OT: The New Age of Broadcast Market

> Nobody would assert that a TV sitcom is world-changing art, but it's still art, because the people
> who make them care.
> i wonder if this same discussion happened in the book publishing world in the 1700's when
> magazines were invented?

Both good analogies. A TV sitcom still involves that "engagement", of being immersed in the experience of fictitious characters. So lighting, image quality and colour matching matter because those things take you out of engagement.

Web content tends to be self-conscious and, once again, intended for short spurts of viewing. You're supposed to be only semi-engaged, and you can turn it off at any time and come back to it.

And magazines flourished, but didn't replace the novel. A female reader wanting romantic fantasies wouldn't pick up a magazine, she'd pick up a Harlequin. Heavy Metal didn't replace sci-fi novels. Doesn't mean magazines don't have value -- different forms, different methods of consumption, different products. And it's worthless to have the work approach of one (as well as the production/marketing/business model) applied or compared to the other.


www.derekmok.com

here is where my exact quote came from with a lot of other things i have read.















Online Video Ad Spending to Surge 89% in 2007
Written by Allen Stern - November 6, 2006

I am sitting in a press conference here at ad:tech and eMarketer has just released a study showing that online video advertising spend to increase 89% in 2007.
From their press conference:
Spending by marketers, in love with the promise of video online, will be responsible for an 89% higher growth rate in 2007 over 2006, according to a new eMarketer report.
The release goes on to say that video ad spend is predicted to reach $775 million, up from $410 million this year, it will only represent 4.2% of the entire online ad total in the US.
By 2010, $3 billion will be spent on video ads.
Report goes on to say, one in 10 advertising dollars in 2010 will be spent on online video ads.



Home » Archives » 2006 » Nov » 06 » Online Video Ad Spend to Surge 89 Percent in 2007...
Online Video Ad Spend to Surge 89 Percent in 2007


Spending on online video advertising is expected to increase 89 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, according to a new eMarketer report, "Internet Video: Advertising Experiments & Exploding Content."

Video ad spend in the U.S. will reach $775 million in 2007, growing 89 percent from $410 million in 2006, eMarketer predicts. Still, online video ad spend will constitute just 4.2 percent of total online ad spending in the U.S. However, that proportion is expected to reach 11.5 percent in 2010, becoming a $2.9 billion business.
"At some time early in 2010, one in 10 dollars devoted to internet advertising will go for video placements," said David Hallerman, eMarketer's senior analyst and author of the report.
The high year-over-year growth rates of online video ad spend are expected to continue over the next several years: 67.7 percent in 2008, 53.8 percent in 2009 and 45.0 percent in 2010.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Hey...look at that. FACTS. Awesome

All the statistics in the world pointing at internet spending doesn't mean a hill of beans if the work sux. Content is king - always will be. It all still falls on the Artist to produce good interesting work & button-pushers will be on the outside looking in at a very low end salary / rate card. You still have to make good decisions and care about your work.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

> All the statistics in the world pointing at internet spending doesn't mean a hill of beans if the
> work sux.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics."

As Jeff Harrell says, none of us is a market analyst, but I'm inclined to suggest a hypothesis: Just because internet advertising is growing faster doesn't mean it's going to replace everything else.

A baby gains weight by about 300 per cent in his/her first year. Doesn't mean s/he is heavier than an adult who gains no weight in one year. Per centile increase isn't the only yardstick, and you can't compare growth in a very young format (internet) with growth in a saturated, mature format (broadcast television, print media). How many websites get started in a year compared with TV networks?


www.derekmok.com

Derek is surely on the right track. But it must not be overlooked that you're staring at total advertising spending figures.

Say last year my ad budget was $1,000, and with that I bought ten ads. This year I still only want to buy ten ads, but the price of advertising has gone up, so in order to buy the same number of ads, I need to budget $2,000. That's a 200% increase in my ad budget! But I didn't actually buy any more advertising. I just had to spend more.

Looking at projections of total spending tells you nothing at all about how much your own business, as a provider of creative (or not-so-creative) services, is set to grow.

Totally..
Content is the most important, then i would put camera work and quality. If an editor has that and some type of passion for style and rhythms, he has a great opportunity.

where the content is delivered is my only debate in this thread. How we adapt to the evolution of the delivery is key. We all want to make some euros and have more creative freedoms.

Quote
wayne

think the problem many of us are having with your topic J - is that those numbers are for inline advertising in general and from my experience , 60% of that money is in media placement and programming. there is probably 30% on graphics and whatever left goes to video.

I am not sure of the break down i have been looking into that just today as you said it. But it is some what of an obscure definition which is making it difficult to commercially define. That made it difficult to sell for me in the beginning. Now i have a clear definition of key phrases that potential clients want to hear that gives them the Eureka moment.

I have been at trying to find niches for a long time and this one has been sticking for 3.5 years. (thus my term ''Internet Editor'' ) My friend here works for a movie-house as an editor started calling me that.

So i started looking at it like another sub-industry of editing.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

OK, now I see why we don't debate business issues on this forum...

Content is NOT the king - CASH IS!

Having a debate about the quality of Youtube videos vs. theatrically released movies or broadcast TV is just mental masturbation, rather pointless.

I don't imagine that the 600 EA employees lost their jobs because of a lack of quality.

To Joe's point "It all still falls on the Artist to produce good interesting work" is precisely why Youtube is so popular, the quality of the video has nothing to do with it. Is there a lot of crap on YouTube, sure, just like there is a lot of crap TV shows and movies.

I think its a big mistake to hold up any one distribution channel as a means of measuring success. Besides why does this discussion have to become so grandiose? I hope no one here is saying the best way to make money is to produce YouTube videos or the only way to make money is to edit broadcast video. They are not mutually exclusive.

Wouldn't we all be better served by figuring out the most efficient ways to produce content at the highest reasonable quality that can be distributed via multiple channels?

Actually some of us are market analysts -- "Just because internet advertising is growing faster doesn't mean it's going to replace everything else." Wow, I hope TV doesn't kill the radio..

Its amazing how many broadcasters are turning to the Internet to drive veiwership to their shows. Do you really think such mature mediums would be doing that if they didn't see a significant return on that investment?

So, how do artisans in the business of producing content navigate through this so that WE make more money? I guess we could just say to hell with trying to figure this out and purchase stock in Google, NBC or Paramount. Hmm, I wonder who would make the most there???

Oy...this will go round in circles forever. corbett...you think too much. Slow day today?

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Quote
jeff
Looking at projections of total spending tells you nothing at all about how much your own business, as a provider of creative (or not-so-creative) services, is set to grow.

its doesn't, but it does tell you where you can look for new financial streams. It also helps to know that there maybe an opportunity that i am missing. the same way that foot steps in leaves tell you the someone is coming near.

Quote
derek
Just because internet advertising is growing faster doesn't mean it's going to replace everything else.

You are correct it i did seemingly say that. My real point was to say the it will spread the field a bit in competition for viewers and creators. (Sorta like how netflix and blockbuster competes.)

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I think we need to impose a posting quota on the forum on federal holidays. This is going nowhere.

yep i am just reading on the money side of video today and sent a few emails earlier. I just finished a bunch of projects and i need a no edit, chill-out day.

i thought it would be a good topic. We haven't had a topic like this in a couple months.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

What gets me is all these shows with HUGE internet presences. MONK...read Randy's Blog! My Name is Earl...read Randy's Blog (funny...same name...but Randy Discher and Randy Hickey). "Text 45373 to 800.555.5555 to get PSYCH updates on your phone." WTF is up with that? Why do I want some show update sent to my phone? I watch the show...I am done. A TV character's blog? Whatever...even my kids think that is silly. But, it works somehow.

LOST and the websites dedicated to giving more clues to the mystery...that I get. And even on Psyche they say go to the website to see bloopers. That is cute and fun, and I actually do that.

But Content is still king. No matter how slick and sharp and great looking KNIGHT RIDER is, the show still sucks. Polished turd. The original was much rougher looking, and better. But that isn't saying much...it sucked too. But I was 13, what did I know? A-Team was rough, but fun and good. If the show sucks, no one will watch it, no matter how good the quality is. If the show is good, people watch. So content is still king.

That being said, I turn more and more to HULU to watch OLD TV shows that I liked...SWAT, Lou Grant, Greatest American Hero. They are so fun to watch that I don't care too much about the quality.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Shane, I Netflix'd the first season of "Land of the Lost" last weekend, fully expecting to have the same reaction to it that you had to the original "Knight Rider."

But you know what? "Land of the Lost" is still awesome.

BEWARE OF SLEESTAK!

Quote
Derek
How many websites get started in a year compared with TV networks?

ask how many .tv's are going up. Most will fall but a lot will make it. The internet can have endless .tv's . Eventually someone is gonna figure out an efficient means of channeling it to your samsung 50".

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Apple TV anyone? You can download shows and do this. Heck, I hook my laptop up to my TV when watching Greatest American Hero. Looks like poo...but man is it fun watching that guy try to fly...SAME blue screen in every frickin show...just new background. CHEAP TV my friends...

And I will turn to the web when I miss an episode of MONK or LIFE. But I doubt that it will be my primary source. God, we have 500 channels on DirecTV, and and any one time 498 of them are showing crap. Add internet to this...with lack of certain controls (do what you want!) and there will be more crap out there.

I miss the 3 networks. Only quality got through. Now we have to put up with an MTV that doesn't play music, but rather 25 stupid reality shows.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

Just want to stay neutral.
I think that anyone you can edit well in FCP, will well, be able to edit for the
"web explosion" of editing-when this happens.

Robert Moog, late inventor of the Moog Synthesizer said
(and I paraphrase)

"artistic expression and talent will generally transfer well from one medium to another"

Quote
J.Corbett

Are you honestly trying to tell me that 47% of people who see a video ad on the internet click through?

Look dude, I'm on your side too -- I think broadcast and cable are both going the way of the dodo ... but let's not start lying about internet advertising quite yet.

> Are you honestly trying to tell me that 47% of people who see a video ad on the internet click
> through?

What they probably mean is 47 per cent of the people who took any action after seeing the ad. Those who ignored the ad aren't even counted -- notice that all four categories add to 100 per cent, and there's no category for "no action".

See? Lies, damned lies and statistics.


www.derekmok.com

Quote
mike
I think broadcast and cable are both going the way of the dodo ... but let's not start lying about internet advertising quite yet.

As Joe said, " where are your facts to back that statement up?" Show me something that contradicts this. I think you will be hard pressed to find a study or chart that says internet video is dropping off.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Television going the way of the dodo? Hardly. They said the same thing about film when TV came along...look what happened there.

I for one prefer watching TV to looking at my small computer screen. Thus why I hook my laptop up to the TV when I watch HULU. But I would MUCH PREFER watching it on regular TV.

I am glued to my computer enough with work and these forums...


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

thats the missing bridge i see too.

yes net on the TV looks horrid. However i feel like soon there will be a way of getting high quality (at least full sd) to transmit from the web to the TV.
YouTube via laptop to TV is horrible nearly unwatchable in some cases.

We are not far from a bridge either. Its a matter of a few tweaks to get a fullscreen 4:3 or 16:9 h264 to play with acceptable quality levels on your TV.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

O IF ONLY THERE WERE A WAY.

[www.apple.com]

Yeah apple TV is great. Its still a load and play machine though maybe the next version will have the unit stationary and tunable to different feeds like channels.
Even if i would dl half the movie then finished in the background while the beginning played.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

>A-Team was rough, but fun and good.

Haha... I watched Wonder Woman recently on TV... Fun stuff.

Eh... J.Corbett, statistics can say whatever you want it to say. Numbers help it look more convincing. Want facts? Push the numbers, recategorize. Questionaires? Phrase it differently to get different results, then your study is "backed up".

How many times have you clicked on Adsense, for that matter? Or visited one of those annoying pop up pages to subscribe? How many times have you subscribed to one of those "Make it longer" spam emails?

And yea, Derek is right. It missed an important category- those who took no action. In other words, you can also interprete that bunch of statistics as an advertisement with an intention to sell.

On the other hand, I'm actually kind of concerned that the internet seems to lack accountability. You'll find it much harder to sue someone you bought a web product from, than a walk-in store. Also, how can you be absolutely sure that a website will deliver a good and that it works as advertised? There isn't a lot of regulation on it, and that's a problem, if it isn't already. But that's a side topic.

As far as this forum is concerned, it's user oriented. The users post, and the users answer. If more guys are doing stuff for web, there will be more posts for web related topics.

I am interested in how this whole web phenomenon will turn out. Will TV go the way of the novel? Will Film and TV editors become videographers, along with cinematographers, directors, producers, screenwriters, etc? Is the computer situated in the wrong room to cause a sufficient impact in consumer TV viewing habits? We do know, that the last thing a teenager will do, is to meet up with friends and go to a cyber cafe to surf web pages. Humans are lonely creatures and we need to socialize, which is the purpose served by TV shows, films, etc.. We also do know, that the Film experience has stayed largely the same for the past 80 years.

I am convinced, that broadcasting, or rather, an authoritative voice to tell the audience what to watch, what to listen to, what to buy, will not die off. As human beings, we need that information, and that big brother voice. We buy newspapers, read magazines, books, watch TVs, read that Yahoo most popular chart to find out what to watch, read, spend our time. We are a social herd, to some degree, so there will be an authoritative voice, somewhere. I'm curious to see how it will turn out and what will happen.

One of the keys may be in the integration of technology, which has been picking up at a considerable pace over the past decade- cameras and phones, the computer, etc... Will the TV and the Computer merge? Or will individualism prevail? Eg. You can't have 5 people in the same house browsing the web off one TV screen.

Broadcast, TV and film.. As far as quality is concerned, the key here may lie in what happened in audio and music. Stereo was an invention that came out a while ago, then Dolby surround sound. But how many households have a 5.1 surround and a high quality audio set? Or even for that matter, properly placed stereo speakers? Some time ago came DVD-A (96khz 24 bits), and also at the same time, the proliferation of internet bootlegged Mp3s. At the same time, music companies became extremely paranoid about piracy, and started suing their customers base- more specifically, the people (usually teenagers) who download pirated music. On another note, DVD-A was supposed to be an improvement in quality- from CDs developed from technology created in the 70s, to a much higher quality product.

Up till today, i do not believe that DVD-A has, or will ever take over the CD. In fact, I believe that portable Mp3 players (including handphones) has replaced the CD. Will 192khz/24 bit recordings on Blu-Ray replace the CD? I somehow do not think so.

We do know, that for now, many people are more than satisfied watching a DVD off a HDTV.

But then again, is it fair to compare the music industry with the film and TV industry? A decent feature film gets a lot more people involved, just to get a palatable end product.



www.strypesinpost.com

Our Oz Government station, ABC has an interesting take on web view. I'm not sure if you guys outside Australia can view this, but check out http://www.abc.net.au/tv/iview/

Most shows are left up for a few weeks at a time, then replaced with new content. I am luckily with an isp that allows free traffic from the site, so the streaming doesn't count towards my broadband download limit.

Quality isn't fabulous, but it's not too crappy at fullscreen, either. Of course, all the shows are broadcast quality to begin with.