According to AdAge (2/19/2007), online video is “one of the most-hyped developments in marketing,” but even so, it is one that advertisers are “clamoring to be around.” Doesn’t it seem odd that a marketing world that is apparently shifting from “show and tell” communication offline to “engage and interact” communication online should focus so much attention on video? After all, most online video content still offers a passive viewing experience that fails to capitalize on the interactive nature of the Web. So why does video hold such a fascination for marketers?
It may simply be because video is a familiar format, and marketers hope that they can repurpose their costly TV ads online. Or maybe they are just buying the hype, taking it on faith that online video is an effective communications channel. The seminar held in London today by Dynamic Logic, called “An Insider’s Look at Online Video,” provided attendees with an overview of findings about how and why video works and I hope the discussion will carry on here.
Before we get into the discussion, let me review some of the things that stood out for me from today’s seminar.
First, and most important, referring to the use of video online as if it is one homogenous entity hides a fundamental truth brought to light by the Dynamic Logic findings. Just like TV ads, online video ads vary dramatically in their effectiveness. The best online video ad creates over 20 times more brand-linked awareness than the worst. Higher ad awareness typically translates into a difference in purchase intent. The difference between exposed and not-exposed cells varies from a gain of 6.9 percent for the best ad tested to a drop of 1.5 percent for the worst.
Second, not all video ad formats are created equal. For example, people are more likely to watch an in-stream ad from beginning to end compared to other formats. In tests conducted for Kraft Foods and media partner Modem across nine different campaigns, 73 percent of people watched in-stream videos to their completion versus 47 percent for in-banner video. A number of factors may be working to the advertiser’s advantage with in-stream video, not least the fact that they do not want to miss the start of what they really want to watch, but part of it is that we are used to watching video passively on TV and are resigned to our programming being interrupted by ads. That’s not the case with normal web-browsing.
And third, video is still a relative newcomer to the Web. This means that people are less familiar with it, and therefore are more likely to pay attention to it than they will a year from now, when its novelty will have worn off. Currently video creates twice the average lift in ad awareness compared to all ads in the MarketNorms database, and nearly twice the lift in purchase intent. Extrapolating from the fate of rich media, which also outperformed other forms of online advertising when it first appeared, we might expect these increases to drop back, nearer to parity levels, once video becomes a more established online medium.
Right now, online video ads also benefit from higher frequency of exposure when they are repeatedly included in the same content. This guarantees the higher scores achieved in the CTV-1 study when online is compared to TV or DVR playback (see my previous post on this topic) but also means that people are more likely to report getting fed up with seeing the ads.
So what does the future hold for online video? Will it continue to be an attractive advertising format for marketers?
My answer is an unequivocal yes. Why? Precisely because watching video is a passive experience.
Most online ad formats are neither engaging nor interesting unless the person seeing them is actually looking to research or buy the category. Some, like the dancing silhouettes used to advertise cheap mortgages, are not only irrelevant but are actively distracting and irritating to those of us not looking to refinance our homes. Online ads that are engaging in their own right are few and far between, and the rest are easy to ignore. Therefore, response depends more on good targeting and placement – i.e., ensuring that people who might be in the market see the ad at the right time – than on good content. By contrast, video offers a far better chance to engage people who may not be interested in making an immediate purchase, provided the content is judged worth watching.
To online marketers who are used to using the Web as a direct response medium, this rationale must seem crazy. Surely, the whole idea is to reach people when they are actively engaged in researching or making a purchase? Not to brand marketers intent on developing a real relationship between their brands and consumers. If you seed ideas and preconceptions before people even think about buying a product or service, you can gain a head start over the competition. If you do this well enough, then when people do experience a need, your brand will be more familiar and desirable than the competitors.
Video advertising on TV has always been the bedrock of long-term brand building. As online video becomes more prevalent, I expect it to perform the same role. And I am not alone. I am sure it is no accident that, according to Ari Paparo, vice president of rich media at DoubleClick, the 20 advertisers buying up all the in-stream advertising are the CPG companies, auto and finance companies that are “running away from television….They’re buying whatever inventory they can.” (Click here for the full story.) They are doing so because they understand the benefits of video advertising, whatever the medium.
So what do you think? Should online video rely on its strengths as a passive viewing experience and leave interaction to rich media? Or should video seek to adapt to the more interactive nature of the Web. Please let me know.
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, online video, Dynamic Logic, online marketing, online advertising, brand building
(19 votes, average: 3.16 out of 5)
Loading ...
June 20th, 2007 at 4:34 am
For what it is worth, I think that interupting an interactive experience (seeking relevant content), with a passive one (streamed brand building messages), spells long term decline for the host web site. For sure, in stream video is an attractive alternative to TV for the top 20 advertisers you mention. However, I thnk this is somewhat akin to killing the goose that layed the golden egg. For example, this surfer has frequently clicked on a news item at CNN.Com and then clicked out long before the ad finishes. Result? An iritated potential consumer, more likely to associate the negative feeling of interuption with the brand than to develop a positive pre-disposition. In my opinion, in stream ads are as annoying and irrelevant as Flash intro’s. My vote. “Skip Intro” and challenge ourselves to make on-line video advertising interactive, relevant and optional.
June 20th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Nigel I think you have made a very important observation that finally gets to the heart of the active-passive conundrum of online video. We acknowledge online activity to be active (lean forward), while viewing video is essentially passive. The point of reconcilliation lies in deploying video online to accompish the same thing as TV advertising — engage, brand and communicate a meaningful story (benefit). The trick is to find the appropriate way to do it at a 12 inch distance rather than at 10 feet. What are the best ways to engage? What length works? What content?
June 20th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Hi Ben and Phil, thanks for the comments.
Ben, I would agree that if a person searching for relevant content is interrupted by video they will be irritated by the intrusion (see my post Gone in 5 Seconds…Please!). But to Phil’s point does it not depend on peoples’ expectations? If people are catching up with a TV program they missed or are expecting to sit back and view extended video content then I think they will be more accepting of video ads. Context really does matter here and too many sites appear to treat every opportunity to show video ads the same way. As you also suggest, making it easy to opt-out of video ads is also important.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
While not being the silver bullet to the problem of interruption, relevance and context should lessen the annoyance of any messages that are conveyed.
See below how making the most of known and inferred information can personalise the video space :
http://www.qmecom.com/