ABC Chooses Imprisonment Over Involvement

It's surprising that a company that goes by the letters ABC seems to have forgotten the A-B-C’s of why people like video on demand.

The key word in video on demand is “demand.” And the reason why viewers like VOD is because they get to be the ones demanding, versus taking demands from the networks.

ABC apparently thinks otherwise.

“Sure," ABC says, “we’ll give viewers the shows they want when they want them, but, um, you see, there is a catch. We’re going to disable the fast-forward button.”

The only “catch” to success on digital platforms is that there are no catches. The fact is that digital platforms are run by the users, not the advertisers or networks.

In other words, the networks now work for us.

Oh, sure, we used to work for you, back when broadcast ruled. We’d do what you told us to do. “Show up at 8:00,” you’d demand, “if you want to see this show.” And we would, staying for a half hour, sometimes more. No, it wasn’t always convenient for us, but if you said 8:00, we’d bust our humps to be there.

After all, you were the boss.

But then, you see, this kinder, gentler boss came along and said, “Why don’t you, the viewer, be in charge? Why don’t you call the shots and we’ll do our best to accommodate you.” So we did. And you know what?

There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

I know, ABC has research that justifies what they're doing. What was it, 93% of the people who had their fast-forwarding capabilities removed when watching ABC on demand found having to watch ads an acceptable exchange for getting to see the programs free?

An impressive number, granted.

But the question to ask is, what was their option? Paying for programs? If so, I’m actually surprised the number wasn't 100%.

Did ABC ask viewers if they would like to get their programs for free and have some commercials they could click into and watch if they so desired? In other words, so the viewers, rather than ABC, could determine whether the product or category being advertised had any relevance to them.

I would guess not.

Interestingly enough, there was a test done with an MSO in the Midwest recently, the results of which showed that when viewers were confronted with the option of clicking into commercials of interest, 18% did so. 18% actually said, “H’mmm,” and initiated the interaction with the commercial. Why? Primarily because 18% found it to be a product or category that held some interest for them.

But a secondary reason was simply the fact that they were in control. Which meant that they could stop watching the commercial when they wanted to. How long was that, by the way? Average view duration: 75% of the spot.

The fact is, people don’t mind investing time, yes, even in a commercial, if they can control the time invested. This very same control that ABC has now decided to eliminate.

If ABC believes so little in the ability of advertising to interest and involve viewers, then why do they charge advertisers so much to run their ads?

Of course, I understand the conundrum they find themselves in. And I agree that advertising does save viewers from paying for the programs. But why keep insisting that the advertising be presented solely on the network's terms – in ABC's case, 5 to 10 thirty-second ads every hour? Making the total cost to the consumer some 2.5 to 5 minutes of their time. In a sense, imprisoning viewers to watch advertising that they may or may not have any interest in.

(By the way, I do not use the word “imprisoning” lightly here. One cannot readily surf on a VOD system. So even if a viewer wants to surf away to watch something else during the 30-second intrusions, they really can’t.)

I wonder if ABC has considered any alternatives other then making viewers pay, or forcing them to watch? For example, have they considered giving control back to the viewer and have advertisers place a commercial on the program’s synopsis screen, to be opted into by those viewers who are interested?

In other words, leaving it up to the viewer, letting them watch as little or as much of the commercial as they like.

Or, skip it all together.

Since these commercials would be non-intrusive, they could be of any length. In fact, one advertiser could take all five of the minutes that ABC is selling, if their brand story was interesting and the creative good.

ABC could sell this format on a cost-per-click basis, similar to what VideoEgg introduced last week in New York.

Or, even better, on a cost-per-second basis. Let’s see, five minutes at $100 per second comes out to $30,000. Which is the same price ABC would get if they charged the advertiser a $30 CPM and a million viewers came to watch the program.

Perhaps ABC can charge $1,000 per second due to lack of clutter. If so, they'd rake in $300,000 while still putting control back into the hands of those who deserve it.

Of course, it seems preposterous to think that an advertiser would ever pay $1,000 a second. But the fact is, they already are. The average thirty-second TV commercial, according to the four A’s, costs around $380,000, to produce and edit.

In other words, $12,666 per second.

If advertisers pay that much to create commercials, then perhaps they'd be open to paying less than a tenth of that cost to run them.

Just a thought.

And we hope that ABC thinks again before dismantling the fast-forward button on VOD platforms.

Because as much as they might want to believe otherwise, control is no longer in their hands.

The name of the game on digital platforms is Servant-Leader Media. In other words, networks to lead by serving the needs of those they lead.

No, not advertisers.

Us.

Making Branding Accountable Online

I wasn’t at the Engagement Debate hosted by VideoEgg last week in New York. But from what I could decipher through the press afterwards, VideoEgg is now offering a cost-per-engagement model for video advertising online.

According to VideoEgg, if a viewer initiates the interaction with a video ad by rolling over it, or clicking into it, that constitutes engagement.

And, in a sense, they’re right. The viewer has “engaged” with the advertising message. And that should indeed be worth something to an advertiser.

But so too should the length of time that the viewer stays involved with the message that they’ve engaged with. And, as far as I could tell from what I read, viewer time-spent data is not part of the VideoEgg offering.

Which means, viewers could “engage” in a sixty-second spot and leave after only one second. Or, viewers could “engage” in a sixty-second spot and watch all sixty seconds.

The cost to the advertiser, according to VideoEgg, is the same. But the results certainly would not be.

In the example above, having viewers watch 100% of the spot certainly offers more “engagement value” to the advertiser than having viewers watch just 1% of the spot.

Can VideoEgg charge for this added value?

No. After all, they, themselves, did nothing to create the value. Once viewers click into the message itself, the responsibility for the time-spent, or not spent with that message, transfers to the agency that created it.

But while VideoEgg can’t charge for actually creating this value, they can certainly charge for the information that reveals how well the agency’s efforts did, or did not, work.

In other words, the viewer time-spent data.

When VideoEgg decides to take this next step, they have a chance to break Internet-advertising wide open.

Because what they would be offering to advertisers is not just another measurement metric, but a way for branding to become accountable online.

Why is this important?

Simply because the largest budgets advertisers have at their disposal are their branding budgets. What advertisers like about the Web is its accountability. It’s been difficult to secure branding budgets for online simply because branding, up to now, hasn’t been deemed to be accountable.

But if one looked at the job of branding as that of creating long-term relationships, rather than creating short-term sales, then the online platform has a chance to make branding accountable.

Relationships between people are built through time-spent together. Are relationships created differently when it involves a brand and a person, rather than two people?

I think not.

If that’s the case, then the more time a viewer spends with an advertiser’s brand, the stronger the relationship has a chance to become.

Or, in other words, viewer time-spent data starts to make branding accountable.

Viewer time-spent can be accurately measured online if the viewer is allowed to initiate the interaction with the message. This “user-initiation” is what VideoEgg measures and has now monetized. And while that’s certainly a step in the right direction, stopping there means that what VideoEgg is actually offering is a cost-per-click for video, not a true cost-per-engagement in the message.

Engagement, while still poorly defined by our industry, does require three things for it to occur, each of which can be individually measured. 1. Exposure to the message. 2. Interaction with the message.
3. Involvement in the message.

The modern day advertising industry was built upon monetizing impressions, or exposure to a message. It was the best that could be done in an analog world.

The digital marketplace offers greater granularity. So congrats to VideoEgg for being the first to say the old ways are broken and offering a way to monetize initiation rather than impressions.

You’re certainly headed in the right direction.

Don’t stop now.

Google's Search For Video Search

Last week Google announced that they are now running video ads on SERPS. While some people think that this isn't a big deal, let’s look a little closer at what it actually means if you are an advertiser.

What it means is that someone who is interested in the category in which you are selling a product is searching for more information. And that you now have the chance to not only let them see a text message, but a video message about your product.

Video, as we all know, enlists the use of sight, sound and motion. In other words, it is a better vehicle in which to create an emotional connection with a brand than is text alone.

The beauty of search is that people come to you, already interested in your product’s category. Which means that they are further down the purchase funnel. According to a recent OMD study, they are also much more engaged in the decision-making process.

If advertisers run the same thirty-second spots on the search platform that they run on broadcast TV, spots designed, at best, to create awareness about a product, they are doing a disservice both to their potential customers as well as to the opportunity Google is providing them.

Remember, people have come to you. They are already aware of the category. The objective of the brand message is no longer to create awareness. The objective of the brand message is to create advocates.

The problem facing Google and others who are trying to incorporate video search is that most advertisers don’t have these “advocate-creating” types of commercials sitting around, waiting to capitalize on this video-search opportunity.

Video search commercials will need to be different in many ways. For starters, length is no longer restricted to thirty seconds. How long should your commercial be? As long as viewers find what you are saying to be relevant and interesting.

And here is where the wicket gets a bit sticky. Creating a text ad for a search platform takes around five minutes and costs around 50 bucks. Creating a minute and twenty-second commercial for a search platform will take considerably more time.

And money.

The elephant in the room is that search ads are seen by considerably fewer people than broadcast ads. After all, search ads are only seen by those who are interested. So how do advertisers justify the cost of creating emotionally compelling, original content for the smaller viewing audiences that comprise those searching for something?

It’s much easier to swallow a $750,000 production budget when 20 million viewers will see the spot. Reduce the number to 200,000 viewers and the gag reflex checks in.

Can advertisers save money by reducing production values?

Certainly. But why would an advertiser want to do that? Look where a searcher is in the purchase cycle. They want the advertiser to, more or less, help them make a decision. They want to buy. I would think an advertiser would want to put their best foot forward here, not a stripped-down version of what could be.

The question is what to do? And the answer lies, ironically, in what search delivers besides motivated customers.

Data.

Not only will an advertiser know how few people actually started to watch their commercial, they will also know how long they ended up watching their commercial for.

What if advertisers paid their agency for the concepting of the commercial based on how well it actually worked in the search marketplace? In other words, based on how long those who started to watch actually watched for.

It’s difficult to argue with the fact that the longer a viewer watches a spot, the more value that spot has for the advertiser. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they have just made a shorter spot? Remember, length is not mandated on the search platform.

So, why not pay the agency on that basis? The longer people watch, the more money the agency makes for creating the spot. Right now, advertisers are paying their agency based on how long it took to make the spot. They now have the option to pay them for how long people watch the spot for.

In other words, instead of paying for effort, they will be able to pay for outcome.

And maybe that’s what Google needs to be searching for when it comes to video search. A way for advertisers to be able to afford to create wonderfully compelling content for the smaller viewing audiences that they are now delivering.

Of course, it’s a bigger issue than just Google. It’s an issue that faces the entire digital marketplace. Because the fact is, as viewing audiences continue to fragment and control increasingly shifts to the viewer, Time-Spent with a brand’s messaging is becoming as important as the number that see it.

Maybe even more so.

As we said in the last post, Creative is the New Data. If advertisers are so inclined, they can now pay their agencies for how good they are, rather than how big.

Which in reality, is what they've been searching for all along.

Creative Is The New Data

Last week at the OMMA Mobile Conference in New York, David Verklin of Carat was quoted as saying, “Data is the new creative.”

I believe that it was approximately six months ago that David was quoted at another conference saying, “Media is the new creative.” How quickly things change in these digital times.

And far be it from me to argue with Mr. Verklin, but I think a more accurate description of what is occurring today is that Creative Is The New Data.

Which may very well stop a few people from wanting to be on the creative side of the equation. The creative side, after all, was always the hippest side of the fence. Where most of the fun occurred. While clients often said things like, “Oh, those crazy creative guys,” seldom was this mentioned in reference to media. Or, heaven help us, research.

After all, creative was, for the most part, unaccountable. It’s easy to be hip and to have fun when you’re not really held accountable for results, isn’t it?

But in the digital marketplace, creative can be held accountable. At least, video creative.

This is a big change. Up to now, we would run a thirty-second spot in front of thirty million people and not really know whether viewers watched five seconds out of thirty, or thirty-out-of-thirty.

Nor, to be perfectly honest, did we care.

Effectiveness was based on impressions. Reach and frequency. How many saw something. We bludgeoned our way into the hearts and minds of consumers. Or, at least, into their programming. Spend enough and the old sales meter would push to the right. There was a semblance of cause and effect.

We bought the myth.

Myth’s die in the digital marketplace. Simply because with the fragmentation of the viewing audience and control shifting to the viewer, we cannot buy enough “cause” to get enough “effect.”

You probably all remember Marshall McLuhan’s famous quote. No, not that one. This one. “Our age of anxiety, is, in great part, the result of trying to do today’s job with yesterday’s tools.”

Reach and frequency are yesterday’s tools. We can no longer pretend to believe that we can determine the effectiveness of a commercial based on impressions. But we can base it on one of the great new tools that digital technology has afforded us.

Transparency.

Not only in regards to who is watching what. But in regards to how long they are watching for.

We can now determine whether a viewer did indeed stay for five seconds out of thirty. Or thirty-out-of-thirty.

And I think most would agree that of the two options above, the latter would be declared to be the more successful.

The question that always arises is, how does viewer time-spent lead to sales? What is the direct correlation? What is the Return on Investment?

And I think the right answer is, that’s the wrong question. At least, at this point. Benchmarks are now being set that, in six months or so, will allow that answer to be made in a more definitive way.

But for now, and who knows, perhaps forever, time-spent isn’t how one measures sales. Time-spent is about how an advertiser measures the effectiveness of his/her branding campaign online.

There is an assumption, an incorrect assumption, that online is a retail platform. The fact is, online is a branding platform. In the past, we assumed that branding was about broadcast and reach and frequency. That through reach and frequency, we were able to build relationships with consumers.

Wrong.

Broadcast is where brands build awareness. Broadband is where brands build advocates.

Branding is about building trust between consumers and companies/products. Trust is built up by creating relationships. To create a relationship requires that time be spent together.

That’s why whether a viewer spends five seconds with a thirty-second spot, or thirty seconds, is critical.

And why time-spent, as a metric, is important.

Time-spent is a way to make branding accountable online. Those publishers and ad networks that release the time-spent data will be able to tap into more branding budgets. And, in turn, become more successful.

After all, they will be able to offer their clients a measure of success.

Obviously, this means that creative will, for the first time, be able to be held accountable. Those good at the creative craft will welcome this. Their impact can now be measured. And, for the first time, properly rewarded.

On the other hand, those who realize their work is mediocre will be exposed. Not just by their peers. But, by the data.

So, in this way I guess David is right. Data is the new creative.

But only because creative is the new data.

Is Time-Spent With A Brand's Messaging Becoming As Important As The Number That See It?

Recently, over a glass of bourbon with an online publisher, a question was raised which I found to be quite intriguing.

Is an analog impression the same as a digital impression?

Obviously, my first reaction was, “but, of course.” After all, an impression is an impression, isn’t it?

“Well, consider,” said the online publisher, “on my site, I can tell you how much time a viewer spends with a commercial message. True, the advertiser might be buying a thirty-second impression, but what if the viewer only watches five of those thirty seconds?”

“Now let’s say another advertiser buys a thirty-second impression, which, on average, twenty-five seconds are viewed? Are both impressions, the five-second impression and the twenty-five second impression, of equal value to the advertiser?”

My response was, “of course not. The twenty-five second impression is much more valuable.” “So,” said the online publisher, “should I be able to charge more for that?”

In the past, an impression was just that—a metric that indicated “how many” might be watching something. In the digital marketplace, we can actually tell “how long” the impression lasts for.

In other words, an impression now has an added-value based on the amount of time-spent with the message.

For example, if an advertiser runs a thirty-second spot in front of one million people and discovers that, on average, only five of the thirty seconds are viewed, the total time-spent with the brand is 5 million seconds.

Now let’s say another advertiser runs a thirty-second spot in front of only half as many viewers—500,000—but average time-spent with the message is 25 seconds per viewer. Total time-spent with the brand in this case would be 12,500,000 seconds.

In other words, a 150% increase in time-spent with the brand for approximately half the media cost.

“I’m definitely offering a service with this data,” said the online publisher, “saving the advertiser a huge amount of money. How do I get compensated for not only saving them money, but improving their brand’s performance?”

“Well, first off, you didn’t improve the brand’s performance,” I countered. “The agency that created the message did. Involvement in a message is not the responsibility of the media agency, or, of you, the publisher.”

“Involvement is the responsibility of the creative agency.”

“So do you think I can continue to sell impressions on a CPM basis to media agencies and start to sell involvement on a time-spent basis to creative agencies?”

Perhaps it was the bourbon, but I found this to be quite a provocative question. As viewing audiences continue to fragment and the long tail grows ever longer, online publishers will need to find additional revenue streams to augment CPM.

Is time-spent the answer? It certainly is a measurement metric that online publishers have at their disposal.

“But rather than creative agencies, what if you sold the time-spent data directly to advertisers?” I asked him. “They’re the ones that are paying for the creative to be developed. You would think they would want to know if, indeed, they are getting their money’s worth? And, down the road, perhaps even paying their agencies for creative based on how well it involves people in the message.”

He liked the idea of selling both CPM and Time-Spent. And together, we thought of a few advertisers who might be open to such thinking.

Because it seems fairly obvious that as viewing audiences continue to fragment and control increasingly shifts to the viewer, time-spent with a brand’s messaging is becoming as valuable as the number that see it.

As he got up to leave, I thanked the online publisher for his time. “You know,” he said, “the way I look at it, time-spent is nothing more than an impression in the control of the viewer.”

And, with that, he was gone.

How Does Time-Spent Correlate To Sales?

I recently had the privilege of presenting to the ARF.

The topic? Why is time-spent with a brand’s messaging becoming as valuable as the number that see it.

It was a short presentation, twenty minutes. I started with a question that no one knew the answer to – How much involvement can an advertiser buy for $1M?

The presentation was designed to show how the question can now be answered.

Everyone agreed that it was an important question. After all, time-spent with a commercial message can now be measured on digital platforms. If the viewer initiates the interaction with the commercial, then time-spent becomes an accurate measure of that viewer’s involvement with that message.

In itself, time-spent would appear to be a rather important metric. It seems fairly obvious that, given the choice, advertisers would rather have consumers spend more time with their brands than less.

Not surprising, the question that always arises, arose.

How does time-spent correlate to sales? (As if that would be the only reason why time-spent should be measured in the first place.)

Obviously, the answer is, it depends. On what? Well, the quality of the commercial message itself. How persuasive was it?

Someone could be entertained for the entire length of a commercial and not be moved to buy a thing. Conversely, if the message were crafted differently, a complete view could lead to an enormous increase in sales.

Time-spent itself doesn’t determine sales. But, then again, neither do exposures.

Both depend on the quality of the message that one is either spending time with, or, exposed to. And yet we have come to believe that a certain number of exposures will lead to a certain amount of brand lift. Perhaps that’s just to justify the enormous budgets we request for media.

It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to believe that a certain amount of time-spent will also lead to brand lift. If for no other reason that the time you spend with one brand is time not spent with another.

That seems valuable in itself, doesn’t it?

So, why such resistance to it as a metric?

The fact is, time-spent data now exists for both online and VOD platforms. As it seems to offer an intrinsic value, we’re now working with publishers to sell time-spent to advertisers.

Not instead of CPM, but in addition to. One does not replace the other.

Being the first in, these advertisers will be able to start making the correlation between how much time is necessary to spend with a brand’s messaging before the sales needle starts moving.

Who knows, they may even find they'll be able to limit the amount of exposures needed.

Which in retrospect, may be the real reason why the resistance to time-spent exists.

We Welcome CBS To The Second-By-Second Future

This week, it was reported that CBS signed on with TiVo to use the technology company’s second-by-second ratings.

Also this week, TNS Media Research and DirecTV announced the formation of a national audience panel whose viewing habits would be measured on a second-by-second basis.

It’s understandable that this news will take a backseat to the Microsoft/Yahoo hullabaloo. Microsoft and Yahoo are all about size. And, as an industry, we’re still impressed with the "bigness" factor.

"Seconds" are about something much smaller. But, in the long run, the idea of second-by-second data may play a larger role in the way advertising works than anything Microsoft and Yahoo ultimately become.

The reason is simply this. As audience size continues to fragment, how many see something decreases in value, while how long somebody watches something for, does the opposite.

As we all know, we will never go back to the mass audience sizes that made buying media so easy in the past. The ever-increasing amount of choices in regards to where we can spend our time, will make sure of that. But what hasn’t changed is the amount of time in which we can explore these choices.

Last I checked, a day was still 24 hours long.

With ever more information and entertainment competing for our attention, this means we'll have less time to spend on any one thing.

Including brands.

Which is why the strategy for most advertisers will need to change in the digital future. After all, the one thing that most advertisers will soon be desiring most is not exposure, but attention.

Exposure will be easy. We can run ads in more places now than ever before.

Which is exactly why getting someone’s attention is becoming much more difficult.

In the future, advertisers will need to become Time Bandits. Not in regards to buying time. But in regards to earning it.

After all, with the amount of time in a day being finite, the more time a consumer spends with one brand, the less time they will have to spend with the competitor’s brand. And I think we can all agree that it doesn’t take a large leap of faith to believe that the longer a person is exposed to a brand’s messaging, the greater the branding impact will be on that person.

And this is where second-by-second data comes in. It allows us to measure time-spent with a brand.

In the future, the more time spent, the greater the brand lift.

Which means the more data one has on time-spent, the more valuable that company becomes to advertisers.

Which is why we welcome CBS to the fold. And kudos to TNS for increasing the size of their second-by-second, oh, hell, let’s call it what it is, their “time-spent” panel.

In previous posts, we’ve praised the others who have already jumped on the second-by-second bandwagon: Starcom, NBC, Interpublic Group of Cos, Crispin Porter & Bogusky and Euro RSCG.

You were the first, but you certainly won’t be the last.

But, right now, you have a head-start, receiving second-by-second data that tells you how long consumers are spending with your clients’ brands. Valuable information, that.

And, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if right about now, you're all coming to the same conclusion.

That as our industry continues to transition from impression-based marketing models to involvement-based marketing models, you’re job will need to transition as well.

You see, it's no longer about creating ads.

It's about creating time-spent.