Joan Rivers is alive and promoting the Iphone 6?

The problem with sponsored and pre-scheduled Social Media posts or Tweets, is that you need to keep an eye on them.

The much heralded Apple Iphone 6/U2 Album launch of last week, had sponsored, scheduled posts as part of its marketing drive.

One, from none other, than Joan Rivers.

The late, departed Joan Rivers that is. In fact, late, departed two weeks before the launch.

But that didn't stop her because on the day, she said she thought it was a 'great product". Indeed.

Prompting of course, a response. You get the picture.
Bad Apple.

Chris Burke @chrisburke

Follow

Joan Rivers talking about the iPhone 6... Maybe The Cloud is more than we think. pic.twitter.com/K8w3XLiJsR

1:19 PM - 19 Sep 2014

Dan Dryden @DanDryden

Follow

Well if the iPhone 6 is good enough for Joan Rivers from beyond the grave, it's good enough for me. ;-)

6:18 PM - 19 Sep 2014

Merry Morud @MerryMorud

Follow

#D’OH > The late #JoanRivers promotes #iPhone6 from beyond the grave. Steve Jobs could not be reached for comment http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/19/joan-rivers-iphone-6-facebook-instagram/ …

5:39 PM - 19 Sep 2014

Scotland goes to the polls. Newspapers fiddle. Rome "burns".

Very interesting piece on Mashable, given the day that's in it when Scotland goes to the polls, to examine the newspaper front pages today.

There's something beautiful about the design of 'The Guardian'; The 'Scottish Daily Mail' pins its colours to the mast; FT takes a more objective view; 'The Telegraph' (my paper of the decade) gets its readers right; 'The Sun' walks the line; 'The Mirror' doesn't and 'The Independent' looks great but says nothing.... Or something about democracy and the rest of the world....

Interesting though.

It'll be a Yes. 

No doubt about it. 

As Robbie Burns himself, once said.

(day after and I got that wrong! astonishing because I was never so sure of it and I cover/watch a lot of it. There you go)

Love this go at Apple by Samsung. Simple.

Love this go at Apple by Samsung.

Nice strong simple idea, little need for major production extravaganza or of spend. But good to have a go and good to get out next day using online video.

Makes you smile.

U2 New Album. It's free.

U2's new Album, 'Songs of Innocence' was released at The Apple Event with CEO Tim Cook. What's different about it is that immediately it went free to every itunes customer (500m) immediately.

Which is the largest album release of all time. Obviously.

It's on Itunes Radio and Beats music too but I've tried to find it and frankly, can't. But it's there.

And it's one hell of a promotion!
(but pretty hackneyed launch if you ask me.....)

New BusinessInsider Report. Video Ads replacing TV.

Video Ads are growing faster than any other medium according to a new report from the reliable BusinessInsider. It is exploding.

Not only that, they're replacing TV and have the highest click-thru than any other digital format.

As TV declines by circa -3%, Video Ads are growing +100% year-on-year and will reach 5 Billion usd by 2016 (from 2.8 Billion in 2013).

That's much faster than any other form of digital display as the medium attracts more advertisers. Programmatic buying, RTB is also driving their usage and viewability as well as new video platforms.

This is simply part of a story of an ongoing trend that sees Video online becoming the new advertising driver. They're becoming easier to find (YouTube is the second biggest Search engine after Google), easier to share and more engaging than a traditional 30 seconds of TV commercials. 

They're also much lower cost delivering a full mediaplan significantly (-70%) less than a TV expenditure and delivering higher audiences with full analytics regarding reach/frequency.

They do more, for less.

You'll get the report here 
http://www.businessinsider.com/digital-video-advertising-performance-and-growth-trends-2014-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=emailshare

But you'll get video ads from Streamabout.

Twitter, Ferguson and the future of News.

The USA Ferguson riots again highlight the role of Social Media, notably Twitter, in news.

The news of the shooting first appeared on Twitter, long before any Media arrived and was well tweeted before any coverage. Equally too, people shared pics and video of armed police, tear gas and so on, assuming the role of traditional TV news. In fact, Social Media activity became the news story in itself.

A greater proportion of black people use Twitter than white with some 22% of African Americans on Twitter according to The FT. This shoots to 40% of 18-29 year old African Americans versus 28% of young white people and Jack Dorsey (twitter founder) was a presence at the protests.

He in turn used his Social Media to further the stories and the images.

Interesting too, that law enforcement were slow to get behind the Twitter stories and to utilise it for themselves. When you don't, you lose control of the story and they did.

The use of Social Media in news is now so prevalent that it's hard to see the traditional provision of news crews at scenes with reporters, as adding anything to the story. They even get there late, compared to the immediacy of Social Media.

Perhaps we need to re-think that?
Perhaps what's needed is an army of Twitterers available to report reliably and immediately for news.

Ferguson has shown us that we are moving into a new game.

RTB Ad Exchange valued at 1.2 Billion. This is the future.

RTB or Real Time Bidding, is really hotting up.

Basically it's an Ad Exchange that allows Advertising buyers (Agencies/Clients) buy online media from sellers (Media owners) in real time through a bidding or "auction" system.

APPNexus, the New York firm, has already raised 200 million usd in investment and just closed another late funding round giving it a valuation of 1.2 Billion usd. That's nearly doubled the company's value since Jan 2013.

30 Billion Ads are sold on APPNexus every single day.....and it's profitable. It estimates it will do 2 Billion usd in transactions this year and revenues of over 130 million usd. Pretty staggering and very mobile focused.

It also means that media companies are becoming very investor friendly and Wall Street opportune - they weren't always - because what they're doing is automating old world transactions and making them better. That's the key difference for good online businesses.

RTB is a better, more accurate, transparent way of buying space. It also moves the Agency Commission model away (no bad thing) into wholesale rates for media which are then charged on to clients so the opportunity to generate higher margins is easier.

However, the Internet experience is clearly one which cuts out the middleman whether they be booksellers, music stores or eh, Advertising Agencies. Clients will now have another option to train their staff to buy their own advertising online. And some are.

Video is another. As the online digital market rises and Clients create good video content, they need to place it. RTB is the way and Streamabout do that every day of the week

Russian PM gets his twitter hacked. Funny.

Lovely bit of hacking it has to be said.....

Russia's PM Dmitry Medvedev had his Twitter Account hacked and a bit of fun was had by all. 

You have to understand that his official account is well followed by journalists and government because it's considered reliable.

The first tweet was 'Crimea is not ours. Please retweet'.

The second announced that he was "resigning to become a freelance photographer". 

Which prompted the Russian Government to issue a statement saying that he actually wasn't going to be a freelance photographer and that it was false. Funny.

The denial actually appeared on Bloomberg.

Just goes to show, don't believe all you hear on the Web.

300 million views, over 6 million shares. The most shared Ad of all time.

The most shared Ad of all time. Shakira for Activia, knocking VW off the leaderboard.

Produced on May 22nd, before the World Cup with a World Cup theme, it has been shared over 6 million times and this clip alone on YouTube has 265 MILLION Views. Plus the clip is on so many times on YouTube it probably counts for another 50 million views and it's on Vimeo and other video sharers. That's staggering.

Fantastic for The Activia brand (on which I worked) and fantastic for Shakira. After that...well it's okay, not the greatest video I've ever seen but hey, who can knock it.

And yet again, we see the power of online advertising. How many years would it take TV to reach those views? Never. And oh, you can't share on TV either. Yet the only cost here was the production because video sharing sites are free. And then when a friend shares a video with a friend, it's more personal, more powerful than any Advertising.

Brilliant so.

The Facebook Buy Button. This changes everything utterly.

Facebook are trialling a 'buy' button and unleashing one of the great secrets of advertising - how much does it impact on sales?

What they're looking at is the direct correlation between ads on its network and actual purchase and importantly too, it combats fraud because bots can't buy products. 

Equally too, it allows them to open a whole new media universe, selling advertising directly on the basis of return on investment. In other words, no need to buy media space as such but rather, buy sales.

Walmart 'back to school' Facebook advertising resulted in a 16 times return on that Ad spend.

That's a revolution.

Already in a trial with 20 retailers, they found that sales rose +2% via Facebook Ads and what's more important, an 8 times average return on the amount spent on advertising. Which makes Facebook advertising a no-brainer because if you were guaranteed that return on sales, you'd advertise more.

And of course, there's an element of those who see the Ads and don't buy online but buy in-store. Retail is a massive advertising segment about 11% of online advertising.

The Buy button also allows Facebook keep payment details so allowing customers easy, one click ecommerce. 

It's getting there and this according to the excellent Financial Times so it's reliably informed.

If this works, it really will change things utterly.

Hard for other media to compete with guaranteed sales V advertising and hard, impossible, for advertisers to ignore.

It changes the face of advertising totally.
In effect, it's almost up there with the second secret of Fatima

Newspaper online Revenues have turned the corner. Great results oh ye of little faith.....

Interesting data which is beginning to show that the losses in revenues predicted for newspaper publishers by digital, isn't happening. Or at least, it's not happening for those titles who embrace digital.

Locally, recent figures for Independent News and Media are showing strong growth in Internet revenues. Hardly surprising because of the way in which they've embraced it. A surge of over +17% in digital revenues.

But the Uk's Financial Times (FT) have shown operating profits of 55 million stg. That's UP +17%. The Telegraph achieved a 4.6m increase to 61 million stg. The Independent have reduced loses from 17 million to 12 million - a 5 million positive uplift.

The Guardian and The Observer showed an increase in digital revenues of +24 million to 69 million. 

Further afield, The New York Times now has 760,000 subscribers to its digital paywall and their stock is hitting new highs. Highs!

Jobs Ads are beginning to return and in particularly, a rise in lucrative property advertising - both ideal for greater online returns. 

So the picture for online newspapers is looking brighter and they'll gain too through the ongoing flight of advertisers away from traditional TV. That's the Holy Grail because TV was the place for big advertisers with big budgets.

Whilst online revenues generally aren't compensating for losses in print cover prices and print advertising, clearly for some, that process has started. We've reached the tipping point.

Online Newspapers through promoting story links on Social Media, are gaining audiences and that is the fundamental. If you have the audience, the advertising must follow. 

Oh ye, of little faith.

Video Ads exploding at the cost of TV. That's not me saying it, but a new BusinessInsider Report.

Online video Advertising is growing faster than most other mediums (!) and other digital formats.

That's not me or Streamabout saying it, but a new BusinessInsider Report. They estimate video advertising revenue will grow by nearly 20% year-on-year through to 2016 anyway.

The only growth as fast, is mobile.

Total Revenue will be circa 5 billion usd in 2016 from 2.8 billion now. And that money will come from? TV

Equally too, as a consequence, more video placements are, and will, open up, reducing media costs. We know too that video ads have the highest click through rate (CTR) at 2% so they deliver value, if you get the views.

The point is not just producing digital video, but what you do with it afterwards - something that companies like Streamabout are offering. It's becoming campaignable rather than 'one offs' and that's key.

Video Ads are more engaging too, longer and better than any TV Commercial and with the benefit of direct targeting as well as digital analytics.

After all, when did you last click a TV Commercial.

Facebook buys Video Ad platform LiveRail. Details undisclosed (but it was 400-500 million). Yippee for Streamabout!

So Facebook is still on the acquisition trail.

It's just agreed to buy Liverail, a video ad advertising service with the dreadful logo.

Started in 2007, it had revenues of 100 million usd last year and what it does is bring video ads to market. 

Exactly as Streamabout does - creation of video and placement.

There had been talk of Liverail going for an IPO this year but that's clearly off the table. Facebook too had been building video ad platforms to sell into its own customer base but that too has resulted in the acquisition.

Facebook in essence has bought a video ad platform with revenue.

And that's the problem - being both a buyer and seller of advertising. 

If Liverail now are owned by Facebook, then presumably they'll push more ads onto Facebook or at least, have a conflict of interest. Perhaps that cuts across their whole independence but then, if you're buying impressions do you care? Probably not.

Other publishers, the former clients of Liverail, may not be too pleased either. 

Details weren't disclosed but I heard in the pub (ie on good authority) it was 400-500 million usd. Not bad for a 7 year old business.

And another good day for Digital Online Video. Like us.

Aereo loses, TV wins. Isn't this a bit like Napster?

So the US Supreme Court, on a 6:3 majority only, have ruled that Aereo is illegal. It reverses a lower court decision in favour of Aereo on appeal.

Aereo, as you'll note in other blog posts here, was the online re-broadcaster of TV stations content based on a 8/10 Dollar monthly subscription.

Had the ruling gone the other way (in favour of Aereo) it could have spelt the end of TV.

This is potentially a fatal blow to the online service. 

The problem was copyright violation and the fact that Aereo, by supplying some kit (an aerial etc), it was something different than simply "re broadcasting". Almost like a Video recorded function which was a key Aereo argument.

After all, video recorders re-broadcast content?

Anyway, losing means losing big.

For Aereo to survive now, it will now have to negotiate fees with those broadcasters who've been through court against them. And then, probably at a prohibitive price.....if at all. I don't think they'd even enter the conversation.

It does not affect the likes of Netflix or other streaming services. Equally it won't affect cloud services which store copyrighted content.

I have to say it reminded me of the whole furore over Sean Parker's Napster. It was the fastest growing business one-time with music downloads which the court shut-down.

And then along came Itunes and Parker returned with Spotify. Today he's worth circa 2 Billion usd.

So perhaps Aereo lost today and TV won. But then, perhaps it's only a matter of time......

Yahoo Prime View. They're charging for Ads that are seen. Viewer guaranteed.

Nice advertising innovation from Yahoo! Ads.

They're going to charge a premium for Ads which viewers see. 

Sounds ridiculous? 

Well, it isn't because in some cases, Ads are buried on pages or just don't load. So they're not seen.

Hence Yahoo! Ads will come with a viewable-only guarantee if you book advertising directly with them in the US.

But...it's only on premium desktop at the minute and not mobile.

They've called it 'Prime View' and it overcomes the issue of Ads not being seen - 54% on average according to 'ComScore'.

This "viewability" guarantee as it's called, does however point to the amount of Ad inventory that's not being seen at all and hence the need for this type of innovation.

Advertisers will want this however and will pay a premium (Yahoo charge more for Prime) for viewed advertising stock with that guarantee. 

It's better than simply advertising blind or worse....advertising that no one sees. But somehow it's all a bit strange.......

Nielsen/BusinessInsider Report on the decline of TV. Especially amongst males 18-24. Time for Digital.....

Important piece in BusinessInsider (again!) about what they call, 'Millennial Males'. In effect, that younger, highly lucrative, Males aged 18-24.

They're a crucial demographic because they've high levels of discretionary spend. Which they use on beer, nights out, clothing, drinks, save a bit, perhaps start their first mortgage.....

But according to Nielsen, their TV viewing has slumped, more than any other demographic.

And because of that, Advertisers are switching to digital to reach them by increasing their marketing spends online (from TV) by up to +30%.

Consequently the reach to this demographic, increased by +11% when they did.

So if you try to reach them on TV, as the report says, "you're spending too much on TV" because that's where they're not, more and more.

But I would go further.

Whatever about the numbers in the decline of TV, the level of engagement and potential for click-through action, only exists online. You can talk to them far better through a digital online video than a 30 second TV commercial anyway.

Perhaps I'm bound to say that but I can say that the effectiveness of simply using a TV commercial cut-down is practically....nil.

Online Digital Video. It's growing. 19% year on year.

New BusinessInsider Reports that Digital Video Advertising is growing faster than all other online formats, except mobile.

They predict it will grow at 19% per year compound through to 2016. Traditional online display is growing at circa 3%.

Online video revenue is currently circa 3 billion and that will double to 6 Billion by 2016 and video ads have the highest click-thru of any digital format at circa 2%. So they're more effective because simply, if you watch a 2 minute video, you're more likely to be engaged and want to follow-up.

It generally supports all the other reports and opinions that the Internet is all about video. Viewers like them, publishers like them, advertisers like them and they have the real potential for sharing.

In fact, not having digital video as part of a campaign, is becoming a conspicuous gap. It's almost becoming standard.

They're easy to get done, inexpensive and engaging. Some will make you laugh, some will make you cry but it's an opportunity for storytelling that's missed on a 30 second TV commercial. In fact, it's the freedom of space that every Ad Agency creative has always wanted.

But one thing is for sure....if you haven't got an online video, you've no chance of it being seen.

Dr. Dre's online digital video for The World Cup. 5 minutes long, 7 million views and Wow!

We are going to be covered in World Cup spots. TV spots. 

And this one will be hard to 'beat'.

At 5 minutes long, it's really a digital video with over 7 million views already. That's the power of online video....do it well and you've no media cost to reach a massive audience AND they'll watch/engage for 5 minutes (=10 TV commercials average length).

"The game before the game" features on Brazilian star (home audience and of course, Brazil open the tournament) Neymar who's talking to his dad by phone. But in it, are also Germany's Gotze, Mexico's Chicharito, Lil Wayne, Serena Williams and others.

Filmed and Edited in 6 weeks, it's intimate in that it features on the pre-game ritual and we've all seen stars before matches with headphones on. Good idea.

It's more of a music video than a football video but beautifully shot by Nabil Elderkin and behind every good video there's a good concept.

It doesn't get better than this. 

Online bot fraud. And why it isn't.

There's a lot of nonsense being talked about by the defenders of traditional media against digital media. These are notably large TV broadcasters and stories appear in the magazine 'gospels', which are very much on Advertising's traditional side.

They cannot grasp that the world has changed and so find it hard to even contemplate, that digital media is winning.

Currently, they talk on and on and on about robot or 'bot' fraud.

This is where fraudsters use automated traffic to click, or view, online Ads as if they were humans, so as to generate fake cpm or ppc revenue. In other words, to charge advertisers for visitors which are in effect, computer viruses and not real traffic. Advertisers want to reach people, not automated, worthless clicks but, the argument goes, that's what they're getting.

'30% of all internet traffic is fake' screams one headline.

There's no doubt that these robots are sophisticated and mimic real human behaviour so as to avoid detection by equally sophisticated anti-fraud software. 

One Advertising 'bible' actually showed how these bots behave over an image of The New York Times....and then later, of course, said it didn't happen on The New York Times, it was just an 'example'. Like, 'Beware!' cause one day it might!

A fairly damaging 'example' I'd have thought.

Estimates of the costs of these fake Ads vary depending on the need for a panicy headline range from 7 million dollars a month to web security firm 'White Ops' saying 6 billion a year (but that's okay, cause 'White Ops' have the solution for you). 

Headline Money like that, certainly gets attention and creates panic. Maybe we should re-think digital? And move back to the good old reliable traditionals? Or so the story goes.

Online traffic fraud exists, there's no doubt - as does traditional advertising fraud. How often did traditional advertisers in the past depend on meaningless magazine 'publishers statements' or supposed 'print runs'? Or dubious 'bulking'?

Remember too, online fraud can be human as well - we all know about the ability to buy nonsensical Facebook 'likes' for example.

Online bot fraud depends on one of two things - a fraudulent traffic seller and/or a fraudulent web site owner. Mostly, both are complicit.

The fraudulent traffic seller is selling a network of "visitors" when in fact, they're probably bot infected PC's. The fraudulent website owner is selling you traffic based on fraudulent impressions generated by fake bots.

No media planner or buyer worth their salt are buying either. And if they are, knowing all about bots, then it's time for a change.

When you see a site like www.stuart'sfabcats.com generating 1 million impressions a day, chances are, they're fake. Or a seller in a basement selling massive traffic on a blind network, you're in trouble there too.

Trust in your digital buyer and the sites you're buying is key. Just as it is with traditional media. And to try to "expose" the whole medium as being fake because of some fraud, when you know people have a brain in their head in the business, is well, just what it's intended to be.

A ludicrous propaganda aimed at an advertising medium that's winning. Because it's better.

Google's Driverless Cars. A first look.....

Google have launched a self-driving car prototype and a video to go with it.

We know about it, but haven't seen their own car design working until now. It does about 25 mph for now but when proven, this will increase as it's a matter of safety, not technology.

They're safer too of course, than driver cars - technology knows where it is, where it's going, when to stop and so on, all activated by sensors.

The advantage? I'm not sure... although I do get it for people who can't drive per se such as those with poor/no sight. I do get too that it will make the roads safer. All good.

But the real advantage is on long distances, it's much easier on the driver and we'll be prepared to travel further distances because of the driver fatigue. In fact, you could probably sleep on a long journey.

It's an insight into the future but for my money, not future enough.

I've seen personal jet-packs and they work and because they've no roads, go from A to B quicker and ideal for a commute with no parking. That's the future of local travel.

Are jet-packs safe? Nope, not at all. But put the driverless Google technology into them and now you have got a real mind-bending proposition.

Twitter wins The European Elections.

As we're coming to the end of The European Elections, it's pretty clear that an anti-austerity vote will prevail as well as, or as a consequence, a shift to the extremes, left and right. 

Success for National Front in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, Sinn Fein and Independents in Ireland, UKIP in England and so on, show the shift. It does point to a de-stabilisation of Europe.....but it's absolutely clear that these parties were more techy and it helped them.

Can you win an Election in the future, without a clear strategy and focus on Twitter? Unlikely. 

The reason too is the declining impact of traditional TV throughout the day and their political restrictions. Twitter doesn't have any of that.

Building audiences on Twitter is now key to getting elected as much as being active on Twitter. It's more important than local clinics.

Indeed, parties are opening special Twitter accounts where constituents can tweet in issues for comment or to generate response. Like the freephone telephone numbers of old. Twitter help.

Twitter has also said that it's happy to facilitate (in a media way) any campaign commercially, which shows it recognises its own role. Furthermore it fundamentally reduces the role of National media supporting one candidate or one party over another. Those days, it seems, are going.

And what that shows is the democratisation of Elections. Twitter is unbiased (save the opinions from those you choose you follow) and it's free as well as being national or global.

It's allowing poorly funded political groups, whom in the past wouldn't have large media access, an opportunity to be heard on a level playing field. The party that does a good job on Twitter, will probably be the one that makes ground.

And that's a good thing.

If the future is ad-free Netflix, what's the future for Ads?

Very interesting view reported by Mashable from Neil Hunt Chief Product Officer (what?) at Netflix on the future of TV at the NYC Internet Conference.

What he's saying firstly is that they will be a huge proliferation of channels (48 million he thinks) so viewers will have choice. He's right, because Internet TV is global rather than currently, national. So if you produce a channel say, on knitting, there's enough global viewers interested in knitting to make it sustainable.

Secondly, with that, comes creative freedom to produce shows like that without depending on the TV moguls. So smaller shows but with devoted audiences. Indeed "smaller" only in the global sense. Episodes might also not be the standard half or hour long either. 

Thirdly and I think most importantly, he outlined that with the massive growth in connected or Internet TV's (after all, will you be buying a TV next? probably not) that potential audiences will grow to sites like Netflix. And they will be, subscription based.

Consequently, not an advertising funded model and Netflix, as a market leader, have no plans to seek advertising because they believe, it interferes with the viewing experience. 

Indeed we know too from Apps, that consumers are prepared to pay premiums for 'ad free' Apps.

Now if that's the case and Netflix grows as it is, advertisers are going to have a problem with placing their TV Commercials. There will be less media and already, in Irish homes, Netflix have 200,000 subscribers. That 200,000 homes without access to TV advertising when they're on Netflix.

Interesting.....

NY Times loses 80m homepage views in 2 years. Shock? Not at all but very interesting as to why.

Interesting piece on The New York Times online.

Seemingly, according to BuzzFeed who've sight of internal documents, they've lost 50% of their homepage views - 80 million in two years.

Crisis? No....rather than a loss of readers, perhaps what we're seeing is the move away from homepages and possibly, here is a reason why.

News is no longer the destination read and what's delivering news readers is referral traffic - from Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Reddit and so on. So people are getting their news when it's sent to them - they're not going looking for it.

So when they see something of interest say on Twitter, they click that link and it brings them to the specific page and NOT via the homepage. The readers are only looking at stories that interest them - snacking - rather than the "news in full". So the notional idea that I read a paper online from front to back, might be changing.

Homepages are institutional, whereby Social Media reflects the readers interests.

So readers are looking to be entertained as we know and so only read the stuff they find interesting. Audience analysis by publishers as to what's being read, might confirm this trend and they may find that their homepage traffic is in demise whereas overall, their numbers are still holding up.

Interesting for advertisers too who are paying premiums to be on the homepages....

But perhaps important to publishers too, to drive their stories by links on Social Media, although they do that, but this may need more focus to deliver views. 

So the Social Media aspect of publishing is becoming more important.

They might, for example, keep tweeting the popular stuff. And the headline on the Social Media link to the story, will be key.

Perhaps the way we're reading news is changing and perhaps an interest in "general news" is declining as such. It's not a commentary but just an interesting development to note.

I don't believe the NY Times have lost readers - they've just lost readers on their homepage landing page. So news needs to adapt to that.


One day too, we'll get the point where we send relevant news to the relevant people rather than to everyone en masse. 

The Internet is a one-to-one medium, not one-to-many.

Digital Online Video exploding. New BusinessInsider Report. It's becoming more watched that TV and has the highest click-through rate.

The very reliable BusinessInsider has published an interesting report into digital video.

It might come as no surprise (hopefully) that digital video is skyrocketing. 

Online video ads are the fastest growing medium outpacing TV. They exploded in 2013 and trust me, continue to do so in 2014.

Over 35 Billion video ads were viewed in the US in December alone. Largely because they give clients an opportunity to give longer narrative (because they're longer!) and more engaging content through storytelling, which 30 seconds on TV restricts you from doing. 

They also of course, come with the benefits of all things digital such as low cost media placement and tracking. 

BusinessInsider estimates that digital video will take $5 billion in ad revenue by 2016 ($2.8 billion in 2013), growth of +100% year on year (yoy) and the highest click through (just under 2%) of any other digital format. Of course, if you're prepared to watch a 2 or 3 minute video online, you're likely to be more prepared to click through because you've been engaged.

One thing you can't do, is click a TV Commercial....

The growth in domestic use of streaming devices, better Internet connectivity and indeed, more savvy PC users almost assures the growth. As more go online, the Opportunity-to-see (OTS) video, increases.

Viewability of course is the issue too - if your video is no good, then it won't be watched.....but that applies to all other Ad formats too. 

Advertisers need to start increasing their investment in what is generally, low cost digital video. Low cost from a Production perspective and low cost Media. The days of 50k and 100k and more on TV Commercial Production are over with Digital Video costing 1k-5k generally.

And just as good. In fact, a whole lot better.

As BusinessInsider say too, much more watched.

Publicis and Omnicom, call it all off.

Publicis and Omnicom call it off. The 50:50 mega-merger of 35 billion us dollars announced 9 months ago, is being eh, 'de-coupled'.

The Agencies, which own a large number of established brands in the market, had difficulties in completing transactions in a timely manner (according to an Omnicom statement) and Omnicom have spent circa 48 million usd in the merger thus far. Reading between the lines, they're putting the blame on Publicis.

It also seems that the announcement was communicated initially via Twitter (or it 'leaked') and Clients were not formally informed per se. Rumours abound of rows about key positions (typical merger nonsense) but one wonders why these sorts of issues weren't dealt with pre-merger? Seemingly the CFO position (who'd oversee the merger) was a big issue.

Clearly, knowing both Agencies well, there was always going to be a French Versus American way of doing things and trust me, both are very, very different. The launch photocall (above) with The Eiffel Tower in the background, was the start of the "I am in control here" piece.

Financially too, with savings of "$500 million" touted as a reason from the outset to do the merger, hardly seemed a good enough reason.

It also puts WPP back to top of the heap without the new entity.
And it damages the reputation of both Publicis and Omnicom in not being able to complete this.

At least those "$500 million" in savings won't happen and so those job losses (the savings) are now safer. Apart from that, pretty pathetic.

Twitter shares are taking a bath. Negative sentiment.

Twitter continues to take a bath.

More than 120 million shares were traded on Tuesday with a price fall of -18% down to under 32 us dollars a share - an all time low. It's up on the 26 us dollar November IPO price but well down on the post IPO surge of over 70 us dollars.

It's a slide but accentuated this week by the expiration of 'lockups' in shares with 470 million available to come onto the market for the first time.

The co-founders, CEO and large investors have indicated that they'll continue to hold the stock...but for how long? They hold about 205 million shares - leaving circa 265 million available to possibly trade and 120 million were.

Tuesday's volume in traded shares though, is an all time high and indicates large stock offloads. Less that 20% of Twitter shares had been traded to this point.

Twitter are suffering from a general downturn in tech stocks but in particular, it is driven by concerns that Twitter hasn't found a way to generate substantial revenue - yet. And monthly active users are down. Negative sentiment.

That concern is at the core of this. As well as, legal or not, probable market short selling which will in turn create a downward dynamism in the share price.... possibly.

Add to that, those staff holders of shares who have an opportunity to "get rich" following the release of their shares from the lockup, will be nervous of these drops and possibly, look to sell, rather than wait. Further adding to the decline.

Not a good time for Twitter.

But fundamentally it shows that an IPO has benefits especially for tech companies. However, there's also a darkside. It can ruin you.

Online Broadcasters high end shows, are getting get into the traditional TV Ad market. Another sign of TV's decline.

The global TV advertising market is something close to $300 billion. The online part of this is about 8%, the rest (ridiculously) going to traditional TV Stations. Although online video advertising surged +44% last year.

Younger audiences, a key demographic, are now more online with digital video, than watching TV. Almost in every country.

So online broadcasters want a cut of that spend, as they develop and as their audiences switch away from traditional TV. 

You'll see my other blogs following - about the decline of TV, decline of Cable (pay) TV and how broadcasters such as ITV/Comcast are investing fortunes into content creation for online.

The decline of Cable TV is in fact, a direct switch by consumers towards online broadcasters.

It's a massive wave.
It's also massive that these online shows are being watched on multi devices in the home. They're watching something in the region of 15 hours a week (versus 33 hours watching TV).

Netflix's 'House of cards' and 'Orange is the new black' and others, are showing advertisers the way. Of course too, as I often say, ad money follows audience, so the real task here is to drive viewers and it is happening.

Indeed, online broadcasters are using traditional media (notably Outdoor) to promote their shows.

However, online ad rates remain high but are decreasing. And of course, sponsorship on online programmes is working.

Fundamentally too, digital advertising generates direct measurable response which traditional TV cannot do. You cannot click a TV Commercial.

But as online broadcasters get better and better at producing online digital video content, the eyeballs will follow and so too, the advertising. 

The time lag is really down to agency media planners who are moving slowly and older marketing managers who haven't got to grips with the way it's changing so fast.

Content is still....king.

ITV Studios profits up +24%. Why? A traditional TV broadcaster making money?

ITV, is a traditional TV broadcaster that's showing growth?

Why?

Because of the resurgence of advertising in the UK but largely because, it has moved to become less dependent on advertising (!) and more into content creation. It understands that the traditional TV model is diminishing so it's now more of a content creator.

It sells programmes to other broadcasters (including BBC) but also to new buyers like Netflix, Hulu and Xbox.

The production side, ITV studios, showed a +24% 2013 profit increase (£133m) on turnover of £857m. They now have 60 shows on US channels (more than 50% of their revenue is overseas) such as 'Hell's Kitchen' on Fox and Mr. Selfridge is in 150 countries (including being streamed on Amazon Prime).

Last year they spent £66m on buying independent content producers and yet acquisitions added £97m to ITV's revenue. Good result. More funding for acquisitions is planned too, possibly nearly £200m as a war-chest in order to develop more content to sell.

There's little doubt that ITV are learning the online lessons and looking at it as an opportunity to become programme makers rather than seeing it as a threat. Online in essence, has opened up a market of content purchasers.

In other words, whilst the likes of Netflix are very techy, they're not programme makers (although they are getting there now) whereas ITV have a long history of making strong programmes. So you match one against the other.

And you start seeing TV Ad revenue as not being the driver anymore.

Looks to me, that ITV have got it.

BskyB responding to the decline in Cable TV through new digital offerings.

The problems with 'cord cutters' and the collapsing of pay TV (cable TV) has not gone unnoticed at BSKYB according to The Telegraph.

They are preparing a major overhaul of their service and their set-top boxes to allow customers access to any programme on any device. They are also looking at Sky+, using the cloud (rather than the local box drive) to store programmes allowing greater accessibility.

The multi-screen technology will also allow greater advertising opportunities possibly targeting customers by post code. Direct selling.

They also plan to introduce 4K (very high definition programming) and a 'film to own' service.

Of course, Sky aren't the only ones bringing Television across many devices with Google and Amazon already in the market and Netflix is signing deals. Traditional TV will become just a part of their subscription service (funny how it used to be the other way around!). Apple of course, are there too.

But good to see traditional TV broadcasting embracing digital and getting into the space rather than usually, running from it. Sky, at least, are responding.

The only downside to the story is that it's "a year or two away" which is a long time in politics as they say - but a generational time in digital. They'll need to move faster, but at least, they're moving.