Session Description:
There are so many ways of creating, distributing and syndicating video online. We see large, mainstream publishers competing with smaller, upstart production companies to create video and some of it is better than others, but all of it is in demand by marketers. Media planners are trying to determine how they should value these different types of video content, how it should be priced, whether the premium content from large publishers is actually more valuable than these smaller production studios. How do we make sense of the landscape and the implications for marketers?

Moderator:
Doug Knopper, co-CEO and Founder, Freewheel
Speakers:
Dick Glover, CEO, Funny Or Die
Jim Nichols, Partner, Strategist, Catalyst:SF
AJ Vernet, President, KTV Digital Media

Q: Last month, according to eMarketer, there were 52 million unique video viewers last month. Where will we be in 12 months?

AJ: More than 100 million.

Q: What kind of content will it take, and what will it take us to get there?

Dick: Doesn’t think its content. Its accessibility, the growth of broadband and new platforms. I don’t think people aren’t watching because there isn’t content people want to watch. You need content to have a successful business, but content isn’t the obstacle.

AJ: Agreed. It is so easy to take a video and upload it to a facebook app.

Q: OK, what about monetizable content.

Jim: There needs to be a generational change. You can’t just count on young people to watch video. But it needs to be packaged in a way that advertisers find appealing. There is a lot of focus on “consumer control” but the consumer can’t be totally in control because they want everything for free. So the question is how to get companies comfortable with advertising on the type of content. But the industry isn’t packaging content in a way that advertisers find appealing. It also needs to be easy to buy. You don’t buy car that comes in 500 pieces.

Dick: Advertisers and marketers need to find more effective ways to engage with these audiences. They need to structurally figure out who is doing it – is it the interactive agency? The brand agency? The PR firm? You end up with a worse product because it has to go through so many hands. It needs to be much more integrated on the client and content side because it is too difficult.

AJ: Publishers need content. Advertisers don’t know how to package branded entertainment for publishers. Advertisers want a product that is completely made for them. But the biggest obstacle is that the person who is buying the media just doesn’t understand it.

Q: Is it because the content is different?

AJ: 10 months ago, they didn’t understand the model. They couldn’t only think in terms of putting their TV commercial online. Now they understand it, but it is hard to price. Branded content can cost $100k, $250k, $500k.

Dick: Every day it gets a little easier. One of the problems, though, is that people “our age” our trying to communicate with people our children’s age. In the 80s, it was really hard to sell cable TV. And still today, the same commercial to the same audience gets fewer dollars on cable than broadcast.

AJ: If the content sucks, it isn’t going to get views. It isn’t going to do its job.

Jim: Ultimately it doesn’t matter if they like the commercial or content. It matters if it moves product. People aren’t going to seek out “toilet peper” videos.

Q: What systems are missing from the equation?

Jim: Right now, there is a Google video widget that lets you search for political content. So you can find every video of candidates talking about political issues. An advertiser can look up by context and insert advertising against keywords. One of the things that you both do is create brand safe content. But that “safety sells” idea is going to need to get much broader. I’m not saying that all content is going to be good for all brands.

Dick: There is a level of hypocracy that drives me crazy. There was a brand that sponsored a movie that was rated R, but wouldn’t advertise on my site. That’s ridiculous. Advertisers are too scared of the negatives. But nobody ever got fired for making the safe choice that didn’t work. Intelligent risk is a good thing.

AJ: You have to give consumers what they want.

Q: What is the difference between the value of content on your site vs. the value on YouTube or Veoh or anywhere else?

AJ: People are starting to get more risqué because users are being desensitized.

Dicl: There are some differences between “on site” vs syndication. But there is also the difference in the environment that the ad exists. People don’t come to just one spot to watch all their video. Our site will always be a premium site. And we have plenty of UGC. But we have an environment that people know will be funny. Its not all just sophomoric humor that someone shot in their college dorm. The issue, in the end, is how you connect to massive consumers that will determine the value of the ad.

Q: What is the rev split?

AJ: 10% on our site, 90% through syndication.

Q: Can you comment on the Google/Seth McFarland deal?

Dick: its something that people should watch very closely. It all depends on the content, but there’s no reason to doubt that because of his history. It’s a smart deal for both sides.

Jim: The deal sounds like it makes a lot of sense. That one seems to have all the fundamentals that you’d ask for in a deal like that.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm and is filed under Content, Events, Streaming, User Generated, Video Portals, Viral, Web 2.0, advertising, video syndication. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.