Category Archives: digital media

April 25, 2013 · 11:11 am

Water Everywhere But…

I know – you were thinking about Coleridge when you woke up this morning.  Hey – me too!  In particular, the line from the Rime Of The Ancient Mariner about “water, water everywhere but nary a drop to drink.”

Image representing YouTube as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

OK, I didn’t wake up thinking that but I was reminded of it when I read some data put out by the folks at Outrigger Media.  They measure how brands use YouTube.  The top 500 brands generate 442 million views every month – a bit less than a million each on average, which is pretty good.  But there are some other data which are a little concerning that I thought you might find interesting.

If you’ve spent any time on YouTube (go ahead, admit it!) you’ve probably noticed that much of the branded material is just repurposed TV ads.  In fact, in some brands’ categories (food & beverage), 15% of the videos are just that.  The technology, automotive, and apparel brands (who seem to do a lot of original content – demos, mini-movies, etc.) on YouTube are attracting the largest audience, more than half of the Top 500 brands’ monthly views.  However, the top brands channels are averaging just 35,000 subscribers, which is way less than their number of Twitter followers (more than 200,000).

Many clients have mentioned “going viral” as a goal with some video content.  I caution them that it’s a lot easier to capture lightning in a bottle.  Basically, there’s research that shows you’ve got about three days to make that happen, and if the content hasn’t been shared a lot by then it’s probably not going to happen (even though it can keep growing for a few months).  That said, the Outrigger data shows that we have a fertile field – YouTube – that’s one of the biggest audience areas on the internet and yet brands can’t seem to make anything grow there on a consistent basis.  If consumers had a strong interest in what the brands were planting, why wouldn’t they be asking to be updated regularly by subscribing?  Apparently, not enough fear of missing out in this case.

YouTube is the ocean – there’s water everywhere in the form of consumers from which thirsty brands are trying to drink.  Look like Coleridge was right.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Reality checks

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 23, 2013 · 10:56 am

Taking An Umbrella

Sometimes I think that changing landscape of the media business is like the weather:  everyone complains about it but almost no one does anything.  In fact, if you spend any time at all following developments in the media space, you read a lot more about the old models trying to sue the new out of existence (Aereo, YouTube, etc.) than you do about new models being adopted quickly by the older business models.  So today, we have a little food for thought and an example of what can happen when a newer company adapts rapidly.

Image representing Netflix as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

As reported by multiple sources this morning:

Netflix‘s Q1 numbers are in, and the company reports that it now has 29.17 million subscribers in the US alone — that’s 2 million more than the number of subscribers the streaming video provider had at the end of 2012. Globally, Netflix reports more than 36 million subscribers, an addition of 3.05 million new customers when compared to the end of 2012/previous quarter…This is, for the first time, greater than HBO’s domestic subscription base of 28.7 million.

And another point:

Netflix isn’t a cable network, but it competes for attention with television fare beyond just HBO. And in that context, Netflix commands more attention—87 minutes per US household per day—than any American cable network.

30 million subs at $8 at month is a quarter of a billion dollars every month in gross revenues and high engagement.  Not too shabby.  That money is funding original programming such as House Of Cards (the implications of which I discussed earlier).  Moreover, House Of Cards itself was bought using all of the knowledge Netflix had on its subscribers’ viewing habits and preferences, something older media doesn’t have since the traditional TV ratings provide next to nothing of value when compared to the granular data streaming services have.  Anyone see that changing?

A couple of years ago Netflix was tied in to physical media, which is still a small percentage of its business.  It was smart enough to pivot to streaming, taking advantage of the growth of broadband and the ubiquity of mobile devices that can’t handle the physical media upon which Netflix had originated   Sure, there was a rather large misstep along the way as they separated the DVD and streaming price plans.  However, they did an excellent job of recovering over the last 18 months, mostly because they listened to their customers and provided increased value by adding more original programming.

The lesson I take from this is that spending energy defending an outdated business model rather than moving forward to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by market changes is ultimately a recipe for failure.  Like the weather, the change is going to happen.  Either dress appropriately or drown in the rain.  You with me?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 18, 2013 · 8:25 am

Is Streaming Hurting Traditional TV?

Once in a while a piece of research shows up that’s just confusing and such was the case the other day.  GfK Research has been doing annual surveys of network TV viewing for the past six years and the seventh iteration has produced some data that I can’t quite figure out.  Maybe you can help me.

Diagram of Streaming Multicast

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the last seven years:

the proportion of those who say they “expect to be able to watch my favorite shows on a device of my choice” has nearly doubled, from 19% in 2006 to 34% now. But those who watch network programs via streaming options are now more likely to say that this erodes their “traditional” viewing of the same shows. One in three (33%) report that they watch less “regular” TV as a result of streaming viewing, compared to one in four (24%) who say they watch more — a net differential of -9 percentage points.

In other words, viewers expect the networks to hand them the weapon with which the viewers murder the nets’ business.  After all, if they’re watching less, there are fewer eyeballs to sell.  It’s the old “trading analog dollars for digital dimes” argument.  But let’s turn to the man (Jeff Zucker, then of NBC, now of CNN) who made that argument and gain a bit of insight into the research:

“We believe in ubiquitous distribution, we want our content to be available everywhere,” Zucker said, also noting that “We’re not afraid to try things and stop them.”

He continued: “What we’ve lost in terms of viewers and ad dollars on the traditional analog systems is not being made up for on the digital side. Until we do that, there’s a risk to all our business plans,” said Zucker.

So actually, it seems that what the research is saying is not that interest in what the networks are airing is lessening – quite the contrary.  27% of those who use streaming or downloaded video now say that they “watch a greater number” of shows because of these options — more than double the 2006 figure of 12%. And 21% report that they spend more time watching TV content thanks to digital viewing options.  The problem seems to be with “regular” TV, which I assume means the program stream as offered by the network through your TV at specific times.  Survey results show 33% say they watch less traditional TV with streaming options, while 24% say they watch more.  As recently as 2008, GfK’s research showed that streaming options provided a net benefit to regular TV viewing; that year, the differential was +5 points, with 25% saying they watched more regular TV, while 20% said they watched less.

What all of this seems to mean is overall TV viewing isn’t declining.  The question for TV nets is how to derive as much revenue from streaming as traditional viewing. GfK also found 32% are visiting network sites via a mobile device so let’s put that inventory into the mix as well.  Maybe the research is a cry for sellers to do a better job of getting premium CPM’s for these measurable engaged viewers of the streams?  What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , ,