Video Ads UK Report.. They're marching on as the dominant Ad medium. 18% higher click-thrus too.

Video is becoming the dominant Ad display notably for mobiles.

According to a new Business Insider Report, US digital Video Advertising revenue will top 5 Billion usd this year. That's growth of +22% every year for the last 5.

It's replacing desktop static Advertising Display (currently 26%) forecasted to 40% by 2020.

Video Ads produced higher click-thru rates (CTR) than normal display ads. 18% higher.

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter have joined most media in offering new video display opportunities.

And viewability issues are being replaced by guaranteed video views.

So Video Ads march on.
You need to be involved in space with your campaign.

And yes, we create them and yes, we place them.

Video Ads becoming the top Ad Format says Business Insider! We agree!

Video is becoming the top Advertising formats on desktop and mobile but particularly growing on mobile (3 x faster). That's according to a new Business Insider Report.

Video revenues this year is about 5 Billion usd but it will grow +21% each year for the next 5. It is replacing static display because it performs better and is more watchable.

On Social Media too, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram all now (recently) have video ad platforms/opportunities.

Although we have no doubt at Streamabout. Even in a local market, our business producing online digital video and video ads, is growing +50% year-on-year. It is an exploding space. Great.

And if you need Video Ads.....streamabout.com

"Yet more evidence that Advertisers are pulling money out of TV" - says Business Insider.

Business Insider UK, reports that there is now "quantifiable evidence" of advertisers switching away from TV.

It's based on the US Standard Media Index which pulls about 80% of US Ad Agency spend including the 5/6 Global Networks. In October, it showed a further drop of 9%.

Mightn't sound like a lot, but it is considerable especially in a high sales month like October. 

TV viewing declined too, by -4%.

And given that it was October, it's normally the pre-booking period for Christmas which traditionally kept TV prices high. So advertisers are now switching to more flexible media such as online digital video. Digital Advertising grew +11%. Newspapers grew +5%. 

So it looks like digital video is now starting to take advertising dollars away from TV. A shift that has been well predicted and in fact, was slow in coming.

Omnicom recommended to clients earlier this year, to switch 10-25% of budgets away from TV onto online video.

The audience has shifted.
Now it looks like Advertisers and Agencies are shifting too.

Generation Y. You won't get them on TV, you will get them watching online video.

'Millennials' are often referred to as 'Generation Y', the generation born after 'Generation X', probably born from the 1980's. So they're 20-30's year old. 

In a way, they are now the Internet generation and this is an interesting study from 'BusinessInsider' and 'Youme' which looks at their habits.

They're watching less TV. In fact, their constant decline in TV viewing means they're switching online to watch content. No great surprise there....to some of us....but it does re-enforce the ongoing collapse of traditional TV globally.

They are though, high viewers of all content. They like to go online and are prepared to watch. Whether that's long form video or short form, they are there and they are watching.

The favoured device is of course, mobile (smartphone) which means they're watching content when they can be distracted. Importantly too they're using video whilst their shopping (13%). So clearly looking at products and product reviews as they purchase. So they multi-task.

Their "Ad" recall is low - I think probably because they're not bothered by it and want to get onto the real reason they're watching video. A pre-roll just gets in their way and it also shows (I think), that simply replicating a TV commercial as an online duplicate, is not working. 

Online Video is way better, so online deserves, a different version of the TV Commercial - especially when you can skip it. You need to get your message across now, in 10 seconds before the skipping begins!

They also see brands that are using video online as being 'modern' and therefore, more applicable to them. The medium is the message.

All of this means that to attract this audience, TV is no longer the answer. You need online video that works across all devices, notably smartphones.

We are saying it a long time, but this is not a trend, it's where the future lies.

Social Media profiling and the Ad targeting that's needed. One size doesn't fit all.

Business Insider has produced a really interesting report as part of their BI Intelligence work about the general profile of Social Media sites.

It's not exactly shocking but, it allows us to consider the different profiles of each site rather than consider them all, just as "Social Media". As Social Media develops, it's clearly going to become more niche.

More sites targeting specific interests rather than how it all started as "catch all" sites. They each have a different audience with different beliefs that we need to understand better.

This should be of real interest to brands and advertising.

Here is the broad analysis extract from the Business Insider website;

*Facebook still skews young, but the 45- to 54-year-old age bracket has seen 45% growth since year-end 2012. Among U.S. Internet users, 73% with incomes above $75,000 are on Facebook (compared to 17% who are on Twitter). Eight-six percent of Facebook's users are outside the U.S.

Instagram: Sixty-eight percent of Instagram's users are women.

Twitter has a surprisingly young user population for a large social network — 27% of 18 to 29-year-olds in the U.S. use Twitter, compared to only 16% of people in their thirties and forties. 

LinkedIn is international and skews toward male users. 

Google+ is the most male-oriented of the major social networks. It's 70% male.

Pinterest is dominated by tablet users. And, according to Nielsen data, 84% of U.S. Pinterest users are women.

Tumblr is strong with teens and young adults interested in self-expression, but only 8% of U.S. Internet users with incomes above $75,000 use Tumblr.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-primer-on-social-media-demographics-2013-9#ixzz2i5OZE81m

The Facebook profile data (young but broadening) comes as no surprise.

Instagram users are 68% women is a surprise because it basically started as a photographic nerd site that has developed into general photo sharing. Why that should be more women users, seems to reflect that women like to share their pics more (aka Facebook). So perhaps that's just a trend or reflects the scourge of selfies. 

Twitter is younger largely, because younger people are early adopters and they are the SMS generation but again, it's broadening. More older people and business see the benefits of tweeting. 

LinkedIn being more international and male, reflects their business ethos and positioning as a place to connect businesspeople. So that's fairly obvious.

Google+ being more male is unfathomable. Google+ I mean is unfathomable. It has members who don't know they are (like me) and a manner of connecting up your Social Media that no one understands but that seems to screw up everything else. So really, anything to do with Google Circles is beyond me.

Pinterest users are female and that is no surprise either (84%) as the site has been dominated by Fashion, Cooking and more female activities. But being dominated by tablets usage, is. So perhaps more women are using Tablets like Ipads and traditionally better at keeping, taking and sharing pics than blokes?

Tumblr is micro blogging, so perhaps teens and younger adults are more prepared to show and share their feelings to the world and perhaps they have more time to do so. Although my experience of blogging, is that it's an older profession. But Tumblr as a brand, is very cool in the blogosphere so that too could be the attraction.

What of course that means, and excuse me for stating the obvious, but different Social Media networks reach out to different demographics for different reasons. Hardly earth shattering but often not understood. And it's more crucial than it sounds.

Ad Campaigns tend for example, to be one creative treatment pushed out everywhere. Where in fact, it would be far more effective to have different, more relevant copy, for each platform. 

The Ad on Pinterest for example, should talk more to women and possibly featuring high end visuals. Whereas the Ad on LinkedIn should have a business slant.

But we don't do that. We use Ad networks to push it all out uniformly because we see it as all being "impressions" or as all being just Ads for the "samey Social Media" when it's not. Or shouldn't be.

Like traditional Media, different newspapers reach different audiences. Online is no different. When Streamabout do video for example, it may be that a video needs a different edit or a different take, depending on what site it's being shown on. Rather than the same video for everyone. The same thing applies here.

And it's a sign that Digital Advertising and Marketing, is maturing when we start to see coarse data like this. Because we're moving from trying to keep up with what's out there, to understanding what they do.

Exactly as traditional media started.

So we just need to understand it all better to do it better as the fog of an all-embracing Social Media lifts.

Rumours abound of Apple's entry into Social Media buying The Fancy? Or Pinterest?

There's no doubt about Pinterest being loved - it's not - it's adored.
Without a doubt it is THE Social Media site of the decade and being so visual it can actually be beautiful. (Have a look at Pinterest's Streamabout pins for example! http://pinterest.com/streamabout/).

It's very much a sharing site for photos that really started mid 2011 and in May this year, raised 100 million usd valuing it at 1.5 billion usd. Some success.

Although its growth has slowed a bit in June to about 16% (still fantastic), it is on its way to be the 4th largest traffic site in the world after Google, YouTube and Facebook. 

Apple on the other hand, the highest valued company in the world, sitting on billions in cash, have lacked one thing - Social Media. Apart from Social Media bringing "members" in its own right, it also gives Apple a chance to showcase their products. If you own the devices....it's easy to promote the Social element and especially on Apple TV due late 2012 (yes, they've already sold 4 million but officially it's launched later this year).

The New York Times, a credible news source, indicated Apple were actually in talks to buy Twitter recently but they didn't go anywhere. An indicator of Apple's desire to get into social.

Apple also has to use its cash to invest. There's no point in sitting on it. 
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/apples-worth-is-539-billion-with-117.html

And so it was always felt that Apple would acquire Pinterest to deliver a Social site, but also because the style of Pinterest seemed very similar to Apple. It just made sense.

In fact, if rumours are true (and they're very strong, led by Business Insider), Apple are about to buy Pinterest lookalike, The Fancy. In some ways that's not fair comment because The Fancy has been there first (so the lookalike is actually Pinterest) but The Fancy is more like Ebay with better pictures. Kind of like an Instagram with a cart. No, I don't like it.

It's a shopping market site since, if you "fancy it", you can buy it. In today's crass world of monetisation, it does the job and with Jack Dorsey of Twitter fame, Eric Eisner (son of Disney's Michael Eisner), Chris Hughes (one of the 500 claimants as a Facebook co-founder) on the Board, it probably ticks all the investment boxes. But Pinterest it just ain't.

The Fancy is considered 2 years old and only has 20 employees yet the rumour is more than strong that Apple are about to acquire it. Apple CEO Tim Cook, notoriously social Media shy, opened a Fancy account and that started the guessing. Reportedly worth 100 million usd it's reported to be generating 10,000 usd a day in sales.

There's no doubt about Apple's need to get into the Social space - it will come and there's no doubt they have the cash to do it.

For me, The Fancy is not it. It's too small and too "commercey" to be able to scale more than it is. And it's just all too ugly.

I've no doubt on the rumours - I've heard them too much - but sometimes a company will do that in order to negate a target's value. In other words to show that it has plenty of options.

The Iphone 5 is due out on September 12 too (by all insider reports) and Apple have a lot riding on it, so it's a busy time to be looking at acquisitions just right now. Another reason I'm doubting it.

No, I think this is an Apple game.
Pinterest is the target.

Microsoft acquires Yammer for 1.2 billion. Leaving billions scratching their heads. A bubble?

OMG! Microsofts Steve Ballmer and the Yammer boys badly pictured officially by Microsoft - could have flashed it through Instagram - announcing the acquisition this week and looking very 1970's. The new leaders in Social Media wouldn't you say?

I've been blogging a fair bit about whether we're in a bubble or not and as recently as last week here    
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4671466363911057753#editor/target=post;postID=1971760983930398308

But I also go back to the Instagram deal and Mashable valuation in their CNN sale, and marvelled at the prices. After all, I'm not against a bubble and if money piles into the space, then good for us.

I note too that 3 year old Pinterest (yes, sure, I know, we all love Pinterest) without any revenues of note, raised 100m usd in the last week. But the hugely interesting thing about that, is that it was based on a valuation of 1.5 bn. 1.5 BILLION. Now it was late last year (yep 7 months ago) when Pinterest valued itself at 200 m. So how does a valuation increase so dramatically so quickly? Unless because of other high valuations and a scramble to do deals at any price. A clear sign that we're in a bubble.


And so along comes Microsoft. Remember them? They were the people who largely owned this space until Apple re-invented itself with Jobs and once Social started. I think they've lost their way although have made some good strides in the mobile phone market with Samsung but generally, not the ship they were. They did pay 8.5bn (yep, 8.5 BILLION) for Skype mid 2011 and did, well, not a lot with it and have recently announced a payment plan (which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?) and Advertising. 

And this was the big plan.......increase payments and bring in advertising?

So I can't help thinking that they want to be back in the space, at the forefront, and now are desparate for attention. So they see Facebook and their 1bn acquisition of Instagram and they say, let's go one better.

Then they find Yammer. Never heard of them? Nearly everyone on the wires agree even those who'd you expect to know it all. Nope they say and look blankly. And Yammer has now been acquired by Mircosoft for 1.2 bn usd. A little bit more than Facebook's deal. Interesting pyschology that.


Yammer launched in 2008 and it provides for private communications within businesses - sort of a social network for your company. In September 2010, it was reported to have 3 million users and predominantly Fortune 500 valuable companies. My understanding is however, that this was based on free trials, but I could be wrong (BusinessInsider have a story that estimates only 20% of Yammer customers actually pay).

Features include allowing workers to share events directly to Microsoft Outlook. Videos and URLs can be shared. Topics of conversations can be shared. Conduct polls can be created, files can be shared. It allows you to see who's online and who's not. Sorry, have I missed something? That's it?

But I think critically important here, is the reporting features that allow company owners track their employees activities. Perhaps that's why companies use it? Perhaps? You think? Yeah Yeah.

It was also well funded having received circa 150m usd in support but obviously a big cash day in this acquisition. Clearly of course, it opens a channel to expose Microsofts products to high-end Yammer customers but a 1.2bn channel? 

A lot of people are bemused with this acquisition.
It's difficult to really see the pull of Yammer and the 'perfect fit' for Microsoft. 
It's more quickly and possibly unfairly, seen as an attempt to get back into the game with big time acquisitions, flagging big time ambitions.

I don't know.

But it seems a lot for a company that no one had ever heard of.

Except if we were in a bubble.