Well, its just a pissy kind of day. Jim Lauderback, CEO of Revision3, rants about the problems with online video view metrics.
Jim is a very bright guy, and he’s doing a great job over at Revision3. And he’s got the issue mostly right for most people. But I think this is a case of throwing the whole group of video syndicators under the bus. While some people do claim “page views” as video views, not everyone does. There are plenty of other ways to count and pay for “video views,” including user initiated starts, 25% completion rates counting as a “view,” etc. Certainly it would help to develop a “Syndicated View Metric” that we could all agree on, but it doesn’t mean that we should stop syndicating content in the ways that are available to us. Its still a nascent medium, and we’re working on figuring out what works best for everyone.
He continues, “These funny numbers are bad for everyone. Advertisers who attach themselves to shows touting this fiction will see terrible performance, and will hesitate to invest again.”
So what do we do? We urge advertisers to pay on different metrics than just views. Your video syndication partner should be able to work with you to make sure your success metrics are met. The best way to ensure your success is not to pay for failure. Let the syndicators put the content in front of as many eyeballs as possible, but only pay for people who choose to watch. Only pay for 50% views. Only pay for user initiated views. Of course the economics will change, since the distributors will have to take on additional risk.
What we really need to do is make sure everyone is on the same page, understand what we’re all talking about, and figure out how to make things work for the content owner, the distributor and the advertiser. I’ve said in many conversations that when people discuss online video syndication, we aren’t all talking about the same thing. We use the same words to mean different things, and different words to mean the same thing. The system isn’t broken — the vernacular is. We shouldn’t be using IAB definitions – remember, the “A” is for “Advertising” – to define consumption of content.
So where does Jim have it 110% right? In the title. The Lies Must Stop.
Seems like a good issue for the Internet Content Syndication Counsil and the IAB to address together.
I totally agree that we need some sort of standard as to what counts as a “view”. I think that creating standards is the only way advertisers are going to feel 100% comfortable with advertising in the online video space.
I think that just pressing play is too short of a time to call it a “view”, and 100% might be too long to call it a “view”. If the advertiser gets a pre-roll ad then even if the viewer watches 25 or 50% of the show, at least the advertiser can say they got seen.
Jason –
I think Jim’s point extends beyond advertising and into the pay-for-distribution model for content as well. I completely agree that if someone sees the pre-roll, then yes, its a view of that ad. But in a pay model for content, the content owners are currently paying a CPM to deliver the content into an in-page video player (like a 300×250 ad unit), but the content may not actually be viewed, or viewed to completion.
Additionally, I believe Jim was pointing out some flaws in the execution and/or user experience. A lot of content is being delivered and auto-played. So you’ve got video playing in an ad unit that the user did ‘not’ request to view, but it continues to play anyway.
Getting some definitions around what constitutes a play and when someone should be charged is at the heart of the matter.
All I’m saying here is that calling a video view a “view” when someone watches 3 seconds of the video has the potential to tar this emerging media with a very negative perception. We need to be upfront, and it’s time that the leaders in the space took the initiative.
Prerolls are easy to measure, as are other “served” ads. But what about branded entertainment, or baked in sponsorships, which are becoming the most valuable and capable parts of internet video. They are devalued when the numbers quoted are not transparent.
jim
Glad to have you weigh in, Jim!
I think that what Jim was tying to do was bring the discussion to a wider audience. Sadly many advertisers aren’t given an incentive to anything but provide high stamp numbers to their clients and as such do a poor job with advertising. I think that both you and Jim have raised good points, but the most important thing now is to get the discussion going and make people think before they pay.
Once there is some understanding out there among the general advertising field (and there isn’t from experience) you can put better metric standards in place to properly control the distribution of advertising and help all parties get a better deal.