New Media
12 Marketers Pick Year’s Most Valuable Online Videos
The smart people at Twist Image have built a gorgeous video site to showcase 2007’s most valuable online videos, according to their “most influential friends.”
Paula Gignac, Seth Godin, Ken Wong, Joseph Jaffe, David Weinberger, David Usher, Jackie Huba, Shel Israel, John Gustavson, Christopher Loudon, Mary Maddever and our own Bryan Eisenberg were each asked to share their favorite video of the year.
Which videos were your favorites?
(To Mitch Joel, Mark Goodman, Mickael Kanfi, Aubrey Rosenhek and the entire team at Twist Image, joyeuses fêtes à vous tous! Thank you for helping to shape good ideas, as always.)
Related Posts:
Written by:The Grok
ESPNU to be a Fast Follower of NASCAR
Recently, Mashable reported that “The worldwide leader in sports” is opening up its collegiate arm, ESPNU.com, to user-generated videos. The service, known as Campus Connection, will allow students, faculty and fans of all colleges and universities to supply the videos, including play-by-play analysis, sideline reporting and even televised events. Much like NASCAR.com, where fans have transfered their enthusiasm for a niche (if it’s possible to call millions of die-hard fans a “niche”) sport into a thriving photo and video-sharing community, ESPNU wants to put the fans in the proverbial driver’s seat.
While this sounds intriguing and may cause a stir on campus, I wonder, can this really bridge the gap in national coverage between the perennial powerhouses and the “What division are they in” schools?
While it may be a start, it’s unlikely that smaller schools will reap the same long term benefits as the household names. Initially, this should increase the support from individual schools by making the games more of an event (”Let’s post that touchdown pass video on ESPNU!”), but it won’t sustain on its own. ESPNU needs to make a concerted effort to highlight videos from all schools, with no bias toward the bigger brand-name schools. If they don’t ensure that there’s fair representation, students and alumni from other schools will stop participating and the experiment will fail. If they’re not careful, ESPNU could easily cave to supply and demand, highlighting content they think viewers want to see instead of promoting the community and its members, which is exactly what drives a thriving social network like NASCAR’s.
With more and more people joining some form of social network each day, ad revenue is pouring into social media. E-Marketer estimates that social network advertising will nearly quadruple in the next 4 years. With such huge potential for a collection of niche online communities (i.e., for smaller schools and for individual sports), ESPNU has the ability to harness all of that growth potential.
If they’re going to do it right, ESPNU should adhere to the 3 triggers of word of mouth by keeping the focus on the online community and its members instead of covering the same old headline-grabbers and stories from the ESPN.com homepage.
Related Posts:
Written by:Peter Lee
Opting Out of Facebook’s Disruptive Ad Model
Joshua Porter of Bokardo.com has taken a serious look at Facebook’s new so-called “opt-in” ad model.
…Facebook is now partnering with 3rd party sites and selling your information to them for money. How does this work?
Here’s a scenario: you go to Blockbuster.com and rent a movie. A little interface element pops up and tells you that Blockbuster is sending information to your Facebook account. It gives you ten seconds to say no…and then it sends it anyway. This is called “opt-out”. You only have the option to say no. It sends your personal information by default. “Opt-in” would be where no action is taken by default.
You then log into your Facebook account, and it says that “Blockbuster is sending a story to your account”. You have the option to say no to this, but it is not apparent at all. In fact, Facebook gives you the option “Don’t show me this again”, which seems to suggest that they agree this message is annoying. They have designed this screen for you to focus on the pain of having to read a silly message and dismiss it. But what isn’t very clear is that when you do so you’re also giving implicit instruction that all services can send information to your news feed in the future. This is a HUGE deal to Facebook…this is how they’re going to make money. [Continue reading “Facebook’s Brilliant but Evil Design”… ]
It’s an important read for anyone who uses, or advertises with, the popular social networking site.
Related Posts:
Written by:Jeffrey Eisenberg
In (Mild) Defense of Firebrand
The advertising-as-entertainment, “live” (but not really), model-hosted, YouTube-ish site Firebrand.com just launched its beta site, and it definitely could be worse — especially considering its ambitious value proposition. Basically, Firebrand’s counting on becoming a destination spot for entertaining commercials, and the only people who might tell them they’re wrong — at this early stage, anyway — are are those who remain at least part-time singers in the choir to which they’re preaching.
When I first heard of the site, I said it sounded like “the ad industry’s collective Wet 2.0 dream.” The beta seems to reflect that impression, with a heavy dose of racy* and/or funny and/or creative ads, most of which seem more suited to winning awards than selling product. But there are exceptions, and it is nice to see a venue for (at least some of the) commercials that exceed 30 seconds. And since the US lives inside its own media bubble, it’s good to see a new venue for international commercials like this one from the Barcelona City Council:
Sure, they probably weren’t thinking of someone like me when they made the ad, but suffice it to say, there’s now an even slimmer chance you’ll ever find me double-parked in Barcelona.
Then there are funny and memorable ads like this one for Skittles:
There’s also a bit of irony here for brands who’ve tried to push their own ads on specialty micro-sites; brands like Budweiser, which spent G-d-knows-what creating Bud.tv, only to have me see this ad for the first time on Firebrand instead:
If GrokDotCom was the first place you saw this ad, that could mean one of at least two things:
- Firebrand could be a success as a destination spot for branded content.
- Bud.tv shouldn’t make people register and log in, and then not allow bloggers to embed the video (something I’m presuming because I refuse to register for the site).
Here’s the Firebrand “Manifesto”:
We love commercials. We submit, with rare exception, that theyre the best stuff on TV. In under a minute you get the best directors, the sickest special effects, the funniest writerswhats not to love?
We love commercials. 1984. Mean Joe Green. Whasssup? You know you love them, too. So lets gather round the best of them. Sort them. Judge them. Share them. Love them.
We love commercials. The eye candy. The laugh out louds. The did-you-just-see-thats. The most loved, the most emailed, the ones we still talk about today. Let every day be Super Bowl Monday.
Welcome to Firebrand.com. (The best stuff on TV, online. )
Seems a bit heavy if you don’t consider the ads to be the best thing about TV. But that’s pretty common. The seductions of overstated “About Us” copy when there’s no copy on the homepage (as if to say, “You must know who we are, right?”) are hard for most startups to resist. Since it’s a beta launch, I’ll reserve judgment for now. Still, they might want to run that through the We-We Monitor.
What do you think? Will Firebrand go the way of Bud.tv, or does it help to have all these commercials in one place?
[*The first commercial that was showing when I went to the site this morning was for Naturisme.fr, a French “naturist” site — and no, I don’t mean organic food in the literal sense — which wasn’t exactly work-safe by “violence good, nudity bad” American cultural standards.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
GrokDotCom @ ad:tech
Just a quick note to let you all know that we’ll be covering ad:tech New York this week. There will be a lot of great panel discussions and keynotes on all things new media. So, be sure to check out the official ad:tech blog and GrokDotCom for reviews conversations about hot topics in marketing optimization.
We’re a tad biased, but this really is a great city to play host to ad:tech’s 10,000+ attendees (if you can believe it). For better or for worse, New York is a giant fishbowl of advertising messages. It’s everywhere — from the subway, to entire sides of buildings, to the Men’s room. It’s a place where multi-channel campaigns take shape in an instant. And when the message is off, you don’t have to be a marketer to notice.The result is sometimes inspiring, often annoying, and — for those who grok — a never-ending source of marketing do’s and don’ts.
If you’ve ever wondered about what it takes to keep NYC’s low:tech ad world moving, take a peek at this cool video from the aptly named Good Magazine.
If you’re in town for the conference, drop us a line in the comments to let us know what you’ve enjoyed or what you’d like to see covered, and we’ll try to accommodate.
[Special thanks to Steve Hall from Adrants for inviting me to guest blog with ad:tech.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Nintendo & Women: A Love Story
There she is, standing in the piazza called Video Gaming. Sony saunters by without so much as a nod hello. Microsoft rushes past her so fast it sends her spinning. She’s surrounded by gunfire, stolen cars, electronic creatures with huge shoulders and small, perfect waists. (If only real men were built like that…)
With a heavy sigh, she heads toward the subway, back to Tetris Land, when something catches her eye. Is it? Could it be? Nintendo is walking straight toward her. Does Nintendo actually . . . see her? Nintendo strides right up, makes eye contact and, (gasp!) starts a conversation.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Don’t you just love a good love story? (Sniff.) The best part is that this is no fairy tale. According to Advertising Age, The Nintendo Wii ended the summer selling 403,600 units in August, compared to 276,700 units for Xbox and 130,600 for PlayStation 3. Wii unit sales to date have topped 9 million. And, to top it all off, Ad Age recently crowned Nintendo “Marketer of the Year.”
While everyone seems to love the Wii, women have been especially vocal with their praise. Nintendo specifically reached out to women early on to enslist them as ambassadors for the Wii.
Nintendo executives and designers conjured up a new target. And it began to look like, of all people, a mom. They settled on the household power purchaser — or at least the one with veto power.
“When Nintendo contacted me, I said to them, ‘You must have the wrong person; I don’t even know what Nintendo does,’” says Tracey Clark, a mom, photographer, and blogger who was one of the first Wii Ambassadors.
The “ambassador” title, though lofty sounding, basically meant hosting a Wii party for 30 or so like-minded friends. Ms. Butler’s, “Moms Night Out” drew 27 maternal units — no kids or dads — and was a “huge, smashing success,” says Ms. Butler, mother of a 3-year-old and a 5-year-old. “Everyone who came who didn’t already own a Wii … ordered one or two. Plus a lot of them are bloggers, and they all blogged about what a great experience it was.” Ms. Clark says the same thing happened at her party.
So what is it about the Wii that women love so much? Karen Bennett has some thoughts:
The revolutionary Nintendo Wii launched in late 2006 has introduced an new concept in video gaming and has seen more and more women getting involved. The physical nature of the game play with the Nintendo Wii has the added appeal of ‘achieving something’ – maybe the thinking is that you can get fit and lose calories while having fun, and all from the comfort of your front room! It would certainly be more cost effective than going to the gym. The social side of gameplay with the Nintendo Wii creates another plus point also, as the whole family can get involved, removing the ‘isolation’ factor of other video games consoles.
Looking for the perfect holiday gift? The Wii ranked 8th on the women’s top 10 list, receiving 9% of the vote and beating the likes of a new Apple laptop and TiVo.
And the Wiimen lived happily ever after.
The End
Related Posts:
Written by:Holly Buchanan
The YouTube Effect: Copyright Law Will Eat Itself
Jeff Atwood’s “YouTube: The Big Copyright Lie” may be the most telling — and concise — article ever written about today’s online copyright law fiasco. According to Atwood, the company’s whole existence teeters a fundamental lie: that so-called “fair use” is in the eye of the beholder, and the only beholders who matter are the copyright’s owner and their attorneys (read: copyrighted material is kept live on YouTube indefinitely until either the copyright holder or their lawyers complain).
Atwood shows that YouTube’s copyright tips page, although refreshingly plain-spoken, is a bit self-righteous, considering that, as he puts it, 90% of the content on YouTube is ripped-off copyrighted material…
It’s completely glossed over on the YouTube copyright page in favor of 100% original content, but the loophole in copyright is fair use. Under the banner of fair use, you could legally upload a video without the copyright holder’s permission. Anyone who contributes anything to the web should have the four factors of fair use commited [sic] to memory by now:
- the purpose of the use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the relative amount of the portion used
- the market effect of the use on the copyrighted work
Atwood goes on to explain why “The typical YouTube clip does well on the last two factors of the fair use test, but utterly fails the first two.” It’s an eye-opener for anyone who creates original content.
Meanwhile, our attitudes toward the media landscape continues to shift according to generational fault lines. In AdvertisingAge, Mike Vorhaus shares some telling figures:
Americans also believe their use of online video has cannibalized TV. Overall, more than 15% of respondents say they watch TV less as a result of watching online videos. And 25% of 18- to 24-year-olds believe that online video is cannibalizing their TV viewing. In comparison, fewer than 11% of 45- to 54-year-olds report such cannibalization.
Hmm… Does it count as watching TV if you’re watching TV on YouTube?
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Firebrand Wants to Be a YouTube for Advertising
Announced today, Firebrand (firebrandtv.com) has some lofty ambitions. It wants to do for advertising what YouTube did for cutout gift boxes, or what MTV did for hair metal in the 80’s. By creating a dedicated portal for funny, sexy, action-packed ads and movie trailers, it’s thought that — soon after it launches on October 22nd — Gen Y-ers will converge on Firebrand for promotional offers, pure entertainment, or, hopefully, to buy stuff.
They claim to be, “QVC for the MySpace generation.”
Now, before you gag, consider that they might be onto something. This isn’t just another startup. Firebrand is backed by Microsoft, NBC Universal, GE’s Peacock Equity fund, Adweek, Brandweek, Mediaweek, and the ION television network.
Pardon me while I quote the press release at length:
“Firebrand enters the media landscape as the era of the commercial interruption is coming to an end,” says John A. Lack, CEO/Co-Founder. “We curate the best TV commercials and promotions from around the world – connecting consumers directly with their favorite brands in an integrated environment.”
“On Firebrand, you’ll see more car chases, explosions, gags, drama, heroes, Oscar-winning actors, directors and producers in an hour than in a month of HBO,” says [Chief Creative Officer/Co-Founder Román] Viñoly. “To be true to our consumers, you can’t pay us to air a bad spot. ”
Meanwhile, Steve Hall from Adrants sounds off:
We tried really hard not to laugh when . . . Roman Vinoly said, “We program TV spots like a DJ spins music in a club. There is a rhythm and flow to it.” In an attempt to spin Firebrand as something other than a massive database of commercials, Vinoly adds, “On Firebrand, you’ll see more car chases, explosions, gags, drama, heroes, Oscar-winning actors, directors and producers in an hour than in a month of HBO.” Right, dude. They’re still [f@%!^g] commercials. Not The Sopranos.
Hyperbole aside, it sounds like the ad industry’s collective Wet 2.0 dream, does it not?
Experience Curve’s Karl Long reminds us that the first step is a doozy:
If they create original, edgy, hysterical, and brilliant commercials for it then they have a shot. I think it’s more likely they are going to recycle their 30 second spots that less people are watching every year in which case they will go the same way as BudTV. They have some great investors behind them . . . and advertisers like BMW, Coke, Ebay etc. yet the internet is famous for burning through enormous amounts of money on “big bang” efforts like this. If they don’t get it right out of the gate it will be a losing battle.
But that’s where the “so-crazy-it-just-might-work” factor comes into play. Think about it: They’ll suddenly need tons of content. Where will it all come from? With Firebrand claiming editorial integrity, it could be a chance for smaller brands to shine. Big-budget brands will dump money on it regardless, but creativity could be a currency of its own.
Consider Ice.com executive VP of marketing Pinny Gniwisch, who was recently asked about his YouTube campaign:
Gniwisch is measuring the success of his efforts in the number of views Ice.com’s videos have received on YouTube.com – about 50,000 altogether — in the 6,000 YouTubers who signed up for an Ice.com sweepstakes promoted with one video series release, and the 16,000 who have signed up for “Pinny’s World,” asking to be notified whenever Ice.com puts up new video on YouTube.
“If I can get enough people to watch my channel, I can eventually throw a product video that is both entertaining and ROI-driven into the mix,” figures Gniwisch. “As more people register to your channel, your ability to succeed as an ROI-based investment is more likely.”
If a company like Ice.com can submit content to Firebrand, it could be something bigger than the next go-to spot for Super Bowl ads.
Firebrand has offered us a sneak preview in the coming weeks, so we’ll let you know what we think soon enough.
[GrokDotCom interviewed Pinny about his adventures on YouTube. To hear how how he did it, listen to the podcast.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Blog Buzz: Microsoft Games Halo 3; NY Subpoenas Facebook
If you didn’t know Halo 3 — the much-anticipated shoot-’em-up sequel to, you guessed it, Halo 2 — comes out today, you’re probably not much of a gamer. But if you’re a marketer, it’s still worth your attention at some level, even if destroying hostile alien civilizations from the comfort of your sofa doesn’t get your blood pumping.
When Halo 2 was released for Microsoft (MSFT) XBox in 2004, it broke the record for the highest-grossing launch of any type of media product (yes, really), generating $125 million in revenue — 2.4 million copies — in 24 hours.
And you thought Titanic was big? Ha!
“Mr. Softy” Strikes Back
Lest another pundit call them a “sleeping giant”, Read/WriteWeb points to a Last100 piece that sheds some light on how Microsoft is leveraging Halo 3:
Another product that has benefited from the buzz surrounding Halo 3 is Silverlight, Microsoft’s platform for building rich Internet applications. Like Flash, Java, and many other platforms, Silverlight requires users to install a browser plug-in before they can use it. This presents a common problem — you need users to have the plug-in before developers jump on board, and you need developers on board building great apps for the platform before users want to install the plug-in. Microsoft decided to leverage Halo 3 to help solve this problem. Over the last few weeks, lots of Halo 3 related content has been made available such as trailers, promos, and an online manual. The catch? You’ve got to have Silverlight installed before you can view any of the content. It’s a very smart move. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the early installs of Silverlight can be attributed to fans eager for Halo 3 content.Microsoft’s partners have gotten in on the action too. Mountain Dew launched “Mountain Dew Game Fuel” on August 13th, the first beverage co-branded with a video game. 7-Eleven has been offering three Halo 3-branded Slurpee cups, and has been part of the promotional campaign being run with Mountain Dew and Doritos. Burger King started offering Halo 3-themed packaging yesterday, and will continue to do so right through October 22nd. Other companies that are participating in the Halo 3 campaign include Pontiac and Comcast.
(micro)Soft Money for Facebook?
Meanwhile, Microsoft may be showing its “Mr. Softy” side a bit, now that it’s finally getting serious with Facebook. Let’s hope they cut a deal soon. The constant, boring speculation over exactly how rich Mark Zuckerberg will be is beyond tiresome. Thankfully, BoomTown’s Kara Swisher agrees. Get a load of this critique:
…I believe Silicon Valley can now be considered to be at Delusional Level Red. Or green, given all the cash that is being shoved in Facebook’s direction now.
Facebook is not Google: Although many in the tech sector make the comparison to the search giant, it is simply incorrect.Is Facebook like Yahoo a bit? Certainly. A newfangled version of AOL? Absolutely! A very well done media play with all sorts of interactive bells and whistles hanging off of it? Yes, ma’am.
Indeed, it is growing its media business nicely, with $30 million in profits on $150 million in revenue.
But in comparative terms to the search giant, Facebook is a lemonade stand. Google brought in $3.9 billion in revenue in just the second quarter alone and, um, is increasing its dominance over the search sector in a mighty scary way.
Facebook, on the other hand, gets half its annual revenue right now from a sweetheart guaranteed revenue deal with, drum roll, Microsoft. No matter what either Facebook or Microsoft says, it is a money-losing deal for Microsoft so far.
How do I know this? According to many sources, Google is struggling to make ends meet in its own sweetheart guaranteed ad deal with Facebook rival MySpace, which is much larger, and Google has the best monetization engine out there.
Ouch! Swisher goes on to mention other problems, insisting Facebook’s potential is not actual, that most techies weren’t popular in high school and, therefore, overestimate the importance of stuff that seems important to them, and even breaks out the calculator to show that the company’s pre-money valuation is actually $525 million — a far cry from the $15 billion for which they’re rumored to be holding out.
Reiterating her stance from an earlier post, Swisher advises Zuckerberg to “…take the dumb money and run as fast as your flip-flops will carry you.”
Facebook Subpoenaed
In other Facebook news, CenterNetworks’ Allen Stern reports that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has subpoenaed Facebook, claiming they’re not doing enough to protect kids from sexual predators:
“My office is concerned that Facebook’s promise of a safe website is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints,” Cuomo said. “Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a website that is aggressively marketed as safe.”
The office setup several “underage” profiles on Facebook and within days began receiving chat requests of a graphic nature. In subpoenaing the company, Cuomo has asked for complaints received by Facebook regarding inappropriate solicitation of underage users and inappropriate content on the site, as well as any responses by the website. The subpoena also calls for all Facebook policies on user safety and all representations made to consumers about the safety of the site.
What makes Facebook less safe than, say, MySpace — which deleted 29,000 registered sex offenders in July — remains unclear.
[Tired of reading other blogs? Catch Blog Buzz weekdays on WebmasterRadio.fmiTunes. Bryan Eisenberg & Robert Gorell host the podcast, featuring a rundown of the day’s top stories from The Grok’s Buzz Bin.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Are “Trusted Editors” Good for Wikipedia?
Information World Review reports that the German Wikipedia will have “trusted editors” by year’s end. The move from community editing and after-the-fact fact-checking “…could be applied to the English language version of Wikipedia if feedback from users is positive.”
Resource Shelf’s Gary Price reminds us that this move has been in the works for some time:
Three years ago next month, Jimmy Wales was quoted in Red Herring saying that editors to review content were coming.
Wikipedia’s [Founder] Mr. [Jimmy] Wales has said that next year he will begin using editors to review the web site’s content for accuracy and allow users to rate contributions to the encyclopedia for their quality. ‘It’s complex because it’s a social community, and feelings can be hurt,’ said Mr. Wales, but he added that the change will be critical when Wikipedia content is put on more permanent media, such as CD-ROM disks.”
As those who follow this blog may know, we have mixed feelings about Wikipedia, especially after all of the dirty edits uncovered by Wikiscanner, the edit-tracking software developed by Cal Tech grad student Virgil Griffith. Maybe they’re an easy target, but Wikipedia’s hugely important. History, as well as obscure definitions, can now be written by winners and losers alike — for better and for worse.
But the transition to “trusted editors” dredges up a new batch of questions: Who will these editors be? Where will they come from? Why should we trust them? Who edits the editors?
Perhaps a more interesting question is why Wikipedia has captured so much global mindshare in the first place. For one thing, they do a lot of simple things right. While linking to Wikipedia helps to assure they consistently rank well in search results, Search Engine Journal’s Jon Kelly argues that liking to Wikipedia can be good for you, too:
Short URLs. Yes, it’s as simple as that. The shorter the link, the easier it is to deal with when referencing. I know others have some fancy way of getting links into their posts, but I still do a lot of copy and paste and it’s easier with a shorter URL.
No Parameters / No Numbers. In a recent post, I wanted to link to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, mostly to help make it clear that my story was a shaggy dog (ah, that was an easy link!)
He then shows the URL’s for Amazon and Google Books, both of which are hilariously long. Some other reasons…
Momentum. I need a link to make a point. I Google. I check the top 3-4 listings. Guess who’s always one of the choices? Thus the additional links build on the present ranking.
Laziness. Honestly, I think most bloggers just can’t be bothered to find the perfect reference on a subject. Good enough really is good enough if the link is just serving as a bit of background on something you think might be too esoteric to be familiar to all readers.
How do you feel about linking to Wikipedia? Does the idea of having “trusted editors” turn you off, or is it a good thing?
[Hat tip to Search Engine Land for linking us to the Resource Shelf post, which linked us to Information World Review.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
