Day #5: Video and Interactive Advertising
Joseph Jaffe: Following up on something Mark said yesterday, we can’t have a discussion on the subject of creativity without talking about video. As I often refer to it, “TV or not TV: that is the question.” Or, in this case, the question would be: “what are your thoughts on the evolution and future of video on the Web -- both from a content and a commercial standpoint?” Feel free to move beyond, “should we be putting our :30’s online or doing something more” and expound on what this business model (content/commercials) could look like. At the end of the day, are we just talking about V.O.D. or something bigger?
Mark Silva: Video is here to stay online and is obviously one of the richer communication forms, but not the only one.
Already we're seeing some interesting appropriation of Flash, as well as online production tools informing offline graphics in video for TV and Film. The reverse is also happening, where online creatives are using powerful video suite applications to create hybrid Flash interactions with embedded video. Subservient Chicken and ComeClean.com from CP&B are a couple of yummy examples. These may be windows into the evolution of content format, quality of engagement and experience, et cetera.
Whether the question is "TV or Not TV?" (clever play on the bard, Jaffe) or "Video or Something Else?," great story telling -- including the parts consumers contribute through the theater of the mind or interactions -- is the larger context and foundation of any future model.
This may even argue that Hollywood will inherit and define the next generation of online as a result of the industry's highly developed IP around the principles of producing hits and content that consumers will pay for.
Beyond the content, advertising will evolve to a more invitational, "want-to-experience" transaction than the interruptive model we use today. There will still be intercept strategies to help consumers become aware of the opportunities and choices within this invitational transaction model. But advertising, planning, creative and media processes will be much more geared towards creating relevance for the consumer than they are today.
Mike Yapp: As much as I like to think that the internet user wants to entertain himself and inform himself, I do believe the passive audience is still hardwired into our very DNA. As Chance the gardener put it in "Being There," "I like to watch." And despite all the efforts of creative interactivity, people still want time to just watch.
For years now (centuries in internet time), advertising executives have touted the Holy Grail of interactive TV -- watch a sitcom/movie, see an actress's sweater you fancy, click on it and then buy it right then and there. I was once asked what I see as the future of video advertising on the web. I replied, "I don't. It won't be advertising: it will be content. Those who want to watch will watch, and those who wish to click will click."
Daniel Bernard: Talk about VOD... now you can access and share video on demand online -- and continue watching on your iTV when you get home. The user is gaining more and more control, and we are able to utilize the benefit of interactivity to better communicate with our audience. This is way past the :15 or :30 second ad... it can be so much more. (Thanks broadband!)
Right now we've just started exposing the form in the marble, so to speak.
We used to think of cross media campaigns as running online, on TV and on radio. Now we have even more options: the arsenal is growing. Once you start thinking about the types of campaigns that can be created utilizing a multi-platform strategy to reach a target audience, one can't help but get excited.
Scott Witt: From a media standpoint, there's the question of valuation. I find many publishers significantly overvaluing their video inventory, as it were -- based solely on the premise of supply and demand curves. While arguable in the short term, as a long-term pricing strategy this is flawed for a couple reasons. In a full-service media agency, many of our digital dollars are sourced from the "television pot." So long as I'm able to deliver the same audience, the same (or better) creative experience at consistent pricing, we can share shift all day long; one of the beauties of media natality. Save for the capital costs, the audience costs should be consistent with comparable network / cable CPMs / CPPs. We have a gap to close. And it's a double-digit gap.
From a creative standpoint, this is the opportunity we've all been waiting for. All the pieces are in alignment for a creative renaissance.
Joseph Jaffe: It seems as if VOD is being heralded as the savior of the media world (as least from a mainstream publisher standpoint) -- but there’s an elephant in the room in the form of a business model (or the lack thereof). Can you comment a little on this?
Scott Witt: It's fascinating to see more questions than answers on this subject. Historically, the digital medium was riddled with too many brewers of the secret sauce. It's so refreshing to see more diligence walk through the door, rather than the "6 Minute Abs" sales tactics of yore. Not having all the answers will yield more insightful and better-vetted applications in the future.
VOD is not unlike a publishing platform for our brands -- where :30 stories can turn to conversations. We have to be willing, and prepared to fail.
And I would imagine clients' current production and financial models may not immediately scale to accommodate these tectonic shifts.
Agencies and clients will need to make both operational and philosophical augmentations to their advertising business models to adapt to the changing consumer landscape.
Mike Yapp: Video on demand won't put the networks completely out of business, but it's going to severally impact the movie and specialty channels and put, at the very least, a significant dent or, at worst, a stake in the heart of NetFlix and Blockbuster unless they adjust their business models.
Do I want to see a movie or sporting event whenever I want to? Absolutely. But I also prescribe to the viewing habits of the lazy luddite who taps the clicker and stares blankly into tiresome primetime programming.
Video On Demand has a purpose, and I suppose many will trade away their viewing privacy to get their VOD fix free on a daily basis. But I think there is room for traditional 30- and 60-second-encased network programming for a long time to come.
Joseph Jaffe: Mike, I might have something to say about that, but we’ll leave it for the Creative Panel at the iMedia Summit in May [http://www.imediaconnection.com/summitspring/index.asp].
And with that said, the first iMedia In Focus comes to a close. I want to thank the four extremely talented panelists for some direct and forward-thinking opinion and insights. Big ideas are apparently not as elusive as the 18- to 24-year-old male. They live large, and in abundance online and this time, everyone’s invited to share in the spoils of interactivity, empowerment and involvement.
I hope you enjoyed iMedia's new In Focus format and, more importantly, the conversation.
Joseph Jaffe acts as Editor-at-Large for iMedia Communications. He is President & Founder of jaffe, L.L.C. http://www.getthejuice.com/, a new marketing consulting practice. His book “Life after the 30-second spot” will be released on May 27th (Wiley/Adweek).
