There are a multitude of streaming ad formats around. It can be all too tempting to just throw your 30-sec TVC up into a banner and get double the reach for the same production cost, however I do question if this is the most beneficial approach for the brand. Forcing someone to watch your ad before they can see the content they really want is basically the same model as the commercial TV stations have been using for decades and while this model still has some strength from a publisher perspective, it does not really take into consideration the fact that most people who watch online video, are operating in a pull mentality, not push.

There are a lot of more innovative ways that companies can use video which seem to me to offer both more creative options and more opportunities for engagement. Long form video content has increased dramatically in recent years with Nielson estimating an increase of 129% last year alone. Some even predict that this will be the driving factor in the growth of digital video advertising over the next five years.

Online video is very close to the television experience and gives brands an opportunity to add real value to viewers. Whether it be through entertainment, ‘how to’ instructional information or experiential content that really gives a consumer a deeper sense of a brand, the really exciting thing about this is that you are no longer limited by the time frames that restricted commercial TV spots.
The challenge however, is cost. Quality video production can be expensive. How brands can justify the ROI comes down to how efficiently they can measure the quality of the interaction and the conversions that they receive.

There are a plethora of metrics that one can observe, but how many advertisers are approaching this medium in an analytical way? Where you embed your videos, how you channel consumers through a conversion path and how you monitor and optimise your content based on observed viewer behavior needs to become part and parcel of the equation.

I might not have all the answers here but the issues will be discussed in this panel discussion at ad:tech: Reviewing The Real Marketing And Advertising Opportunities That Video Presents
How do you commercialise video? (Tuesday 16th March, 4.05pm). The panellists are:
Kerry Field, Mindshare
Matt Hunt, RedLever
Karen Stocks, YouTube Australia & New Zealand
Ian Gardiner, Viocorp

And they’ll be talking specifically about:
What formats of video are most beneficial for your brand
Where can you not live without video?
How can video help merge the on and off line brand experience?
What is the publishers’ vision for video?

ad:tech Sydney’s marketing “love-in”

I read someone on Twitter describe this week’s ad:tech Sydney conference as a “love-in for marketers and ad agencies.” (Read ad:tech twitterings here.) It’s an interesting description that betrays an obvious slant towards the “other camp” which I heard one ad agency exec describe with a hint of derision as “all these social media consultants.”

As an aside, we’ve also got the “tech” part of this whole “ad:tech” meme. But that’s been conveniently sidelined in the battle of marketing ideologies. Maybe we just take technology (ie. the one giant computer called the internet) for granted now, since it’s use-case scenarios that matter.

So all this got me thinking. What is it about the mindset of agency-types, and the mindset of social media consultant-types (I tend to fall into the latter), that causes mild friction at events like ad:tech?

If I can be permitted to grossly simplify, agencies are commissioned by clients to conduct campaigns. Defined periods of time in which various media tools are exercised to generate sales on behalf of said client. No shock there, since advertising still keeps most of the media industry running.

Then we’ve got social media consultants, whose stock in trade is the intellectual property and experience they sell to clients for the purpose of engaging target stakeholder communities in conversations about brand, ideas, ideologies, and so on. The marketing angle can be less clear, or stated positively, more broadly defined.

It’s the classic conundrum where the disciplines of marketing, advertising, communications, PR and good-old editorial collide and get mashed up. The answers are not simple or easily quantified — unless of course you’re an agency charged with delivering quantifiable results to justify a very large invoice. Quantified results are where you make, or lose money. And by the way, that’s what this whole internet thing has promised the marketing community since the mid-1990s and we’re still trying to figure it out!

Anyway, while listening to keynotes and panel discussions yesterday, I got the impression agency types are very clearly focussed on the profit motive (surprise!). They might not be getting it right all the time, but their drive to find measurable results is clear. And you know what, I don’t think that’s bad.

However it does raise a challenge for content-focussed social media consultants (communities are giant content machines, after all). They must come up with some clearly agreed metrics and models that communicate to c-level executives just why the social media revolution matters to the bottom line. I’m the first to admit this is not an easy problem to solve.

But let’s face the harsh recession reality: if more of the social media consultants out there want to make more (or any) money from client engagements then it’s time we developed more solid, industry-wide accepted answers when companies demand reasonable levels of quantitative measurement.

Am I right?

Mark Jones is an enterprise technology strategist, speaker and journalist. mark@filteredmedia.com.au