Myths 1-2: Pre-roll vs. in-stream; commoditized vendors
Myth #1: Pre-roll is more effective than in-stream ads.
Reality: The truth is, it's simply too early to declare any one video format the "winner." Certainly, pre-roll is hard for audiences to ignore and impossible to skip. Yet some video vendors claim they've seen pre-roll abandonment rates as high as 70 percent on some videos. Others have found pre-roll to be much more effective than in-video ads because the audience is already accustomed to the format through television. There is clearly a need for more research, as well as metrics to define effectiveness.
Another possibility is allowing consumers to control the advertising they see, as well as the format, as Hulu is now doing. During certain shows, viewers are able to choose which commercial they want to watch. Additionally, consumers can also decide what format they prefer -- do I want to watch a two-minute ad (usually a film preview) before a show or movie with no other commercial interruptions, or do I want to watch the more traditional 15-second or 30-second spots intermittently throughout the show?
Clearly, allowing consumers to choose their advertising and maintain more control over the experience should gain traction as video advertising increases.
Myth #2: All video vendors are the same -- it's a commoditized business.
Reality: Unfortunately, not all vendors are created equally. The excitement of running an online video campaign is quickly diminished as marketers face the unpleasant reality: many vendors can't deliver a consistent stream quality or bit rate yet. Thus innovative video buys are quickly rendered ineffective when actually executed.
The best way to avoid problems with the stream quality is to request maximum streaming specs before a buy is negotiated. Most vendors have set caps and ranges for different placements, so an advertiser or agency should be able to negotiate stream quality upfront, rather than discover post-buy that the execution is compromised by low bit rates.
