Video on the brain lately…
A recent conversation with the small business, local marketing blog Local Biz Bits, reminded me of a great parody video, lambasting how the internet has killed the video star. It struck me further, that yesterday’s post, referring to marketing with video, is a medium with still as many questions about effectiveness as answers to our quest for the holy grail of online marketing.
I’m not going to get into my thoughts on answers this time but consider the questions:
Does the internet really make it easier to promote your business with video? Is video really the ideal medium for advertising online? Sure, we’re watching tons of videos on the internet but are we really paying attention? Both Yahoo and CNET have made significant efforts to make video a key part of their user experience; both have seemingly failed… is that a sign?
Salud!
As a CNET.com employee…I am a little confused about the “seemingly failed” statement. What would lead you to that conclusion? How are you defining success or failure in this case?
I am not sure that I agree or disagree as much as don’t understand the parameters of your assessment.
Absolutely fair question Tim and one demanding my response as my opinion is harsh and only based on my impression; not a formal assessment.
I’m alluding to the redesigns of both sites over the past 1-2 years (I don’t know or track the specific time frames). Both have gone through a phase which heavily leveraged video on both the homepage and throughout the sites. In the latest designs, both still include video but to a far lesser degree. I am drawing my own conclusions from those changes and anecdotes received over time from throughout the industry that the use of video is not as successful as hoped.
That relative performance could be for a number of reasons. The foremost opinion, with which I agree, is that the computer and internet are active info-tainment mediums rather than supporting passive consumption like the television. People use the internet to consume information at their own pace and leisure (fast and scanned or slowly with a researchers diligence) while TV, even with TiVo, demands that you passively consume the medium; that you watch a show as close to the pace at which is delivered as possible and are limited to the information presented. Video, regardless of the ability to pause and fast forward with DVRs, is inherently passive; one must sit through it to consume the information.
Certainly, we do consume video in droves online (YouTube has not happened by chance) but YouTube’s success lies in viral video in a passive environment; the audience has adjusted their behavior to watching clips by visiting YouTube, a site to watch videos, or receiving them from friends with little else but peer pressure to engage them. This behavior I can prove given my own use of video here: very few people actually watch the clips that I embed in my posts. People visit my site to read some insight, hear my opinion, and hopefully share some feedback – actively engage.
Think of it as a conversion point; fewer people convert to watching video when actively consuming information more readily and thoroughly available elsewhere. Its like Best Buy’s experience with in-store kiosks: why buy a PC online when you are in the store? Why watch a video here when you are here to do something else?
The other perspective is an exercise in revenue. I have some direct experience with this as well but no formal studies I can share, only experience. 1. Marketers aren’t buying online video advertising to nearly the same degree as traditional online opportunities. 2. video is not made readily available through search engines as are text based web pages. Those two considerations reach one logical conclusion: Video, doesn’t monetize a site as well as traditional content and advertising. while perhaps having higher CPMs, video doesn’t have the same cost/benefit of a mere web page – that is – average traffic / cost to develop and promote it – and it is further pressured by advertising sell through rates that suffer relative to even banners. This is a critical clarification; video is attractive – it tends to have higher CPMs because of the cost of production and perceived value to the advertiser; that isn’t the same as an eCPM or RPM for the site: eCPMs are often higher from search based or even banner ads because the sell through is greater. Further, if text based content is more readily promoted by Google and bloggers, attracting more readers, you have more page views against which to sell advertising. Net result = more $$ from the articles than video.
Could I be wrong? Absolutely, these are my assertions but they also come from the watching the changes through which the sites have gone: CNET has 1 video prominently promoted on the homepage of CNET today, down from 2-3 about a year ago, and 2 in the “More Stories” section beneath that, from 5-6. Yahoo is down to one video in the News section and a buried tab for video, rather than integrating it with the rest of the content as used to be done. Yahoo has moved video to a section where the audience adjusts their consumption from one of an active audience to passive consumption by telling Yahoo, “I want to watch videos”