AR&D - Audience Research and Development

Overall, seven out of ten (72.1%) respondents view online video content. Men are more likely than women to view online video, 76.6% versus 67.7% respectively. Viewing online video is not just the domain of the young. A majority of all age segments watch online videos — including over half (58.6%) of respondents 65 years and older.

Six of every ten people watch online video at least once a week, and news clips are the number one choice (44.4%). Entertainment is tops for young people — the most frequent users of the medium.

That's the good news. The report also found that in-stream advertising is such a turn-off that HALF of all respondents said they actually stop watching the video when an in-stream (pre-roll) ad is evident. Young people are the least likely to dump out, but they are the most likely not to recall the ad. This is significant, I think, because these are the future consumers of all video, and it appears they're just tuning out that which they don't want. Their viewing begins when the ad ends.

Welcome to the TiVo generation.

Ominously, 15.3% of respondents immediately leave the website once they encounter an in-stream advertisement. Additionally, half (49.7%) of respondents say the presence of in-stream advertising in online video content makes them less likely to view other video content they may encounter online.

The study concludes that there is a "treasure trove" of advertising potential with online streaming, but that it must be presented in line with the consumer mindset, and that means using shorter ads or the lower third overlay ads currently being used on YouTube and other places.

Three years ago (a lifetime online), I read a piece in Media Daily News about Microsoft's venture into online video that included a gem. The company's research had shown that 7-12 seconds was optimal for viewing pre-rolls. I wrote about it, and included a link to the story. The next day, a commenter noted that the article said 15-30 seconds, so I contacted the publication and complained. The lengths had been changed at the request of Microsoft.

I wound up in a conference call with two guys from Microsoft who were responsible for MSN video. They confirmed that 7-12 seconds was optimal and that they had asked for the change "because advertisers wanted 15-30 second ads!"

So instead of creative efforts to deliver ad messages in shorter time spans, we've had advertisers only willing to pay for longer ads, and this is now reflected in studies like the one from Burst Media.

Folks, if we're going to tap this "treasure trove," we're going to have to do it on our terms, because we're shooting ourselves in the foot by taking the easy way out with advertisers who will only pay for longer ads.   <Link>

<<< >>>

FINDING OUR WAY INTO THE LOCAL POLITICAL ONLINE MONEY SHARE (Steve)
A report out today from Borrell Associates forecasts that political campaigns will spend just one-half of one percent of their $4.8 billion in ad money online. That translates to about $20 million, and half of that will go to online pureplays - search sites and contextual advertising affiliates. Of all the money going to political ads, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see that TV takes the biggest bite. 60%, in fact, of political advertising is going to TV. Newspapers are going to get about 17% and radio will see 10%. This looks, for all the world, like a very traditional ad buy, doesn't it?

But why? And how do we?

The answer lies in providing more effective, local advertising results. To make money from local candidates, Borrell notes:

"...an enterprising local Internet salesperson and an innovative local campaign manager can make some interesting things happen. Plus, it will help if the candidate is locked in a tight race...

"One of the most important things that local media companies can do to capture campaign spending is to prove that the Internet can be as effective as television on a cost-per-point basis. Then they need to prove that they can deliver on that claim with reports that show the actual performance of that advertising. "

Right now, national candidates can engage the audience on their own website. People go to candidates' sites and register, talk about issues, make donations, etc. Why would they buy advertising on our sites that tell them nothing about who saw the ad? National candidates are still in search of The Big Number - they want to hit a big audience with a campaign message. When we're putting out videos in the thousands or tens of thousands per day, we don't have a compelling offering for this request.

However, just as there is money to be made in establishing new local clients as online advertisers, so too is there money in local candidates. Online spending by local candidates in 2008 - $2.5 million nationally - will not make anyone jump up and down. But we need to be in this business as a part of our portfolio. We can't provide the Big Number the national candidates want. But if we could tell local candidates that we reached 5,000 undecided voters in our town - that's an ad buy that would be an easy sell.

Many TV stations have launched political sites this year. Unfortunately some are just coming online now, and that makes us wonder - is there a chicken-and-the-egg question in play here? Is spending on local sites weak because there aren't many sites, or are there not many sites because the spending isn't good? Political verticals will be better positioned to take a piece of the local ad pie because they will deliver better information about their audiences. The one lesson we can't take away from this important report is "politicians won't buy online advertising."

What we clearly learn from this report is that political campaigns aren't interested in our brand extension sites. But have a compelling local politics site, where you have more than just your own stories, where people can share ideas and information and where the political discussion is happening - that will be far more attractive to campaign ad buyers because you will be giving them the audience they want.   <Link>

<<< >>>

PRESSING FORWARD WITH POLITICAL (Terry)
The new Borrell report is likely causing a lot of head-scratching in many media companies. Just last week, three companies announced plans to exploit the political niche. Scripps launched a political social networking site, RedBlueAmerica, presumably to capitalize on political ad spending while building a niche audience. The New York Observer rolled out a network of political sites, including PolitickerNJ, with hopes of having one in every state. Lin Television launched political sites in each of its 17 markets, like MichiganPolitics.tv, with statewide domains similar to the strategy being employed by the Observer. Many other companies have driven down the political niche road, and all are likely inhaling Rolaids while wondering about the validity of the strategy in the wake of the Borrell report.

But as Steve notes above, the report does not say to give up on online political. At a minimum, it provides realistic expectations based on analysis of existing and projected data. But it also offers a challenge, and one that requires innovation. The truth is we don't "know" what's going to happen with online political spending this year, because the book on it is still being written. We can look back at 2004 and 2006, but the Web has evolved considerably since then and will continue to do so.

Borrell told me this morning that we need to think of this as a long-term investment, and cited the examples of Google, Craigslist and other successful web enterprises.

We've seen time and again where everybody rubs their hands together, jumps in, makes a big investment and then waits for the money to immediately flow in. All we're saying is that there's not a whole lot of money flowing towards this now, but it is an opportunity.

As we've been saying for a long time, the Web is a bottom-up phenomenon and resists manipulative attempts to make it otherwise, so it's a lousy place to play traditional media advertising games, which are the lifeblood of contemporary politics. This is why TV scores so well (and probably always will) in the Borrell report.

And if the Web is bottom-up, where is the bottom if not at the local level? This is why I think we haven't yet discovered the right chemistry for monetizing political. When we do, it will doubtless involve a leveling of the playing field for candidates, because it doesn't cost millions of dollars to run a local campaign online. We'll make our money by providing lots of little opportunities instead of big, broad strokes.

And finally, the key to unlocking the potential of all local online advertising is the identification and organization of the local Web. That will happen. The only question is who will do it.   <Link>

<<< >>>

REDISCOVERING 'BREAKING NEWS' WITH TWITTER (Steve)
Remember when "Breaking News" meant that news was actually breaking? CNN does. You wouldn't always know it, given how liberally it labels stories on-air as "breaking." But CNN still knows what "breaking" means. How do I know?

CNN Twitters me.

CNN has a Twitter account for breaking news, and uses it to send out alerts to other Twitter subscribers. CNN's editorial choices for breaking news "tweets" are smart, infrequent and, unquestionably, news. Tuesday's alert came when the Fed cut interest rates by three-quarters of a percent. Prior to that, the alerts were the winners of the S. Carolina primary and Nevada caucuses. Before that, you have to go back to January 11, when officials found the body of the missing Marine.

If you look at the list of stories CNN has labeled as "breaking" on its Twitter page, you will find true, breaking news. Sure - some of it is Natalee Holloway and Michael Vick, but those stories have plenty of followers who are interested. From November 21 through January 22, CNN sent out just 19 breaking news Twitter alerts, and eight of those were campaign results. Not to be overly snarky here, but how many stories do you suppose you see labeled as "breaking" on TV news in the course of two months?

Twitter, for the uninitiated, is a simple way to update friends/interested people via text. It's kind of like really short blogging, only that doesn't do it justice. People sign up for each other's "tweets," which they can elect to receive on their mobile phones, via RSS or simply see on their own Twitter page. This is a brilliantly easy way to communicate with the local news audience - if done properly.

Other news operations are onboard - MSNBC has started a breaking news Twitter that appears to be just as prudent about its choices as CNN's. MSNBC, in fact, offers a variety of Twitter "channels," akin to having a bunch of RSS choices. Why not?

Twitter is free. A quick search through its roster shows that some stations are using it, although many more sign up for an account and then do little with it. I think CNN's model is perfect: recapture "breaking news" by sending out true breaking news alerts. It will make the subscribers feel like they're in on the news and it will certainly help them build an affinity for your news.

Another by-product? Twittering will help you learn a little more about the personal media revolution. A simple text message can be the difference between someone getting the news from you or getting it from someone else. This is an easy way to beat the competition - and it's free. You don't hear that too often. Get tweetin'!   <Link>

<<< >>>

LIVE VIDEO FROM YOUR CELLPHONE. NOW. (Steve)
Here's the lead: watch this.

That's a recording, but it looks just as it did when it was sent out live from Davos, Switzerland, via the web from Robert Scoble's phone. Scoble is at the World Economic summit, and armed with a Nokia mobile phone, he can broadcast live using the web service Qik.

How amazing is that?   <Link>

<<< >>>

BASIC MEDIA 2.0: A BLOGGING EDITOR TALKS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION (Terry)
John Robinson is the editor of the Greensboro News & Record and one of the earliest media executives to maintain a blog. He's been pounding out the entries since August of 2004 as part of an effort by the paper to create a community-oriented newspaper site. In that sense, he's a real pioneer in what has now become common practice in newsrooms of all sizes — blogging as a way to engage the public in the conversation that is news.

He got started in 2004, because he felt is was a part of his duty as a journalist. He's been vocal in his concern that other editors don't.

"I was intrigued by the civic conversation occurring outside the traditional media sources," he wrote last year. "Sometimes raw, often intelligent, mostly genuine, it was compelling and had the feel of something radically important. The newspaper needed to be there."

He went through difficult times last year when the paper laid off 41 employees. He didn't feel like blogging about it, so he didn't, although he did tell people why. John Robinson practices a form of transparency that others would do well to emulate.

One issue that I hear expressed by media leaders is the dangers associated with participating in news-related conversations outside the protection of the company's branded website. It's one thing to respond to a comment in your own blog but another altogether to comment on someone else's blog. Robinson has learned from his experience and shared some of that with us.

I participate moderately on others’ blogs. Based on years of practice, I mostly avoid the blogs which are toxic toward the newspaper (and I use the term newspaper to mean our print and online products). I know that they hate us and no amount of discussion helps. The conversation almost immediately devolves into participants piling on, attacking me personally and making dumb assumptions about the paper and why we do things. (You can see it in some of the comments on my own blog.) Because I've been through it many times with the same participants, I have faith that there is no percentage in it for me or the paper. I have found that it is a waste of my time and emotional energy.

I do participate in the discussion on what I consider some of the more reasonable blogs here — those folks who show respect even as they may disagree with what you're saying. The conversation on their blogs often becomes silly and stupid, too, at which point I bow out. The fact is, it’s hard for me to find the time to keep up with all the commenting that goes on. With my day job and my life, sometimes I let the discussion go on without me.

My general attitude is to participate when the discussion seems to warrant it. If the blogger asks a question that I can answer I will. Most of the time, though, they are putting out their opinion on something we've done or they want us to do. I believe that they should have the right to express their opinion — even as I might disagree with it — without me jumping in and getting up in their face about it. If they state something that’s simply factually wrong, I may correct it. But I try not to get defensive about much of anything. I know how bad that looks.

All that said, if someone raises what I consider an important topic I'll jump in.

Finally, there are topics I can't discuss. When we had layoffs last summer, there was much discussion on the blogs. I avoided them because it was a minefield for me to walk through.

While some media companies would have few problems with an editor — or some other manager — responding to conversations taking place on other sites, they have difficulty extending the privilege to employees. Robinson doesn't agree with that. Again, it comes from experience.

Anyone on my staff can enter into any conversation they like. Some do, some don't. I understand why some newspapers have rules, but it runs against the grain of my appreciation of the First Amendment, the Internet, and the culture of a newsroom.

That said, I do have three rules:

Use your real name
Respect the audience
Don't embarrass yourself or the newspaper

I assume that the people we hire are smart enough to know that it’s bad form to trash me or their employer publicly on a blog.

By adopting such a policy, Robinson's paper is sending a powerful message to the news community — and the community as a whole — in Greensboro.   <Link>