Dede sent me a link to Bradley Werner’s post: Doing Video RIGHT. In this post, the Fifth Network’s director of marketing defends pre-roll and asserts that doing online video the right way is more important than doing it at all. So far so good, but then Bradley makes a “New Year’s Video Resolution” to “be nicer to pre-roll.” Sorry, Bradley but you are starting off on the wrong foot if you want video to remain an effective online advertising solution.
As you may know from my previous post on the subject (link), I am not a fan of the pre-roll, but the more I think about it, the more obnoxious this ad format appears. My adverse reaction was highlighted by Ann Green’s thoughtful Point of View The Promise of Online Video. In this piece, Ann gently points out that “the use of online video advertising in its current form actually runs contrary to the current marketing ‘mantra’ of engagement because [advertisers] have failed to understand the way in which viewers ‘consume’ the media.”
Bang! Ann, you hit the nail on the head. Just because something has proven to be effective with a TV audience doesn’t mean it will work when transplanted on to a different screen.
When people are watching TV, they are not actively searching the medium for items of interest. They are either sitting back waiting for the program to resume or they are multi-tasking. When viewers are going with the flow, their defenses are down and they are amenable to watching ads for all kinds of products, even products they don’t use. (While they might not need them now, they might have occasion to use them some day.)
In the minority of cases where TV viewers are actually searching for content of interest, they are not likely to view any ads at all; they will change the channel or skip over them.
Online, by contrast, the minority behavior is actually the majority. People know what they are looking for and they expect to be in control. They have stuff to do. Banner ads? Who looks at those? Rich media ads which come up when you click on a link? Skip ‘em. Unless the content is relevant or piques their interest, they have not got time to waste looking at ads.
In his post, Bradley Werner defends the pre-roll, saying that when it is done correctly (which he defines as “contextually targeted, demo-targeted, frequency capped and combined with a companion piece”), it achieves “fantastic” results. Well, it’s true that today online video does generate higher awareness and purchase intent than other online ad formats. Research by Dynamic Logic suggests that online video currently outperforms the norm for online advertising by 50 percent. But advertisers tend to misinterpret such statements to mean that online video wields as much power as traditional 30-second spots on TV. Sorry, but I believe that thinking is wrong.
Over the short history of the Web, new ad formats have always generated higher response rates than the existing ones because of their novelty. Early rich media ads used to generate the sort of impact online video does today. Sadly this is no longer true. Similarly, once video’s novelty is gone I believe we are going to see “fantastic” results drop to more normal levels.
Will online video maintain an edge over other ad formats? In terms of the ability to generate engagement, yes. A combination of sight and sound will always be more engaging than a picture alone. But that also increases the potential for negative response. Resentment over excessive exposure to an irritating ad could rub off on the brand. If online video is to avoid becoming as detested as the pop-up ad, I suggest advertisers think twice about the unasked insertion of their ads into video streams.
Advertisers also need to pay attention to how online video ads are placed, because even in situations where online video should work, it is falling down on execution. A recent episode of the Charlie Rose Show hosted by Google included 15-second ads inserted in-stream, during Rose’s interview with author Calvin Trillin. Now, I believe that in general viewers will accept the inclusion of a couple of 15-second ads inserted into an hour of programming, if the ads are placed at appropriate intervals and show some sensitivity to the program’s content.
In this case, however, the first ad follows very shortly after the review of the show’s sponsors (which I am sure most people regard as advertising). Then, there is no segue between the program and the ad. Charlie Rose fades out, and suddenly, there is an ad for Allstate, featuring a car crash. Coming as it does, during a discussion of Trillin’s new book About Alice, which is a tribute to his dead wife, the ad seems jarring and a bit insensitive.
It would seem that Google still has a lot to learn about the niceties of video ad placement. In fact, judging by much of the commentary I see in the media, so do most people who tout the virtues of online video and the pre-roll in particular.
So what do you think? Will interruption remain a prevalent feature of online advertising? Will this approach diminish video’s effectiveness or enhance it? Please share your thoughts.
(16 votes, average: 3.69 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
January 17th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Hi Nigel,
First, I would like to congratulate you for your blog. I am one of your regular readers.
I think that some observers tend to generalize what the web is and what the online experience is. The web and its usages evolve, and can change depending on the context. It can be a (re)search tool, a communication tool and increasingly an entertainment medium. Disruption does not make in a search mode (that’s where SEM is ideal) but can make sense in entertainment mode: when I am browsing YouTube videos, with no other purpose than a general desire to be entertained, I can be disrupted to see something else. I had watched the Carlie Rose video a few days ago, and was not bothered by where the ad was or the fact that there was an ad. What struck me was the total lack of relevance, and that to me was the source of annoyance. If the web cannot provide a better targeting and relevance that TV, why bother?
January 17th, 2007 at 7:05 am
You mention Google has a lot to learn in the area of advertisement delivery around the video space – who will be their teacher, not the traditional broadcasters !
A recent article in the Media Guardian highlighted the recent events surrounding the final demise of Sadaam Hussein , the build up and events of his hanging being then interrupted by a ‘ cheery advert to by a sofa “ – a prime example of “jarring and a bit insensitive “.
Along with giving other examples of McDonalds adverts being run next to childhood obesity in the press, they make the interesting point as the demarcation of adverts becomes more blurred due to shorter and shorter messages being squeezed in between programming - that we are not given enough time to make the shift between entertainment and promotion.
I would also add with the increase in content driven promotion, such as the recent Audi TV channel and the fact that most TV productions now carry forms of in program sponsorship and branding – is it not true that we no longer truly realise when we are / are not being advertised – the entire viewing experience now is one long advert.
How best to approach this for the web - “contextually targeted, demo-targeted, frequency capped and combined with a companion piece”
Bradley Werner’s comments above he highlights one of the keys lies in the context. I would argue though simple segmentation to decide on what type of adverts to display does not go far enough ( even though this would be a great start , advertisers have to realise that simply picking high volume traffic sites may not be the best route ) .
More time and effort should be spent on analysing empirical browsing habits from the session. From this you could determine both the context and also the frequency and type of advertisements to display – varying from banner adverts which are functional and could be displayed as a shopping cart after the programming or indeed adding promotional content to the piece (which could vary in terms of message and length) knowing or at least having a good indication, that the content being viewed is valuable enough in this instance to attach such messages to be tolerated and also contextually worthwhile for the viewer.
From a supposed interactive medium we should expect and deliver a more meaningful dialogue.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Hi Trevor,
Thanks for this very interesting comment.
You raise a valid point when you say that traditional media is not any better at choosing placement ’sensitively’. We might expect better from the online medium because of the “data exhaust” left by individual browsers. The trouble is, I suspect that bad habits from offline media placement are migrating online and being exacerbated because the technology allows automated insertion irrespective of content.
It would be interesting to get a more informed viewpoint on this one. Can anyone out there provide one?
January 17th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Hi Olivier,
Thank you for your comments, I am glad you like the blog.
I totally agree that the web is a variable experience depending on what you get out of it. I also agree that relevance is key but do think that execution matters too.
The fundamental point that we all seem to agree on is that web advertising has far more potential to provide people with relevant and interesting advertising but that potential is a long way from being realized. Correct?
January 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Correct