us spend some time looking at the ads (by our choice) and 1 in 3 of us are actually clicking on them. That’s the power of consumer controlled engagement. Yet TV is a $80 B market, and search is a $5.5 B market.

Here’s a thought. Take the $8 B you’re spending on ads that people are spraining their thumb trying to skip by, and invest that money in advertising messages that people are actually looking for!

Disney Disses Search – But Misses the Mark

First published March 30, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Fresh from the floors of OMMA in Hollywood…

I was sitting in on the Monday morning keynote address from Albert Cheng, who is ABC’s newly minted executive vice president of digital media. Albert said all the things you would expect him to, including platitudes about embracing new technology, seeing the tremendous promise of digital, and vowing to provide viewers with high quality content, wherever they are, whenever they want to watch, and on whatever they want to watch it on. It went all pretty much according to the script, but halfway through, he made a comment that showed a brief glimpse of raw emotion. Ah… my ears perked up!

First of all, other than in Cheng’s introduction, he barely mentioned ABC. It was the Disney banner that Cheng unfurled and praised for its long-standing dedication to quality content. And he reminded us that this same quality content is not cheap to produce, then proceeded to take a swipe at the search engines. He took exception to the engines seeking to monetize that content through aggregation and disintermediation, echoing a sentiment common with almost all creators of content (see my earlier article, “Is Search a Leech on the Internet?”). But rather than just leave it there, Cheng went on to say that advertising presented by search engines can never hope to be as effective as advertising presented on video.

Whoa there, Albert!

I think you missed a point roughly the size of Walt Disney World. Search advertising doesn’t have to assault the senses or make us feel all warm and fuzzy to get our attention, because it already has that attention: we requested the messages through the act of search.

Cheng slipped back into safe boilerplate corporate speak about how the “halo effect” of advertising presented together with entertainment creates a much stronger response with consumers. He used the placement of Sears appliances and home furnishings in the popular show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” as the example.

There was a major disconnect here that was a little troubling, coming from a vice president of one of the largest media corporations in the world. Cheng was trying to draw a comparison between two wildly different advertising channels, and the attempt to contrast effectiveness was naïve at best.

Later That Same Day…

I was moderating a panel on video search. We speculated for 45 minutes on where video is going, and debated how advertising could be incorporated into digital video. At the end, I wrapped up by saying that search has been one of the very few unqualified successful online advertising channels. It remains to be seen how other marketing messages evolve themselves to engage consumer attention. Video remains squarely in this category. And the reason is simple: search gets one basic concept better than any other channel. Consumer control is hardwired into search. Search has become the embodiment of that control, the mechanism through which we request pretty much anything online. You can have all the quality content you want online, but unless a consumer requests it, typically through a search engine of some kind, you have no audience.

Maybe Albert Was Having A Bad Day…

I don’t blame ABC and Disney for feeling threatened. Every executive at a major traditional media corporation is feeling his empire crumbling beneath his feet. The world has shifted 180 degrees, and power has consolidated itself in the hands of consumers. Yes, Disney has invested billions in creating the machine that can churn out entertainment. But the distribution channels for that content have changed irrevocably. We, the consumers, have millions of options, we have control, and search will be the gate through which we allow that content to flow. That puts search in the driver’s seat.

Search has the tremendous advantage of an audience that’s highly interested in its advertising message. The consumer has requested information, and all the search ad has to do is promise to deliver on the consumer’s intent. In this case, simple text messages perform tremendously well. In fact, the introduction of any other type of advertising, including rich media or graphics, breaks the search paradigm and will likely be ignored. Remember search banner ads?

Now, mind you, getting a consumer’s attention with a search ad is harder than it sounds. Probably no one knows better than I how fleeting the search user’s attention is. But the advertisers’ odds for success are exponentially better than if they’re trying to attract the attention of consumers who are not thinking about a product and have no intention of doing so in the near future.

As long as consumer control is exercised through the act of searching, it will provide the single best opportunity to connect with a highly motivated consumer. There is still much work to be done in how that advertising is presented, as we explore the potential of search marketing, but with 40 percent-plus of online ad budgets swinging to search, I think the channel has pretty much proven itself.

Don’t Get Me Wrong…

I do agree with Mr. Cheng in one respect. I think there’s tremendous potential for online video as an ad delivery vehicle. I wrote as much in last week’s column. And I certainly agree that a halo effect is powerful in brand messaging. But to try to draw comparisons between this very distinct marketing approach and search is like trying to say that the airplane is a more effective means of transportation than the car. Two different applications, two very different beasts.

You should know that, Albert. After all, didn’t Disney once have its own search engine? Oh, that’s right. You couldn’t make a “Go” of it.

Video and the Online Paradigm

First published March 23, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Online interactions are generally ruled by the left brain, the logical side of our intellect. We interact in what is primarily a text-based presentation. We read, rather than feel. We assimilate words, rather than absorb sights and sounds. Any moves to bring the emotions of the right brain to the Web have been feeble at best. Generally, we interact with most Web sites the same way we did in 1996. We read text, we click on links, we glance at the occasional graphic. For the most part, our right brain is idling.

Next week’s OMMA show in Hollywood will be looking forward to the day when our emotions will rule how we interact online (among other things). It marks an oncoming convergence that is far more important than the combining of digital media and the Internet. What will be explored and debated in the meeting rooms of the HiltonUniversalCity is a medium that engages both the right brain and left brain, in equal measure, at the same time.

Video Search: The Tip of the Iceberg

Next week, I’ll be moderating a session on Video Search at OMMA Hollywood. In assembling the panel, my initial inclination was to bring the latest in video search optimization techniques to the audience, highlighting the tactics that could put you on top of the video search engines. But there was a deeper question here, and one that I wanted to explore.

I’ve written before about interactive video authoring. MSN is working on the technology, and they’ll be talking about it on the panel. After my column ran, other companies such as Vimation (also joining us), Videoclix and Click TV let me know about the work they’ve been doing in the field.

Defining Online Engagement

The whole question of how our brains engage when we act online fascinates me. How do our emotions kick in to frame the context inside of which we’ll interact with a site? How is that initial emotional evaluation (see the 50 Millisecond Judgment) impact our further, more logical interactions with the site, as we begin reading the content and assimilating it? Right now, it appears that in less time than the blink of an eye, the right brain renders an opinion of a site based on its aesthetic appeal, and that opinion is either reinforced by the content, or continues to be at odds with it, as the left brain digests that content.

This is the way we currently interact. One of the questions we’re struggling with in online marketing is defining engagement. My belief is that the most powerful medium for engagement is the one that most fully engages the senses. I believe we’re more fully engaged when our emotions rule us, when the right brain is in control. For my money, there is no more powerful medium than a truly superb movie, seen at a theater. For that reason, it’s appropriate that we’ll be wrestling with this question in Hollywood, the home of movies, in a venue a stone’s throw from Universal Studios.

This is not to say that words aren’t powerful. Novels can move us to tears. Words can find a connection through our intellect, allowing us to render tremendously engaging concepts, made all the more real because we visualize them internally. But the engagement is more subtle, and happens over time. A novel can’t assault our senses the same way a movie can, because the creators of the movie have hardwired the imagery and emotion directly to our senses, rendering the story for us (I leave aside the question of which is the more fulfilling experience). Also, we don’t read online the way we do a novel. We scan, we pick up snippets of information, and we don’t allow ourselves to be immersed in the act of reading. We are multitasking, and there are just too many other stimuli fighting for our attention.

Emotional…and Interactive!

As broadband moves real video online, we suddenly have a platform that engages our emotions in a way that scanning text online can’t. We create emotional connections to the content, the same way we do with movies or television. But what’s really exciting is that now we can make that content interactive. We can click to access more information, or to guide ourselves through a story. Linear narrative can now give way to hyperlinked multiple story threads. Advertising messages can be delivered with the full impact of a visual, emotional medium, then transition seamlessly to a logical information request. Now, we are engaging both our intellect and our emotions at the same time. That could change everything about the way we interact online. And, as always, search will be the connection to that experience. Hope to see you at the session!

Lights, Camera, Point and Click!

First published January 19, 2006 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In a flurry of announcements out of Redmond this week, there was one that struck a chord with me, because it is very similar to a development I forecast in an article entitled “All Roads Lead Online” about a year ago.

Product placement gone wild.

Microsoft will be making online video more interactive by creating the ability to click on a product in the video and receive advertising for whatever you clicked on. It’s like product placement on steroids. See a cool stereo, the car you just have to have, or a particularly yummy dinner in a chic restaurant–and you just pause, click, and immediately get more information. Cool, hey? And that’s just the first stage.

Imagine a little more functionality. Rather than just being served an ad, what would happen if a smart little Web app in the background did a little online research for you? What if it combs for product reviews and consumer ratings, then shops for the best price, determines availability and shipping information, and keeps all this information in a convenient file for your browsing pleasure when the show is done?

The virtual tourist.

Here’s another scenario.You’re watching a movie that features some gorgeous locations in France and Italy. As you watch the movie, you hit a flag button on your MediaCenter remote every time you see an interesting villa, an intriguing town, a vintage bottle of wine or that little bistro that seems so romantic. By the end of the movie, you have a complete travel itinerary planned, complete with the lowest fares available from your home, hotel availability, restaurant reservations and even menu suggestions. A couple more clicks and you’re booked.

Search: the connector between intent and content.

Whenever someone questions the longevity of search, this is one of the scenarios I trot out for them. Search is the engine that underlies all this functionality. It is the bridge that connects intent and content. This core functionality is what will drive almost all online connections in the future. And those connections will be controlled by whoever wins the search war. Suddenly, all the buzz around search starts to make sense.

Imagine what this will do to the world of product placement. It will be a feeding frenzy the likes of which have never been seen before. Suddenly, every video can be one long, multilayered commercial. And as frightening as that sounds, remember that you’re in control. You choose the advertising you want to be served. Advertising isn’t an intrusion when you’re asking for it.

Custom-tailored marketing.

Let’s further envision MSN’s demographic targeting layered on top of this. Now, different segmented targets can be fed different advertising messages. A 55-year-old male lawyer in Portland can see a completely different message than a 24-year-old female teacher in Armonk. A unique user experience can be wrapped and delivered to each.

There’s one last piece of the puzzle that really brings this home: personalization. The more the owner of this connection knows about you, your likes, your interests and your schedule, the more helpful it can be. As it aggregates information, it can be tailored specifically for you.

The announcement of interactive video by Microsoft is just the tip of an immensely large iceberg. As our entertainment choices converge online and become searchable through the same technology that powers Google, Yahoo and MSN, online becomes the gatekeeper for the vast majority of advertising that will be delivered to us. And search has the key to the gate.