It's impossible not to feel the overriding tone of impending doom that is all over the US tech media blogs/journals right now.
From SAI to TechCrunch, Valleywag to Paid Content, the tone has changed from unrestrained optimism to a grim reality. TC and Paid Content used to be dominated with stories on startups receiving huge valuations and big funding, Valleywag reported the new wave of dot com excess ... not anymore.
What are the main areas we are seeing being covered and how could these relate to the local industry
- Layoffs
Remember fuckedcompany.com? Well ... I do. If you worked at a dot com around 2000/2001 and things were looking shaky you could rely on fuckedcompany to show you there was another start up somewhere else in the world that was more fucked than yours. All of the media are reporting layoffs - with ebay, Glam, Heavy, Seesmic, Gawker, Wikia, SearchMe, AdBrite, Hi 5 all laying off staff, and Yahoo being reported to be announcing laying off anywhere between 1-3,000 employees within the new few weeks.
TC covers it here - http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/17/keeping-count-the-techcrunch-layoff-tracker/
Yes, some of these companies were bloated to begin with ... and some probably had no real way to generate revenue ... but many are successful and do monetise well. Regardless, you can be sure that we've only seen the beginning of the layoffs.
No real public announcements of layoffs in AU - will they happen? Hopefully not but you'd have to assume if US companies like ebay and Yahoo! are cutting costs there would have to be some flow on effect here.
- Ad Slowdown
Blodget came out this morning with this bomb - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/let-s-be-serious-online-display-ads-will-fall-sharply-in-2009
For a year, we've listened to analysts passionately explain how online ad spending will power through any broader economic and advertising weakness. Eyeballs are moving online, this story went (goes), ad dollars will follow. Online advertising is accountable. Online advertising is the future. Blah, blah, blah.
It's time we woke up and faced reality. Online display-ad spending will fall in 2009, probably sharply. It will probably fall again in 2010.
Is he right? Maybe ... display ad spending in AU could flatline over the next 18-24 months. Why? Q4 will be soft, as will Q1 and Q2 of 2009 ... Q3 2008 was very strong with the Olympics and a pretty robust economic outlook, as a result Q3 2009 will struggle to show much growth.
The US was already seeing a general slowdown in YOY growth (surely a by-product of the market maturing) and now the general consensus is this will get worse.
The three biggest display categories in AU are finance, motor vehicles and technology products - three categories that will feel some pressure from tougher times. These 3 categories combined accounted for 51% of display spend in Australia for Q2 2008 ($59m)
The bigger issue is online - across the board - needs to do a better job at showing its value than reverting to the tired accountability argument. The reality is most marketers struggle with online metrics and need measurement that is tied closer to actual marketing objectives and not impressions and clicks. Agencies and publishers need to work closer together to resolve this. This is a global problem however it is probably worse in AU than in Europe and the US - and has been a problem even during prosperous economic times.
However, the current situation presents huge opportunities to both publishers and agencies if they can go beyond what they see as their core purpose (publishers = selling display ads, agencies = buying display ads) and expand their offering to the market and offer more value and insight. And this is the exciting thing.
It's not all doom and gloom, it's more about avoiding complacency.
- Consolidation
Google CFO Patrick Pichette made an interesting quote in this article - http://valleywag.com/5064903/google-cfo-hints-at-future-starve-the-losers
"One of his priorities, Pichette said, "is pushing to make sure all the resources are used efficiently, that you feed the winners, starve the losers."
Gawker also published this - http://gawker.com/5065922/the-scary-future-of-internet-ads
Here's what you can expect in the coming year, internet lovers: lots of young internet companies going broke. The ones you love! Including, but not limited to, user-generated video sites, ad networks, fringe social media sites, and companies that make all those sweet apps. Why? Because in our brave new economy, companies are slower to buy bullshit ads of questionable efficacy on every random "Web 2.0" site.
Not sure I really agree with their defintion of "bullshit ads" but the general point is valid. The "me too" online industry will struggle. From publishers to networks to agencies. Web businesses that set up because it seemed like a good idea and there was plenty of capital to go round might find things will get tough.
Lets look at locally? Do we need 10+ ad networks selling the same remnant inventory? Probably not ... Do we need as many third party repping houses? Doubtful. Do we need as many media/creative/strategy agencies who effectively are doing the same thing. No.
Consolidation in this regard isn't a bad thing, as it won't do anything to harm the market. This huge array of choice/supply doesn't do anyone any real favours. A cull should improve the overall level of the industry and rid the market of the more questionable operators.
Another thing to watch is increased attention paid to digital media businesses. Last month AdNews ran a story on 3rd party networks placing premium brands on porn sites without their knowledge. Classy look for the industry hey ... And then yesterday The Oz's Lara Sinclair ran a great article on dubious 20% rebates paid by publishers to certain agencies who believe that is a fair 'pay to play' policy.
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley Insider. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley Insider. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
A bogus heart attack, Steve Jobs and Citizen Journalism
It was the first weekend I'd had without AFL for 6 months, so luckily something interesting happened over the weekend that I could follow in between trying to save my garden from the weeds
It occured in the developing world of 'citizen journalism', and the star players were Apple Chief Steve Jobs and CNN's 'citizen journalism' initiative, CNNi.
On Friday night I was home enjoying some red wine, watching Goodfellas for the 20th time, when I quickly logged onto Silicon Valley Insider. Henry Blodget the sites editor started with, "Citizen journalism" gets its first real test. A story of major consequence that, thus far, no one else has reported"
It then went onto report that CNN's CNNi had run a story on it's front page that Apple head, Steve Jobs, had suffered a heart attack and had been taken to hospital. This happened around 11pm EST ... so just before trading opened in Wall St. SAI merely reported the story and linked out to CNNi - it claimed it was following up Apple sources to see if the story was legitimate as the rest of the media world didn't seem to be following the story at the time.
But Twitter was ablaze with chatter regarding the alleged heart attack. Apple stock dived - but nowhere near as much as one would expect.
SAI also stated "Meanwhile, very interesting that this report appears on CNN's site. If it proves correct, CNN will look great. If it is wrong, CNN's credibility will likely be hit."
The whole situation is outlined here - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/why-we-published-that-steve-jobs-heart-attack-report
So ... a few hours later it turned out the post on CNNi was bogus. SAI amended the story and CNN took the post down. It apppeared that in this case, the initiative had failed. Apple stock rallied and now the hunt is on to find out who the culprit was.
Blodget is getting absolutely hammered for posting the story as news - I don't think he has anything to answer for. Jobs is the biggest name is tech without a doubt and his health is an often discussed issue almost to the point that when Jobs gets up and launches a new product there is often more discussion about his weight (or lack of) than the products.
It will be interesting to see how CNN approach this - an error this large with a personality as big as Jobs is a real stumble ... and will this impact on other traditional media experiments into letting their readers contribute editorial?
It occured in the developing world of 'citizen journalism', and the star players were Apple Chief Steve Jobs and CNN's 'citizen journalism' initiative, CNNi.
On Friday night I was home enjoying some red wine, watching Goodfellas for the 20th time, when I quickly logged onto Silicon Valley Insider. Henry Blodget the sites editor started with, "Citizen journalism" gets its first real test. A story of major consequence that, thus far, no one else has reported"
It then went onto report that CNN's CNNi had run a story on it's front page that Apple head, Steve Jobs, had suffered a heart attack and had been taken to hospital. This happened around 11pm EST ... so just before trading opened in Wall St. SAI merely reported the story and linked out to CNNi - it claimed it was following up Apple sources to see if the story was legitimate as the rest of the media world didn't seem to be following the story at the time.
But Twitter was ablaze with chatter regarding the alleged heart attack. Apple stock dived - but nowhere near as much as one would expect.
SAI also stated "Meanwhile, very interesting that this report appears on CNN's site. If it proves correct, CNN will look great. If it is wrong, CNN's credibility will likely be hit."
The whole situation is outlined here - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/why-we-published-that-steve-jobs-heart-attack-report
So ... a few hours later it turned out the post on CNNi was bogus. SAI amended the story and CNN took the post down. It apppeared that in this case, the initiative had failed. Apple stock rallied and now the hunt is on to find out who the culprit was.
Blodget is getting absolutely hammered for posting the story as news - I don't think he has anything to answer for. Jobs is the biggest name is tech without a doubt and his health is an often discussed issue almost to the point that when Jobs gets up and launches a new product there is often more discussion about his weight (or lack of) than the products.
It will be interesting to see how CNN approach this - an error this large with a personality as big as Jobs is a real stumble ... and will this impact on other traditional media experiments into letting their readers contribute editorial?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The pre-roll effectiveness discussion continues ...
Interesting post at Silicon Valley Insider on pre-roll full play rates - http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/8/video-ad-companies-people-love-watching-video-ads-
Talk pre-roll with someone involved in digital media and you'll generally get a robust discussion. Some absolutely loathe the format (mostly agencies and advertisers running of a sample size of 1 - 'I never click on those' etc) and some think it provides a legitimate alternative to Television (generally publishers or ad servers).
(Tremor Media) says only 20% of Web video watchers give up and leave when confronted with the pre-rolls it serves up. Or, as Tremor is putting it in a release later today, 80% watch the ads all the way through.
Not to be outdone, Break Media is claiming an even higher "completion rate" -- 87% -- for its pre-rolls, which includes a whole lot of user-generated video.
What explains their popularity? In part, it's because advertisers geniunely think they're the most effective format available. And in part, it's because pre-rolls look and feel just like the TV ads publishers and advertisers are already comfortable with. Who's going to come up with a better solution? There's a big pot of money waiting...
I don't mind the pre-roll but like all formats it needs to be right for the advertiser. When it's right it's amazing - solus ad unit, fantastic response, engaged audience - all things we're constantly looking for.
However, I do think the pre-roll has four core issues that need to be addressed ...
- generally pre-rolls are just TVCs compressed and do not in any way take advantage of the interactive elements of the medium OR even add start and end frames that push to a web destination.
- 15/30 seconds are probably too long as formats (especially if it's just a TVC). 10 seconds I think is the max.
- why do pre-rolls have to be moving pictures and audio? Why can't they be simple flash builds (like Rich Media Eyeblaster placements, pre-stitials etc)
- a lot of AU online video clips are 45s to 2m long ... extremely short form ... which means that if a 30s TVC runs prior the ratio between advertising content and actual content is a little out of whack.
And these 4 aren't getting any better. Publishers still position pre-roll as a no brainer for TV centric clients. I think this is wrong - very wrong. Most will also buckle and run 30s formats if advertisers kick up enough of a fuss.
Creative agencies still don't take pre-roll seriously either - so they rarely allocate budget to edit a TVC or recut something fresh for a pre-roll/online video placement. Another one for the too hard basket (which is often very full)
Personally in my pre-roll recommendations to our clients I am requesting 5-7s creative MAX. Do we receive this - rarely ... Eventually we will I am sure as there is client interest in the format, however right now this is limited to pro content ... not UGC ... which raises questions about those faciliators of video UGC and how they'll remain afloat. But that's probably worth another post entirely ...
It would be interesting to get audited data on peoples opinions on pre-rolls in Oz. Right now the only groups that have data are the publishers and I can't see them telling the story if it isn't incredibly positive. On a side note, I really hope Nielsen and the IAB are looking at measuring issues like this and putting some science behind it ... What we do know is the format has real potential and the publishers see it as their next cash cow.
Lets invest in some research then ...
Talk pre-roll with someone involved in digital media and you'll generally get a robust discussion. Some absolutely loathe the format (mostly agencies and advertisers running of a sample size of 1 - 'I never click on those' etc) and some think it provides a legitimate alternative to Television (generally publishers or ad servers).
(Tremor Media) says only 20% of Web video watchers give up and leave when confronted with the pre-rolls it serves up. Or, as Tremor is putting it in a release later today, 80% watch the ads all the way through.
Not to be outdone, Break Media is claiming an even higher "completion rate" -- 87% -- for its pre-rolls, which includes a whole lot of user-generated video.
What explains their popularity? In part, it's because advertisers geniunely think they're the most effective format available. And in part, it's because pre-rolls look and feel just like the TV ads publishers and advertisers are already comfortable with. Who's going to come up with a better solution? There's a big pot of money waiting...
I don't mind the pre-roll but like all formats it needs to be right for the advertiser. When it's right it's amazing - solus ad unit, fantastic response, engaged audience - all things we're constantly looking for.
However, I do think the pre-roll has four core issues that need to be addressed ...
- generally pre-rolls are just TVCs compressed and do not in any way take advantage of the interactive elements of the medium OR even add start and end frames that push to a web destination.
- 15/30 seconds are probably too long as formats (especially if it's just a TVC). 10 seconds I think is the max.
- why do pre-rolls have to be moving pictures and audio? Why can't they be simple flash builds (like Rich Media Eyeblaster placements, pre-stitials etc)
- a lot of AU online video clips are 45s to 2m long ... extremely short form ... which means that if a 30s TVC runs prior the ratio between advertising content and actual content is a little out of whack.
And these 4 aren't getting any better. Publishers still position pre-roll as a no brainer for TV centric clients. I think this is wrong - very wrong. Most will also buckle and run 30s formats if advertisers kick up enough of a fuss.
Creative agencies still don't take pre-roll seriously either - so they rarely allocate budget to edit a TVC or recut something fresh for a pre-roll/online video placement. Another one for the too hard basket (which is often very full)
Personally in my pre-roll recommendations to our clients I am requesting 5-7s creative MAX. Do we receive this - rarely ... Eventually we will I am sure as there is client interest in the format, however right now this is limited to pro content ... not UGC ... which raises questions about those faciliators of video UGC and how they'll remain afloat. But that's probably worth another post entirely ...
It would be interesting to get audited data on peoples opinions on pre-rolls in Oz. Right now the only groups that have data are the publishers and I can't see them telling the story if it isn't incredibly positive. On a side note, I really hope Nielsen and the IAB are looking at measuring issues like this and putting some science behind it ... What we do know is the format has real potential and the publishers see it as their next cash cow.
Lets invest in some research then ...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
