Video Revenue, a little patience please

Liam Walsh: As at least one local publisher likes to say (frequently), lunch time is the new prime time.

Obviously this is a bit of a stretch but it belies the widespread view that video online is big.

Invariably we in this business get excited about new things and this is matched by our impatience for concept to become reality. So why isn’t video raking in all those advertising dollars going to television?

Well that is a fair question if we move forward ten years and the product we offer matches television, but of course it doesn’t. Our industry invents things without looking at markets thoughtfully.

Many things need to happen and definitely will happen which will shift marketing spend from television to the internet (including mobile). They include the following.

1. Campaign Reach and Frequency

2. Broad agreement on duration of the advertising– some progress, but more to go

3. Centralised video networks as there are hundreds of buying points

4. Standardised formats that can be executed and distributed quickly

5. Relative consistency around pricing

These elements are required by the marketer. The closer we get to matching them the faster the migration of revenue. Until then I hope we won’t all point fingers at each other

Ben Shepherd:  With online video we need to crawl before we can walk. Yes, there are eyeballs available for online video but eyeballs alone aren’t really a compelling reason for marketers to shift dollars from one medium to another.

Why? Because there’s no shortage of eyeballs.

Is lunchtime really the new primetime? Who knows … we know digital usage is strong during this time, but to try and draw similarities between lunchtime online and prime time is a bit rich right now.

The two are completely different.

And the jury is out on whether the current options for online video can match the sort of cut through, integration and audience reach TV can.

TV dollars will only truly migrate to online video if online video can either match or better what TV presently can offer.

It’s definitely not going to happen with platforms like FDTV and Platform 9 – these are in no way a substitute for TV.

In terms of Liam’s points above, I totally agree. I’d add a sixth though – the industry needs to give the advertisers a clear, compelling reason beyond raw audience and the standard digital cliches (accountability, click through etc) as to why moving pictures with audio online can be more powerful, compelling and relevant than moving pictures with audio on a TV.  !