Don't Mind Us, We're Joost Watching You!

The Mediapost article Joost's Volpi Touts 'Targetability' (free registration required) states:

"Our biggest asset is targetability, and our belief is that TV advertisers want a high degree of targetability," he said. "From an advertiser perspective, we know exactly who's watching what content."

This is the kind of statement that anyone hardly bats an eye at anymore. Twenty years ago there would have been a privacy uproar at such a statement, even if it were made in a trade publication. Now, in the age where we've come to expect ubiquitous government surveillance, and in which we're raising a generation of children who grow up taking for granted that they're constantly being surveilled, we just shrug our shoulders and say, "meh..."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. After all, I work in this industry, too. But from a marketer's perspective, this is good news, indeed.

Widgets: Advertising Will Never Be The Same

So says this article that ran originally in Billboard.

Widgets are those handy little apps you can place on a PC (or Mac) desktop that transmits information to you from a website, such as news headlines, weather forecasts, sports scores, etc., without you having to endure the pain and agony of opening a web browser and visit the website itself. The Vista operating system has embraced the widget concept (calling them "gadgets").

Remember the old application PointCast? It was essentially the same thing in that it used what was called "push technology", i.e., it pushed information to you through this application, without your having to manually request it. Same deal here, essentially, except each widget is standalone, with its unique stream of streamlined information, as opposed to the omnibus that PointCast was intended to be.

So who benefits from widgets, from a marketing point of view? Seems to me that those who can deliver information in a branded environment would obviously benefit (Weather.com, CNN.com, etc.), although their ability to directly monetize it might be hampered in this format. After all, a widget is almost by definition of very small app, as opposed to large desktop apps like Weatherbug, so the ability to carry advertising on a widget might be difficult.

Perhaps widget content providers would like people to click headlines and come to the site for more information, but isn't the point of the widget that you receive the information in the widget without having to come to the site? Seems to defeat the purpose, n'est-ce pas? Used in that way, the widget is not more than an RSS conduit.

From my standpoint, of course, I am most interested in how direct marketers can use the widget for customer acquisition purposes. I'm a bit doubtful that you can successfully engage widget users to sign up through a complex registration form on the widget itself, and using it to drive traffic might be a testable proposition, but I wouldn't bet on its success as a high volume generation marketing vehicle. I'll keep my eye on it, though, in case an acquisition usage tactic becomes clear to me.

Cops of the World, Rejoice!

It will be easier than ever to find your nearest Dunkin' Donuts location! (free registration required)

Or, go directly to www.myicedcoffee.com.

Big Studio Involvement in Online Video Takes a Step Forward

Joost Boost Worth $45 Million (free registration required)

The concern over Big Media's ability to control distribution of their content online should be more possible with the launch of Joost, the new online TV-cum-social networking start-up that is sure to get more blessing (and money) as they evolve. Not only have they received money from CBS and Viacom in this round, but they already have content agreements in place with Warner Music, National Geographic, Turner Broadcasting, The Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, CNN, Hasbro, the NHL, Sports Illustrated and Sony Pictures Television.

This looks like the VOD model they've been talking about for 15 or so years, only online instead of through your cable or satellite provider. The key differences between Joost and GoogleTube are (1) Professional media companies provide the content, not regular folks; and (2) it will focus on long-form programming (half-hour-plus), as opposed to short-form videos (under 15 minutes).

The key to this taking off, in my view, is the ability to watch Joost through your TV set, the ultimate lean-back medium, as opposed to watching it through your computer, a lean-forward medium. This will get easier as HDMI connections on TVs and ever-faster broadband Internet connections become more common. I'm not positive how fast the video stream has to be for the quality to approximate current 525-line standards, let alone HD, but it has to be faster than current 384 kbps standard.

Online Leads To Offline -- And Vice Versa

I've seen numerous articles suggesting that online research leads to offline purchases, but this is the first article I've seen suggesting that exposure to offline advertising leads to online searches.

This makes perfect sense -- I can easily recall instances where I've done the same thing -- but this is the first I have seen this idea articulated in trade press.

This is based on research by the Retail Advertising and Marketing Association, representing a category that currently does most of their advertising offline.

Another Ad Network Gets Busted

This time it's TMP (TrafficMarketPlace), as a user alleges that Travelocity and Cingular are still serving ads through malware. As I mentioned in this post, that's how it happens to major advertisers, and surely they know by now that it happens this way.

I pulled my company's advertising out of TMP because we suspected some funny business from one of their affiliates. We experienced a sudden spike in impressions, no increase in clicks, CPAs going from about $5 to hundreds of dollars in a single day. We suspected impressions fraud. We went round and round with TMP to try to get a resolution in place, then all of a sudden, my rep left, her spot was not backfilled, and the VP of Sales became suddenly unavailable. We ended up simply not paying for it, and ultimately not working with them anymore.

And now this.

Viacom Sues Google -- Now What?

Everyone knows the what, and few people are surprised, although the amount does make one giggle in shock -- but what does this mean?

The core legal issue here is the "Safe Harbor" provision of the Digital Rights Management Act, which indemnifies online service providers when their users infringe copyright law by storing protected materials on their servers. The idea is that there's not much a provider can do to stop the individual, so only the individual is liable, not the provider.

What Viacom maintains is that, in this case, YouTube is profiting from the infringing materials, so Safe Harbor doesn't apply to them. Viacom has demanded that YouTube remove some 100,000 pieces of copyrighted materials from their servers, but YouTube is just not moving fast enough in bringing them down, nor are they proactively preventing users from uploading new material.

YouTube responds that they do not allow advertising on user video pages, in order to comply with the spirit of Safe Harbor (that is, not profit directly), although one could easily maintain that existentially, YouTube profits when the system is widely known to allow protected material. In practical terms, that means that if I remember a great "Family Guy" bit and want to see it replayed, I know I can get it on YouTube -- and as of today, that's still true. (Careful when clicking on this link -- this clip could be construed as very disturbing for some people.)

OK, so now what the technical issue is and what it means, but what does this lawsuit really mean? On the one hand it's hard for Google to control their users. If their users infringe, they're gonna infringe, so what can they do? That's not a good argument, says Viacom -- it's your service, you're making money off these videos, so we want our cut, and if you can't pay us, then take them off -- and it's up to you to figure out how.

Google is reported to be working on a search function to identify protected content on both Google Video and YouTube, but they're not there yet. So what can they do in the meantime? Go to signup-only model so they can control users better? That could cut down their reach significantly. Review every video that users upload? That would create a backlog months long, on the optimistic side.

When you get right down to it -- meaning using your "follow the money" instincts -- this must have something to do with the failed negotiations between the two parties to allow YouTube to carry Viacom clips. Google apparently wasn't going to pay Viacom to their satisfaction, so Viacom might very be using this lawsuit as a negotiating tool. Pay us now, Google -- or you'll pay us later. But either way, you're going to pay us. (Wow, maybe the "Family Guy" clip is a propos, after all!)

I predict the lawsuit does not proceed to fruition. It can't -- YouTube risks sinking an entire online marketing channel if they fight and lose. Google will settle, and it'll cost them.

Show Me The Metrics! (What, is it 1996 already?)

IAB: Better metrics would increase online ad revenue

A survey co-sponsored by the Audit Bureau of Circulation and NSON Opinion Research confirms that advertisers would spend more money online if only the metrics came from an independent third party auditor. My self-interest detector is going off, but as an advertiser, I can vouch for the validity of this.

I think this is a good news/bad news situation for online publishers. Better metrics by third parties will lead to more spend, so the investment will for the most part be well worth it. The bad news part is two-fold: (1) Third party metrics and auditing cost a boatload of money, and (2) not a few publishers would go belly up as their sham self-reported visitor numbers are exposed for all to see.

Walled Garden Down, Ad Revenue Up

AOL has profited handsomely by moving from a subscription-based revenue model to an ad-based revenue model, and the proof is in this Mediapost article (free subscription required).

I don't think anyone is too surprised that this might occur, but the article might lead one to believe that all the growth comes from AOL.com, specifically. I was questioning that, and the article is silent on it, leading me to wonder: how much of this revenue growth comes from network cash cow Advertising.com?

One amusing part of the article is toward the top where they say:

"The Time Warner unit's decision last year to replace its ailing subscription model with a free service supported by advertising resulted in a 454% surge in billings from 2005 to 2006, compared to a 142% increase in portals overall."

Gee, this makes 142% sound so paltry. But seriously, it is good to be a portal, as Jeff Lanctot at Avenue A confirms in this ClickZ article.

And On The Flip Side of the Online Video Spectrum:

NBC Poised To Sell Digital Downloads. (Free registration required.)

Here's the latest attempt by Big Network TV to generate revenue directly from consumers for their standard TV offering. They'll be selling flotsam like five-minute video clips of SNL for a buck ninety-nine, although you'll also be able to buy sketchy-quality videos of shows like "The Office" as well.

I predict this will not work in the long-term -- meaning sustain a profitable SKU for anything longer than a year -- for the opposite of many of the reasons I elucidated in my preceding post.

The Most Successful Online Video Event So Far ...

... has got to be CBS March Madness product, located here. When they first came out in 2004 in conjunction with CSTV, it was as a $19.95 subscription. Starting last year, CBS started offering it free to viewers, with the cost underwritten by advertisers.

Now that's really starting to bear solid fruit: this Mediapost story (free registration required) reports that revenue has gone to $9 million this year, over double that of last year's $4 million, with advertisers such as AT&T's wireless unit, Kraft Foods and DiGiorno buying into the fun.

I can think of four key reasons why this specific online video offering has become so successful:

1. It's an event. March Madness has become the #1 sports event in America, and it generates a significant amount of low-level non-professional (and professional) gambling. So there's a lot of intense interest inherent in it. (I love serendipitous assonance.)
   
2. It's sports, a top avocation for the heaviest users of video, young men.
3. It's free. Appealing for obvious reasons.
   
4. It's a viable alternative to nothing. This is not an insignificant point. I would be willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of online video viewership of March Madness comes in the early rounds during weekday day games, when most people are at work and have no alternative method of or access to viewing games. Once you get later into the tourney -- specifically, Sweet Sixteen -- every game is on TV anyway, and plays at night or on weekends. The chances you'll be watching a relatively grainy online video versus watching the same game on better-resolution TV, especially hi-def, has got to be nearly nil.

If proven correct, then the implication here is that people respond to scheduled video events that are special in nature and not otherwise available to them. This is not the same viewing psychology as watching UGC on YouTube, or catching up on the latest 30 Rock on NBC.com.

Are Ad Networks Safe for Brands?

Of course they are, according to this iMediaConnection article in which the author interviews Joseph Apprendi. And who is Joseph Apprendi? He's the CEO of Collective Media, a "leading online advertising network specializing in audience targeting and optimization". And if you can't trust the CEO of an ad network, who can you trust?

To be fair, Apprendi does recognize the need of brand marketers for transparency, which is the number one point of contention between ad networks and advertisers. But he does suggest that the desires for 100% campaign (not just list) transparency and complete control over carve-outs are unreasonable, and does slightly mischaracterize the issue as one only of quality assurance. That's part of the issue, to be sure, but the one issue he would never bring up is that of bait-and-switch. We've seen this before -- ad network touts ESPN and CNN and iVillage as part of their networks, and you run with them, and within a week you're getting emails from your CEO with links to www.popcap.com, wondering what the hell the media buyer is doing advertising a product clearly intended for adults on a site for little children. (Of course, you could reply asking your CEO what he's doing on such a site himself, but you wouldn't have to love your job too much to do that.)

Ad networks want nothing to do with the bait-and-switch discussion because for some of them, it's a core business strategy, and the others who might be sympathetic to a client's wishes don't want to pigeonhole themselves into a guarantee that's too hard to keep. Until the networks can figure out a way to give brand advertisers what they need (not just want), they're never going to become a must-have part of the plan.