The X Factor: Why online pre-roll is dead

  • Previous
  • 1 of 2
  • Sign in for single page

Online pre-roll video is dead. Okay, maybe not dead, but it has checked into a roach motel. Wow, did we screw this one up. All of us. I have received a lot of calls lately from media properties talking about all the extra inventory they have for pre-roll. And the prices dropped again! Wow, isn't that great? I'm reminded of something a friend told me once when we saw a sales sign in a shop window: "2 for 1 Suits." He said: "If they really wanted to screw you, they'd give you three of them."

You see, it's not just about the cost. So what happened? Numerous things, but they boil down to five points:

  1. How the client end is managing the buy
  2. How it is measured
  3. Ad content
  4. Ad content plasticity
  5. Consumer tolerance

Now, you may be sitting there reading this and thinking I'm insane and that your programs are great, but I'll just tackle those points and let you make up your own mind. Oh hell, no I won't, I'm right, just listen. I can sum up all five points easily.

Who is managing: A lot of companies made their initial foray into pre-roll through the traditional side of their business; their offline agency trying to encroach on digital. They had the commercial assets and weren't giving them up easily. "Hey, we can use the television commercial and just put it in front of content online." Done.

How it's measured: How are you going to measure it? "Oh, it's about branding." Pa-lease. As I've said before, if you are not going to measure, and it exists online, don't do it. At least measure the branding impact if you're going to use that cop-out. Dynamic Logic, ever heard of it? And if not that, then Insight Express? Cookie viewers and measure post-view to your site over a week, and then pop your own survey to those that were cookied -- 'cause trust me, if they didn't come within a week, it didn't do your brand any good. And that's where the shift happened. The buys shifted to those who were controlling the online media plan -- the ROI side of things. Once you remove the "branding" escape clause, for many people it just didn't make sense.

Ad content: Let's face it, the ad content sucked. And for the most part, it never got better. Developing web-specific video content is still expensive. Agencies haven't figured out how to do guerilla production, and they charge too much. The time frames take longer to create, and then you have SAG or some other rights agency sucking out more of the budget. It's fine when you're spending millions in TV but absolutely nightmarish for online. Unless it is going to be a massive ongoing effort, the cost benefit analysis just doesn't work. So what do you? You slap that 15-second spot up and call it a day.

Next page >>

 

Comments

David Sidman
David Sidman March 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM

I couldn't agree more, and I hear this echoed in every conference I attend: users hate pre-roll ads so much they even abandon the video roll itself; and nobody hangs around afterwards to watch a post-roll ad.

I believe the answer is to use video ad formats that put more control into the CUSTOMER'S hands for whether and how they respond to the advertising. If they are alerted to an ad message with proper respect, AND they are then interested enough to affirmatively explore the ad on their own initiative, you get a format that is user-friendly yet still performs better for the advertiser.

There could be many possible ways to implement such a format, but I think it helps to be able to talk about a specific example - so if I could ask forgiveness in advance for shamelessly pitching an alternative - again recognizing that this is just one possible approach - Linkstorm offers a format whereby the video can launch immediately and continue to run, but with an indication near the edge of the player window that there's an ad offer available IF the customer is interested. IF AND WHEN the customer rolls their mouse over the ad's call-to-action, a cascading fly-out menu of links appears that shows the customer all the relevant destinations in advance that they might be interested in, and then takes them directly where they wants to go in a single click - right to the product they wanted, or the answer to their question, or the marketing info that would influence their purchase decision.

It's user-initiated, yet better-performing for the advertiser: when applied to regular banners, the CTR goes up by 3x-5x. In fact we're putting our money where our mouth is via a "March Madness" offer that guarantees to increase CTR by >50% or the campaign is free.

See two examples of how it would apply to video: http://www.linkstorms.com/demo/nbc/heroes_nissan_video/ (demo only) and http://www.linkstorms.com/clientresults/liveexamples/cisco_video/ (real campaign we did for Cisco where we overlaid our menu on top of a DoubleClick/Klipmart video ad).

Lawrence Johnson
Lawrence Johnson March 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM

This reminds me of what Marshall MacLuhan pointed out a generation ago when he suggested: that the message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure. (Understanding Media., 1964,). What McLuhan writes about the railroad applies with equal validity to online media.
Misalignment of messaging with the target channels and audiences is misguided and inefficacious. And this is quite independent of the content being disseminated. So let's refrain from the simple reflex of repurposing content through the wrong channel without a thorough understanding of its underlying nature and our target audience's disposition when engaging such channel. Maybe one day we will get it. Thanks Sean for your insights..

Jeff Bach
Jeff Bach March 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Read a quote yesterday from Jakob Nielsen that asserted the web is not a selling-oriented platform - it is a buying platform. Nothing new here, his quote goes back to the old push vs. pull outlook on internet content. It reminded me that in a newspaper, magazine or on TV the ad is explicitly there and the viewer has little choice over the presence of that ad. This is essentially "sell-side", cram-it-down-their-throats-whether-they-want it or not kind of stuff.

We should all know by now that the web is different. In this space the viewer has all the power. They have a choice to click and view or NOT. This is "buy-side", where the user has a choice in what they CHOOSE to view. Pre-roll attempts to overcome this and maintain the old style business as usual. Pre-roll is not working for a variety of reason, as Sean points out.

I see something else, besides the traditional ad, having to emerge and am starting to fall on the webisode and product placement side of the fence. In any case, the large expense of video and the new production workflows that go along with it are HUGE obstacles to all but the largest clients. There has to be a better way than what is currently taking place.
my .02
Jeff Bach
Quietwater Films

Andrew Budkofsky
Andrew Budkofsky March 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Love the article today. But it's not the publishers fault (it never is!) Agencies and clients pushed for it, and still do by the way even though the entire planet knows it's not the most effective way. As soon as clients understand what the opportunities are in the video space, and the agencies stop being as lazy as a New Yorker who needs a pack of cigs delivered because the corner deli is too far away, the world will be a better place.

Giles Crouch
Giles Crouch March 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM

This is the 90-Second Economy, this means how people allocate their most precious resource; time. TV is a passive activity, we watch. Done. The Web is an "active" place, when we're online we're "doing" something, and I think this is another reason you're right about pre-roll. It should be only 5 seconds, on the Web, you're lucky to get 90-Seconds of someones time. The concept of the "brand" on the Web needs to be about engagement, TV is a place to create awareness, and the formats are just so different. Broadcast TV should be supportive, Web active.
http://panopen.blogspot.com