Blog

Blog Headlines

  • YouNewsTV™, and lessons to be learned from Craigslist YouNewsTV™, and lessons to be learned from Craigslist
    With the dramatic ascent of YouTube and other video sharing sites these past two years (was it only last October that YouTube was acquired by Google?!), and the ensuing shift in video advertising dollars away from traditional cable and TV outlets, it's instructive to look at the challenges that another traditional advertising industry faced by an interactive upstart and how they responded.

    The industry and respective challenger I refer to is the newspaper industry with Craigslist.

    If you think back almost 10 years to 1998, Craigslist was still a relative newcomer to the online-postings scene and really wasn't yet considered a threat to newspaper classifieds (Craigslist didn't really start generating revenue from a "traditional" classifieds per-posting model until 2004 when it started charging $25 for job postings in New York City). However, many online classifieds sites had launched and newspaper executives were keenly aware of the threat posed by these sites -- it just remained to be seen which of the online-only classifieds sites would get the model right and do the most damage to the traditional newspapers.

    To summarize the known threats that online classifieds posed to newspaper classifieds revenue in 1998, they were:

    • Virtually no barrier to entry for a new classifieds site to launch (either a national site or a local site). Some expertise in classifieds software was needed, but even in 1998 this was relatively inexpensive.
    • No distribution costs for online classifieds vs. newspaper classifieds, which meant that a classifieds site could be VERY profitable with minimal staff and low posting fees if only they got enough traffic. This opened the door to the idea of keeping most classified categories free in order to drive traffic to categories such as jobs, autos, and real estate ("while you're here looking for a date or a used sofa, why not browse our job listings?").
    • Very low acquisition costs for the classifieds postings -- Craigslist doesn't run a 'classifieds department' or ad manager that has to take credit card payments manually or vet each posting for obscene language. Up until recently, Craigslist was run by only 20 or so employees out of the founder's house in San Francisco.
    • National and international presence became simply a matter of setting up additional classifieds sites after initial success in one area or market (Craigslist is now live in over 50 countries and 450 cities across the world).
    • Traditional newspaper sites remained focused and linked to only one main city or geographic area, so that if a user moved from city to city there was no continuity in the classifieds solution they might use. This is not true of Craigslist.

    Unfortunately, the newspaper industry reacted to this threat by counting on the dominance of their local newspaper brand, promotional ability, and history as the best place to look for classified jobs and autos. Very few sites, if any, even took the step of allowing users to post free listings in categories such as "used furniture" or even "unpaid internships." And, even worse, there never appeared to be a newspaper industry-wide consortium that came together to promote a common classifieds platform or format that each newspaper could own in its respective market and still link out to other city sites from. (Until very recently, that is, with Yahoo's effort to pull together disparate newspaper groups ... too little, too late?)

    The rest is history. Users flocked to Craigslist, and analysts can only estimate how much classifieds advertising Craigslist has pulled away from traditional newspapers. We all know it's a big number, but aren't sure of exact revenues given that Craigslist has never gone public or taken investment such that they'd need to disclose numbers. Must be a nice position to be in if you are Craig Newmark (the founder of Craigslist).

    What's instructive about this is that the challenges faced by the TV industry by the likes of YouTube are identical to what was faced by the newspapers:

    • No barrier to entry for video sites to launch
    • Very low distribution costs for online video vs. maintaining a traditional TV station and sales force. Bandwidth is getting cheaper and cheaper, and online video sites are able to generate revenue from nearly every video play now.
    • No acquisition costs for content as it's mostly user-generated or short-form content (compare this to the cost of syndicated promoting (programming?) or even reality program shows).
    • National and international presence for these sites is simply a matter of driving enough clicks.

    YouNews is Broadcast Interactive Media's attempt to facilitate the formation of a consortium of TV broadcasters that "own" the YouNews brand in their respective market, but are linked together by a common underlying platform from which they can all generate revenue and share content. YouNews gives our clients all of the advantages listed above that the video sites have over a traditional TV station, and still allows them to leverage their core broadcasting asset to retain dominance in their respective DMAs.

    It is my sincere hope that YouNews can be a key reason why TV broadcasters do not face the same fate (and the same Wall Street valuations) as the newspaper industry is currently facing.
  • Web Video Ads – the format wars (Part 1) Web Video Ads – the format wars (Part 1)
    Given that Broadcast Interactive Media represents one of the largest networks of local TV sites on the Web, it’s inevitable that once video advertising really started to take off both BIM and our clients would be in the thick of it.

    Now, with web video advertising estimated to hit nearly $800 million in 2007 (up from $350 million in 2006) and to grow just as quickly in the 2008 political year, the opinions and ideas as to what is the ‘right’ video advertising format are approaching a fever pitch.  This is true in all types of interactive companies, but particularly so within local media companies that own TV and radio stations or newspapers now that Veronis Suhler Stevenson has forecasted that interactive advertising is set to surpass standard television advertising by 2011.

    To put it simply, everyone is fighting for a piece of the online video advertising pie, and with the barriers to entry for web video publishers at historic lows, everyone is essentially fighting to find the right way to aggregate an audience on the web and to monetize video streams (without immediately alienating the audience they’ve worked so hard to build).

    Currently, the dominant form of interactive video advertising is the short video commercial that either precedes, follows, or interrupts a video clip that the viewer actually wants to watch.  These are the standard 15 second and 30 second pre-, post-, and mid-roll that the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) have officially sanctioned as IAB-compliant formats.

    The advantages to the pre-, post, or mid-roll format can be summed up fairly easily, especially for BIM’s TV station clients:
    • Such online video spots are directly analogous to a 30-second TV spot, so media and broadcast ad executives understand the branding benefits involved.
    • They are fairly easy to sell on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) basis, given that it’s easy to show the branding value of an active user click followed by a short commercial view.
    • The pre-roll format is appealing to old-word Madison Avenue ad agencies and rep firms because they require creative effort to come up with a good spot for the client, and an advertiser has to be careful on which site this pre-roll spot runs (hence, the advertisers needs both the agency and the rep firm as middlemen to do this leg work).  This keeps people in something close to their current jobs.
    • Online video commercials generally don’t interfere with the actual video by covering up any portion of the requested stream.

    The disadvantages of the pre-roll or mid-roll format can also be fairly easily summed up, especially when compared to the stunning success of an advertising format such as Google AdSense that places small, textual links in the midst of stories.  (Google is forecasted to do roughly $9 billion in AdSense sales in 2007, and I cite comparisons to AdSense because many people credit Google and AdSense with nearly single-handedly bringing the online advertising market out of the doldrums in 2003.). 
    • Pre-rolls (any form of short video commercial) requires creative work, making the ads inherently more difficult to place for small businesses with small ad budgets
    • Online video commercials are inherently disruptive, especially when compared to contextual text ads, as they normally cannot be skipped and take the user away from what they’d really like to do or see online. 
      • Most video publishers I speak with estimate that their video impressions drop by nearly 50% when the run 30-second pre-rolls, although some studies cited by the OMMA or OPA would disagree with this.
    • The measurement of effectiveness for a video commercial is much harder to define than is a click-through on a display ad – the question remains, “Should pre-rolls be viewed as a branding opportunity or a direct response measurement?”
      • One of the most appealing aspects to AdSense and online advertising in general is the ability to engage in CPC (cost per click) advertising and to quickly experiment with various campaigns in matter of days.
    • Ad-serving companies such as DoubleClick, Atlast, and 24/7 RealMedia have only recently (ie, in the last 6 months) come up with an integrated way for a publisher to easily traffic both display and pre-roll ads from one integrated console.
  • Web Video Ads – the format wars (Part 2) Web Video Ads – the format wars (Part 2)
    Given these formidable disadvantages, it’s no wonder that many sites and advertisers are aggressively experimenting with other video advertising formats.  The most prevalent alternative formats currently are either the graphical overlay ad or textual overlay ad (see www.youtube.com or one of BIM’s current clients www.wkbw.com for examples of sites experimenting with such formats).

    The advantages of such formats are considerable, and follow much more closely the AdSense model of advertising delivery.
    • The ads are generally not as intrusive in nature, as they allow a user to immediately begin viewing the video content requested and can be closed by the viewer.
    • The ads require minimal creative effort on the part of the advertisers, and campaigns can be varied much more quickly and easily because of this.
    • Such ads can realistically be sold on a CPC basis as necessary, as the action desired by the user is truly a click rather than simply a tracked impression.  This leads to less risk on the part of the advertisers.
    • Text and graphical ads are less expensive to store, serve, and manage than are video assets.
    • Given the large amount of advertisers already participating in contextual ad programs, it’s easy to use textual or graphical overlay ads as remnant backfill.  This means that a site publisher is protected against any bandwidth overage charges from a video that may go viral from their site.

    However, for content creators and owners (especially news-production shops), text and graphical overlay ads pose a number of challenges:
    • Such ads may appear and cover up critical areas of the video (such as a station logo or weather ticker).
    • Some users may not realize that they can minimize the ad, and be forced to watch a ‘covered up’ version of the content.  This will most likely lead to the user going to another site for the same or similar content.
    • Selling overlay ads via CPC rates may never fundamentally value the branding awareness given by being associated with a piece of desired video content.

    These are major disadvantages, and certainly sites will need to experiment aggressively with different solutions to make this type of ad work.  Some ideas, such as minimizing the video rather than covering it up to serve the ad, may pose a good middle ground between the two formats.

    What’s the ultimate solution?  While some may advocate one format as completely preferable to another, or state that overlay ads are only a good solution to monetize lower quality video content such as user-generated video, I believe the answer is simple: It’s too early to tell, and the sites and ad networks that can most quickly experiment with multiple formats and adapt to the successful models will win the lion’s share of ad revenues.  Those that are unwilling to experiment or force one format over another will fail.

    And what’s the opinion of the folks here at Broadcast Interactive Media?  Based on a recent straw poll at an all-hands meeting, the following video ad formats were the winners with our “mostly twenty-something recently graduated from the University of Wisconsin” group of employees (when they were asked what they would prefer as users when surfing their favorite video sites):
    • Those that prefer an overlay ad to a 30-second pre-roll: 95%
    • Those that prefer an overlay ad to a 15-seond pre-roll: 80%
    • Those that prefer an overlay ad to a 5-second pre-roll: 50%

    This is of course an unscientific study, and I encourage you to actively experiment and ask the same types of questions at your organizations and share your thoughts with me and this community via our commenting feature on this blog.

Blog Headlines

Blog Headlines