Here's a very good, very long article from today's New York Times about You Tube and its efforts to chip away advertising dollars from broadcast television.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/business/media/youtube-makes-the-case-that-it-helps-build-brands.html?_r=1
Give it a read, or at least the first dozen paragraphs. (When will newspapers figure out that America has an attention deficit problem??)
It goes deep into numbers and trends. All interesting. But I what I found fascinating is the basic premise that online video is a threat to broadcast television, the richest advertising medium going yet today.
Websites steam video... easily. Those which depend upon advertising for a positive cash-flow depend upon display advertising. So how hard is it to put the two together and to make a concerted effort to go after television ad money?
Newspaper websites. Radio websites. They do not need the FCC license and an enormously expensive television transmitter to run video. All they really need is compelling content to attract traffic and the inclination to sell video advertising and maybe some rudimentary video production. Doesn't have to be high end, not online, not yet.
This particular article also deals with the idea of video online ads being used for branding purposes. The whole issue of branding advertising versus direct response advertising is one of my favorite debates! I'll look for any reason to get into that one and so I'll probably follow up this posting with something about that. But for the mean time, as I write this late on a Friday night, think about how online video could be the great equalizer in advertising. That "compelling content" that I casually mentioned in the previous paragraph is essential, but consider the possibilities. Radio stations. Newspapers. Television stations know that their viewership is slowly migrating online. And they're having difficulty figuring out how to maintain their profit margins as the migration progresses. And there... they lose their advantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/business/media/youtube-makes-the-case-that-it-helps-build-brands.html?_r=1
Give it a read, or at least the first dozen paragraphs. (When will newspapers figure out that America has an attention deficit problem??)
It goes deep into numbers and trends. All interesting. But I what I found fascinating is the basic premise that online video is a threat to broadcast television, the richest advertising medium going yet today.
Websites steam video... easily. Those which depend upon advertising for a positive cash-flow depend upon display advertising. So how hard is it to put the two together and to make a concerted effort to go after television ad money?
Newspaper websites. Radio websites. They do not need the FCC license and an enormously expensive television transmitter to run video. All they really need is compelling content to attract traffic and the inclination to sell video advertising and maybe some rudimentary video production. Doesn't have to be high end, not online, not yet.
This particular article also deals with the idea of video online ads being used for branding purposes. The whole issue of branding advertising versus direct response advertising is one of my favorite debates! I'll look for any reason to get into that one and so I'll probably follow up this posting with something about that. But for the mean time, as I write this late on a Friday night, think about how online video could be the great equalizer in advertising. That "compelling content" that I casually mentioned in the previous paragraph is essential, but consider the possibilities. Radio stations. Newspapers. Television stations know that their viewership is slowly migrating online. And they're having difficulty figuring out how to maintain their profit margins as the migration progresses. And there... they lose their advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment