EyeView's Blog

5 Things To Think About For Your Video

I came across this great post from a month or two back that I had to share with you. It’s from Christopher Ming Ryan’s excellent blog entitled The Way We Watch.

When he’s not blogging, Ryan works as a writer, producer and director at Wheelhouse Communications supporting clients like PepsiCo, AT&T and Random House.

The stated purpose of the blog is to talk about producing video in a 2.0 world, but rather than talk philosophically about his subject, Ryan focuses on the pragmatic with post after post delivering usable tips and useful recommendations. 

This post is one of the more lightweight entries, but it covers such great ground that I want to give it another airing.

Using links to one great article and four YouTube videos, Ryan presents a list of five key factors in creating a video for marketing.

1. Make sure it’s memorable – Clear images and language
2. Use sound to hook your viewers and keep them watching
3. Surprise the viewer or at least give him/her a reason to watch to the end
4. Give the viewer a choice – every click means greater engagement
5. Leave them wanting more

Much of this ground has been covered elsewhere, so it’s nice to see it presented in such a succinct way with great links to back it up.

Trust Indicators and Conversion

One of the repeated themes from the Conversion Conference last week in San Jose, was the importance of displaying your trust indicators prominently on your landing page.

Trust indicators are the visual clues you can use to let your site visitors see that you can be trusted. If your conversion involves some kind of financial transaction, you want to show that you have the highest levels of financial protection. If you’re collecting data, you want to demonstrate that your site is secure and your visitors’ data will be kept private. If you’re promising to deliver something, you want to express your commitment to service and punctuality.

In their New York Times bestselling book Trust Agents, Chris Brogan and Julien Smith write about the importance of trust as a commodity that can be shared, lent and borrowed. In addition to the kinds of security and integrity indicators, I mentioned above you should also borrow trust from your valued customers by adding their logos to your site. When your visitors see the logos of other trusted brands on your site they are most likely to trust you.

So far, so simple. Trust indicators have been tested on many sites and they have been shown to boost conversion in many cases.

As far as the authority borrowed from existing customers goes, I’m totally on board. As a consumer or a responsible buyer for a company, I can see why using the logos of big brand companies is a persuasive tool in convincing me to purchase. If it’s good enough for [fill in the name of a company you admire here] then it should be good enough for me. I get it.

But the security icons leave me a little cold. I’m a sophisticated browser. I feel confident about finding the results I want through search. I believe I can discern whether or not a company trying to sell me something is trustworthy or not based on the language they use and the images they present. I don’t believe that if any of those indicators gave me pause that it would be an image of a padlock that set me straight. I’m also not convinced that any symbol of security would help me overcome serious misgivings I might have about an online provider’s ability to deliver on its promises.

Leaving aside my personal prejudices, I still want to determine whether either of these kinds of trust icons have a place in conversion videos. Is there something more persuasive about animation with a voiceover which makes the flat representation of a security icon irrelevant? Should the corporate logos of your customers scroll through a video or should each one be animated as it would be on its own site? At what point does the “borrowed trust” of someone else’s logo become a distraction rather than a trust indicator and an aid to conversion?

Of course, I don’t have answers to all these questions right now. But you can be sure we will be running more tests with video trust indicators in the future.

Conversion Conference - First Thoughts

It’s been a hectic couple of days here in San Jose. The inaugural Conversion Conference, set up by Tim Ash from SiteTuners, is generally agreed by both attendees and presenters to have been an unqualified success.

From my perspective it was gratifying to spend time with so many conversion professionals. Everywhere I went people were talking about testing methodologies and the comparative advantages of A/B and multivariate testing. It was conversion geek heaven.

The speaking tracks were broken up into four groups: Persuasion, Best Practices, Hands On and Testing. Having sampled at least one presentation of each group I found them to be relevant and useful.

The conference kicked off Tuesday morning with a keynote address from Tim Ash himself. Tim is one of the pioneers of Landing Page Optimization and he delivered an entertaining introduction breaking down the basics into easily digestible and practicable suggestions.

Straight after Tim, two presenters tag-teamed a session called The Power of Split Testing. Both Brooks Bell and Lance Loveday delivered valuable insights into the basis of this vital art. Brooks, in particular suggested the 5 Ts that must be considered when it comes to A/B testing:

• Traffic
• Technology
• Time
• Trust
• Team

Throughout this and every other session I was in, people were tweeting furiously to get the word out to their networks. By tuning in to the conference hashcode, #ConvCon, I was able to get real-time updates from the parallel track. It was a sign of the conference’s quality that there was always something interesting going in each of the two meeting rooms and seating space was almost always at a premium with listeners sometimes spilling out into the corridor.

Day two started in fine fashion with a presentation from Bryan Eisenberg delivered at breakneck speed. Bryan’s energy, undiminished by his impressive weight loss, woke everyone up and led into another day of fascinating sessions.

All in all, I feel that the conference more than justified its existence. There was a clear need for a dedicated conversion conference and I’m thrilled to note that the next one is already scheduled for October. I have the feeling that most of this week’s attendees will come back and that, once word gets out, there will be more people lining up to visit the show. 

For now we will have to rely on the presentations from this show which Tim Ash has promised to make available to everyone who attended. In addition, all the sessions were filmed. I’m not sure what Tim intends to do with all this footage, but, if you want to see it, you had better contact him yourself and request it.

Why I Don't Trust Nielsen

I came across this self-serving blog post at Nielsen.com, thanks to those awesome guys at MarketingCharts.

The gist of the Nielsen post is this. People watch ads on TV. People also watch ads when they watch full-length TV episodes online. Using each of the four metrics deemed important by Nielsen, online TV ads performed slightly better than regular TV ads. The four metrics are:

• General Recall
• Brand Recall
• Message Recall
• Likeability

The conclusion following these results is so delicious that I just have to quote it in full:

“Data shows that web video viewers are more engaged and attentive to the programs they are watching, which is likely a function of the viewing environment and the oft-required active mouse-clicking to initiate nd [sic] continue content.”

It’s not that I don’t agree with their findings. It’s more that I have serious misgivings about how they got them and what they intend to do with them.

“Data shows…”? Really? Which data? I’d like to see those figures and how you got them. Given that Nielsen notoriously extrapolates national TV viewing figures from a relatively small number of homogenous households, I am curious to hear more about their online video engagement statistics.

I’m also in love with the phrase “oft-required active mouse clicking”. It’s like someone from the 1950s has come to watch how we do things in the future. But then everything about Nielsen’s comparison of offline and online ads is so far from current that it’s laughable.

Online advertising isn’t about “Message Recall”. “Likeability” is not an end in itself and should not be measured as such. The majority of online advertising is about actions, not impressions and Nielsen, I’m afraid, has absolutely no way of measuring that.

If you really want to compare TV ads and online ads, you need to measure how many people made a purchase after seeing an ad – a metric that TV networks have been rightly coy about exploring as the results could undermine their entire business model; or at least undermine the high prices they charge, relative to online advertisers.

But we should give Nielsen some credit. They bravely point out that online ads are more effective that TV ads, even if the methodology behind this realization is a little dodgy. The recommendation must therefore be to lower spend on TV advertising and shift budget to online inventory, right? Wrong.

“…the data suggests the benefits of utilizing both platforms in tandem to achieve advertising objectives.”

Way to sit on the fence, Nielsen. It’s almost as if a large part of your revenue comes from TV networks trying to prove to advertisers that they should still be the primary supplier of ad space. Oh, wait, it does.

Check out this report which shows a minority interest sports channel paying $7.5 million dollars a year to Nielsen for the privilege of having its tiny viewing figures calculated, so that it can claim it has viewing figures, so that it can charge more money to advertisers for those figures. I shudder to think how much CNN or NBC must be paying.

If you’re a big advertiser debating where to focus your media buying for the next few seasons, you might want to find a better informed and more impartial source of information than Nielsen.

Flash Vs. HTML5 - Video On The iPad

Now that the iPad has arrived (although not specifically here, unfortunately) it’s time to look again at the impact it will have on the consumption of online video.

YouTube had its iPad app ready at launch after running on the iPhone since the early days, but of all the major TV networks, only ABC was geared up only on to stream its shows to the new device.

Netflix surprised everyone with their iPad app available in time for its launch, allowing you to stream from your queue and even continue from where you stopped watching on your computer or TV.

The New York Times suggested recently that Hulu is working on its iPad app, but that it is looking to try a subscription-based model for the first time. As loathe as I am to begin paying for content I could previously get for free, I can’t think of a better time for content distributors to introduce a paid service. A new device designed to make consumption easier and more enjoyable may be the incentive people need to change their attitudes to paid content.

So far, so interesting for content for entertainment purposes. The real issue arises around video as the key advertising medium for web browsing.

Apple is infamous in its rejection of Flash, Adobe’s omnipresent video ad delivery format. That means that unless a site has been specifically tailored for presentation on the iPad you will probably simply not see Flash video, Flash banners or any other Flash powered element when you browse there.

The alternative standard, HTML5, is a markup language that obviates the need for Flash all together. Jan Ozer at the Streaming Learning Center has taken the trouble to benchmark both Flash and HTML5 to see where the advantages lie. It’s worth wading through the techno-babble to see Ozer firmly reject Steve Jobs’s assertion that Flash is a CPU hog.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, writers like Dan Rayburn and Sarah Perez delve into the business politics of Jobs’s comment to suggest there is more at stake than mere CPU usage.

The debate continues, but if, as I suspect, the iPad becomes the key consumption device for disposable media like news and periodicals, then something will have to give. I’m not betting against Apple, but I’m also sure that Adobe will not give up ground without a fight.

Meaningless Statistics For Viral Video

I love a well presented chart or a neatly laid out table. The guys over at marketingcharts.com, for example, put out a daily newsletter that delivers one good insight per day without trying too hard.

But this report from the usually reliable Millward Brown left me utterly cold. They claim to have developed a metric for determining the viral potential of your video. Their metric includes “Buzz”, “Celebrity” and “Distinctiveness”. As far as I am aware none of these is measured in SI units. Worst of all is that loaded word “potential”. In other words, even if you accept the crazy notion that you can actually measure the celebrity-ness or the buzz-ocity of your video, you will still only arrive at a figure which shows the potential your video has to go viral. Your video may or may not fulfill its viral potential, but at least you will know how likely this was to have happened… potentially.

Based on Millward Brown’s new index and a survey of over 100 ads, a bizarre statistic was reported here and elsewhere stating that only 15% of ads go viral online. Firstly 15% seems shockingly high to me, but when you look at their definition of viral success you start to see all sorts of chicanery in action.

To back up this statistical flim flam, Millward Brown offers eight case studies analyzing, post facto, the main viral drivers behind each. It’s a classic instance of “past posting”, the delicious con tactic that was used in The Sting. Out of the eight videos analyzed, three were ads that were shown during this year’s Super Bowl. The other five were similarly big budget productions backed up with additional TV and print campaigns. The only lesson Millward Brown is teaching here is that if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making your video and then millions of dollars buying airtime for it so that tens of millions of people tuned in to the most watched program of the year see it, there is a chance that more people will watch it again online. It’s the daftest, most insignificant piece of research since this study into whether it’s better to be hit over the head by a full or empty beer bottle.

I understand that agencies are still taking millions of dollars from foolish advertisers to make viral videos with no discernible ROI. I get that this outmoded practice will be defended by other agencies paid by the first lot of agencies to try to lend them some integrity. But this latest attempt at selling the Eiffel Tower doesn’t even try to appear credible.

I call on the researchers at Millward Brown to use their metric to identify some viral successes (and failures) before they happen. Furthermore, in order for something to qualify as an online viral success the campaign must garner more eyeballs online than in any other medium. Let’s see you work your magic with that!

New Video Marketing Quiz Lands With A Bang

We’re really excited to launch the newest Video Marketing Quiz with all new questions.

Following the success of the last quiz, we wanted to top ourselves and present some of the data generated by the tests we run in the most engaging way we could imagine.

Since the last quiz we have seen the format picked up and imitated by Omniture/Adobe, which just makes us think that we created an exciting product.

To mark this launch we are giving away hundred of dollars in Amazon vouchers to the people who take the quiz and the Tweet their results.

Every hour for the first eight hours after the launch today at 10 am ET, five lucky tweeters will be selected and sent $20 to spend any way they wish.

It doesn’t get more exciting that that!

Enjoy the quiz and get tweeting!

Viral Videos Suck... or... This Too Shall Pass

First of all I want to thank Nalts and his excellent blog for bringing this video to my attention. It’s another epic mini-movie from OK Go that showcases the band’s innovative use of short-form video to market themselves and their music.

It’s very entertaining. It’s also fairly useless.

Let’s take a look at their last huge viral success. The video for Here It Goes Again rode the first wave of YouTube’s explosion into global consciousness. You’ve seen it. Four indie nerds doing a synchronized routine on treadmills. It’s very entertaining. According to YouTube’s figures it has been viewed almost 50 million times. That’s just from OK Go’s own channel. The same video on EMI’s channel has added another 1.5 million and there are probably a few hundred thousand more views with other unauthorized duplicates.

So the band have produced a video that’s been seen around 50 million times. What did they do with that? Not very much. There seems to have been very little strategy behind the whole thing. If you watch the video on YouTube there are no live links allowing you to purchase either the video itself or anything else by the band. The video serves no purpose other than to entertain. Even if you were to ascribe every purchase of the song’s parent album Oh No to a viewing of the video, you would still end up with a dreadful conversion rate. Fifty million videos viewed has translated, to date, into less than 250,000 albums sold. That’s an embarrassing conversion rate of less than half a percent.

It makes me want to scream. If only their YouTube page was linked to iTunes. If only there was a link to purchase a video ringtone of the video for ten cents. If only the page was designed to drive 50 million viewers towards some kind of action. Any kind of action. If only 99.5 percent of those views weren’t totally wasted.

Damian Kulash, lead singer with OK Go sees it differently. He believes that the video’s huge viral success helped the band to sell out concerts on five continents and win a Grammy. I don’t doubt any of that, I just wish he’d tried the video ringtone idea as well (and cut me in for a percentage).

Which brings us back to now. This new video from OK is very entertaining. Before it even went live on YouTube, Kulash was complaining in the New York Times, no less, about his record company’s refusal to allow video embedding. Kulash was concerned that without the possibility of his video going viral, the band would be unlikely to replicate the success they have achieved. Fortunately for us, EMI caved in and we can now embed the video.

In the two days since it launched, it has been viewed almost 2.5 million times. The video page still carries no advertising or identifiable call to action. Sales of the new album are, as yet, unknown.

I think the video is very entertaining. It still makes me want to scream.

comScore's Digital Year In Review

I know this report came out a week or so ago, but it's essential reading for anyone with more than a passing interest in the interwebs.

There is so much analysis produced these days that you need a report detailing the best reports to read. With all this noise, comScore continue to produce clear and informative statistics that always seem to answer the question someone in your office just asked you.

Some of the highlights from this report are the first-ever decline in annual growth rates for ecommerce as well as the unstoppable expansion of online video.

The report also captures the birth of Bing and the rise and rise of Facebook as it became the thrid largest display ad publisher in the US after Yahoo! and Fox Interactive Media (which includes MySpace).

You can download the entire report here, but you will have to give comScore some details first. It's well worth filling in the form to get to the report.

Enjoy.

Online Video Stories Of The Week

Over at Online Video Watch, Corey Kronengold comments on Brightroll’s announcement that they have been profitable for the past 12 months. Corey is not entirely trusting but he acknowledges the positive message this sends to the industry.

At comScore, December’s video viewing figures showed a new entry in the top ten video content properties as how-to syndication platform, 5min.com, hit 30 million US uniques for the month.

Fierce Online Video’s Jim O’Neill satisfied continued demand for iPad stories with a piece on Hulu’s rush to become iPad-friendly in time for the tablet’s launch or soon thereafter. There’s no doubt this story will run and run and the implications for the future of online video have yet to be fully determined.

At ReelSEO, Mark Robertson was delighted to report on the efforts of many of the online video platforms to support SEO as part of their offering. YouTube has been the de facto search engine for video until now, so it’s great to see these platforms supporting the indexing of video across all search engines.

Finally, today, no review of online video this week would be complete without mentioning the Superbowl. In what was a fairly lackluster year, the stand out commercial for me was this one for Snickers featuring Betty White (now with added Abe Vigoda). Geriatric genius!