Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 21 2013

17:42

IAB Chief: Publishers Demand Industry Standards in Programmatic Buying

CANNES – While the move to automated systems of buying and selling advertising inventory is inevitable, the ad agency trading desks and the holding companies need to do a much better job in creating technical and business standards around the emerging electronic marketplace, says Randall Rothenberg, CEO of the IAB, the digital publishing industry’s trade association.

We spoke with him at Cannes Lions, after a roof-top panel discussion of the heads of the trading desks of the major holding companies.  The event was organized by the Rubicon ProjectHere is an article  in USA Today by Michael Wolff who was on hand to cover.

August 30 2012

15:02

The newsonomics of leapfrog news video

Our political conventions reminds us that this is not the summer of love. But it may be the season we’ll remember as the summer of video.

Certainly, video’s — news video’s — growth has been noteworthy for awhile. But now there’s a bursting of new news video forms, a hothouse of experimentation that is both refreshing and intriguing. The blossoming has implications far and wide, not just for “news,” but for tech companies like Facebook and television brands from Ellen to Piers to The View. Within it, we see the capability of non-TV companies to leapfrog the TV people.

Just Monday, both The Wall Street Journal (“The Wall Street Journal wants its reporters filing microvideo updates for its new WorldStream”) and The New York Times made video announcements. A couple of weeks ago, the ambitious Huffington Post Live launched, hiring the almost unbelievable number of 104 staffers. In these three forays, and in the thinking in and around them, we see the boundaries of old media being slowly broken. We’re on the edge, finally, of new ways to both create and present news — and how to talk about the news.

It’s funny: “Video,” as a term, as a category, barely defines what we’re seeing. All video means is moving pictures, and we’ve had those since George Méliès (as Martin Scorcese reinterpreted in Hugo). We’ve known broadcast news and then cable news, witnessed their triumphs and now the declines of both. Because of twin technologies — all the iGadgets reintroducing us to the world as we know it and the behind-the-scenes digital pipes making content creation and distribution increasingly seamless — we’re seeing what creative people can do with moving pictures.

While this week’s Journal’s announcement focused on WorldStream, that semi-raw feed (all staff contributions are okayed one-by-one for public view) is but one of the full handful of Journal experiments with video.

Watch video now better embedded into stories (as the Times also has done with QuickLinks). Get appointment programs on WSJ Live (“The newsonomics of WSJ Live”). Watch on demand, in a variety of formats. Go directly to a video page, where all of the video output is categorized. And now, WorldStream, that rawish feed the Journal is doing, because it can — and because such video becomes great bait for the social web. Pick up the url, tweet it, and the Journal has happened on a social video strategy that is curiously akin to Upworthy’s.

It’s a multi-point access world for video producers. The Times will tell you that its viewing is roughly divided in thirds among its video center, its homepage video player and embedded-within-stories video. The Journal says more than half its views are now coming from embedded videos, with less than five percent of its views come from its video page. It makes sense that “video center” usage will decrease over time; these are transitional pages. Convergence is now becoming real, and we expect to see the content, text, voice, and pictures delivered in context. Finally. We don’t go to a place on sites called “Words.”

What’s most important about we’re seeing flickering before our eyes? Try these, as we look at the newsonomics of leapfrog news video.

  • It’s about money. Video advertising rates are holding up far better than display-around-text rates. “Give me inventory” is a cry heard from the salespeople, who find agencies and top advertisers’ pre-roll appetites nowhere near satiated. For top premium brands, $45-60 CPM (cost per thousand views) are still available, as display rates fetch as little as a tenth and as much as one-half of those numbers. In addition, companies are selling video packages and sponsored tile ads in addition to pre-rolls to sweeten their take. So production of video makes financial sense — even as news companies cut back, lay off, and pinch, pinch, pinch. The smarter companies are investing in video — staffers, training, technologies — even as they make those cuts, while other companies find themselves just stuck. Video is the second-fastest growing ad category in the U.S., according to IAB, up 29 percent year-over-year. It will be worth about $2 billion this year.
  • It’s about platforms. The Journal’s Alan Murray, who heads digital news efforts, says the company’s video traffic has doubled in six months. Why? It’s not mainly because of more use on Journal platforms, even though it’s been an innovator on the tablet. Most of that growth comes from the deals the Journal has done with an astonishing 26 “platforms.” They range from the ubiquitous iPad and Kindle to lesser known 5Min and LiveStation.1 By way of comparison, The New York Times is currently using three (Hulu, Google TV, YouTube).
  • It’s about technologies. The Times and the Washington Post have been using Google + Hangout, to facilitate conversation, and we’ve seen the fruits this week at the Republican Convention. As well-described by The Daily Beast’s Lauren Ashburn, Google Hangouts are a major, disruptive force; “no longer needed are satellite trucks or underground cables to beam talking heads to people’s living rooms. A simple Internet connection and a camera are rendering expensive gadgets obsolete.” The Journal is touting Tout, a Silicon Valley start-up that has taken much of the “friction” out of the business of video production. “Make it drop dead simple,” CEO Michael Downing says is his goal. That means taking the background tasks of uploading smartphone video from the field, “transcoding” it and then translating it to work in all the various formats (devices, screen sizes, operating sizes). That removes the work from media companies, and lets them focus on content and audience. In addition to the Journal, broadcasters including CNN, CBS, and ESPN have become customers.
  • It’s apparently not about appointment TV. HuffPo’s Live is the most interesting here. While it has 10 telegenic anchor/producer/hosts, those hosts don’t have standard daily program times. Segments will last between 12 and 35 minutes (most average 20-25), HuffPost Live president Roy Sekoff told me this week. Yet, they are fluid, with segment length adjustable on the fly. Readers pick topics — before, during, and after “Live” — from a reader-activated conveyor belt at the top of the page. “It’s the Internet,” says Sekoff pointedly, meaning it’s a flow, not a TV Guide-like grid in how readers/viewers use it. The Journal agrees. Even with on-the-hour blocks of News Hub programs, the majority of its viewing is on demand. Even for HuffPo, all of that live programming is then chunked into segments, and Sekoff estimates that he’ll have about 10,000 of them archived and ready for long-tail viewing by year’s end. We want what we want when we want it — and expect it to be there. Thus, findability becomes the issue, and the multiple points of access now being offered are very much a live test of consumer behavior and want.
  • It’s about simplicity. The Times’ announcement basically said this: You’ve proven you like video. Now we’re cleaning it up and making it more pleasurable to watch and easier to find. In the cleanup, the Times moved to 11 “navigation items” from 25, says Peter Anderson, director of video product. We see that translation in more uniform positioning of video panels on NYTimes.com pages, and a more elegant 16 × 9 video player format, replacing the oh-so-20th century 4 × 3.
  • It’s about the news — and talk about the news. In the approaches of the Times and the Journal on the one hand, and of HuffPo on the other, we see two quite different philosophies and strategies, but ones that may find meeting points. Both the Journal and the Times see their reporters as the foundation of the video process; Murray calls Dow Jones’ 2,000 journalists “the core asset.” So both are putting cameras into the hands of journalists, or enabling them to better use smartphones, thereby creating more impactful, multi-dimensional, multi-platform journalism. HuffPo, from its early days of being mainly a curator/aggregator, has had its pulse on what its progressive audience is wondering and talking about. Those topics, mostly off the news (Marissa Mayer’s pregnancy, veterans and poverty), are the ones front and center in its Live pages. Some, of course, derive from its journalists’ work, and now staffers like Howard Fineman are suggesting video segments as they prepare stories. By and large, though, the talk-about-news drives the 12-hours-a-day site (5 days a week), with actual news supplementing. Sekoff says some 1,300 HuffPo community members have “raised their hands” and been featured as talking contributors on its segments. They’re unpolished and a far more diverse (for all the good and bad that implies) lot than we see among the too familiar faces of cable TV. For the Journal and the Times, traditional stories drive the video, and then, as Peter Anderson describes it, “The New York Times starts the conversation.” (Here, the Times brings civilians more prominently into its Opinion pages.) How these somewhat opposite approaches come together will be something to watch.

Maybe, most intriguingly, this video revolution may be morphing into a social revolution.

Watch a few of the HuffPo Live segments. Call them semi-slick. The technology works. The production values are okay, even if blogger/contributors faces seem a bit low-def, as TV itself moves moves from HD to Ultra. Some raise interesting, unorthodox issues and views; some are deadly boring. They are not, though, the lookalike programming of traditional news outlets. In their socialness, they cross lines.

Here’s what I find fascinating as I watch those, and smaller steps toward engagement taken by the Times, Journal, and others. As we all watch more video, where will the minutes come from? They may come from other news, text news. They may also come from Facebook. Compare HuffPo Live to Facebook and we see lots of social/sharing commonalities — but in picture form. Discussions — less in linear words than with in-motion video. They may come from morning talk shows like “Ellen” or “The View,” or compete with The Young Turks.The minutes will come from somewhere, as these technologies are more universally adopted and the world of competition only gets more complicated. This is the world in which news companies now compete.

For the news industry specifically, we see that legacy lines are written in disappearing ink, as the Journal, for instance, out-innovates ABC. One dirty little secret of broadcasting is being revealed, as technologies like Google+ Hangouts even the playing field for the print guys: it’s a game of numbers. The number of journalists in newspaper newsrooms still far outnumber those in broadcast ones. In addition, traditional TV has demanded many staffers to do the technical work of creating the broadcast. So, newspapers — if they can rapidly connect their workforces with the new technologies — have a chance to do what seems illogical: leapfrog broadcast and outflank them in the move to fully available, multi-platform news video.

Notes
  1. The full list: YouTube, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, Google TV, Boxee, Roku, Hulu, Ustream, DailyMotion, Panasonic Internet-connected TVs, Samsung Internet-connected TVs, Sony Internet-connected TVs, Vizio Internet-connect TVs, Yahoo Internet-connected TVs, Windows Phone, Xbox (announced, not yet launched), Kindle Fire, Google Nexus 7, Pulse, 5Min, TouchTV, Flud, WatchUp, LiveStation, Tout, Etisalat.

October 21 2010

14:00

The Newsonomics of the ad recovery

[Each week, our friend Ken Doctor — author of Newsonomics and longtime watcher of the business side of digital news — writes about the economics of the news business for the Lab.]

Reading the news about the news business, you may have missed this: advertising is booming, again. Well, booming may be too strong a word, but overall, it’s growing. Unfortunately, the news about the news ad business is still negative. Not as negative as the negativity of last year — down 27 percent for 2009 — but still down in single digits over 2009. Being less negative than last year is good, it’s better, but my math doesn’t add that up to a positive.

So what we have here is a trend that’s held true from boom to bust through tepid recovery: newspaper companies’ continue to be the laggards, losing market share in ad revenue, by the week, month, and year.

This week’s reports from The New York Times Co., Media General, and McClatchy, and last week’s from Gannett, all point to the same numbers with a minus sign in front of them. Let’s look at the numbers, and the newsonomics of the ad recovery.

Overall ad spending is up 2.5 to 4 percent through the first nine months of the year, and forecasts call for it to come in at that rate for the full year.

Let’s pick that apart.

Local TV advertising is up 13 percent in 2010, according to BIA/Kelsey. National broadcasting is putting up double-digit numbers. Cable advertising is growing in single digits. Radio’s up about 6 percent.

Even magazine advertising, subject to similar doldrums as newspapers, was up 5.3 percentin the third quarter, its second consecutive quarter of positive growth.

Digital advertising picked up its pace rapidly at the beginning of 2010: up 11.3 percent over the first half of the year to $12.1 billion, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. This digital growth is a long-term trend — online advertising is now a close No. 3 among advertising media in the U.S. (behind TV and newspapers). It’s surpassed TV, to become No. 2 in the UK, and surpassed newspapers to become No. 2 in Japan. (See The Newsonomics of online ad trending.)

As an aside, consider how much faster Google is growing than the online ad market, from which it derives almost all its revenue. In the third quarter, Google reported revenues of $7.29 billion — a 23-percent year-over-year increase.)

Now back to newspaper advertising. Gannett’s publishing revenues dropped 4.8 percent in the third quarter, while the The New York Times Co. was down 2.7 percent. McClatchy saw a 5.7-percent decline. Media General had even more problems: down 7.6 percent in pub revenues. Gannett’s and Media General’s revenues, overall, were helped by owning broadcast properties, as Media General’s 18.4-percent increase in broadcast helped it report an overall increase in year-over-year revenues. Broadcast revenues at Gannett were up 22.3 percent.

Why the great disparity between newspaper — meaning print newspaper — and the rest of the recovering ad world? We won’t take the space to parse it here and now. Suffice it to say that the long-term declines in classified categories — auto, real estate, and recruitment — have hurt the industry greatly. Now, though, even retail advertising is “coming back” quite unevenly, the bumpy road to recovery New York Times CEO Janet Robinson highlighted in her third-quarter report remarks.

The possible silver lining of the newspaper reports: Some digital revenue reports were on a par or better than the growth of online advertising overall. That hasn’t been the case consistently over the past couple of years, so the the latest numbers offer a ray of hope for the future.

If online advertising grew 11.3 percent overall, then compare that to the 3Q growth rates (not quite apples to apples, but not far off) at the New York Times Company (15 percent), Gannett (10 percent), MediaGeneral (15-22 percent, depending on how you count it) and McClatchy (1 percent). Those numbers indicate that some of those newspaper companies are doing a better job of selling digital advertising.

My talks with publishers and online directors point to several reasons for that good performance, ones long in discussion, but now becoming more routinely operational. The No. 1 reason: Publishers have simply focused more resources on selling digital products. They are also increasingly un-bundling products, not forcing as many print/digital buys. And, of course, they’re putting themselves in position to get spending in the fastest growing ad category — online — and devoting fewer resources to mining print revenues, which are declining in general.

So here’s the rub, and the conundrum. Newspaper companies are now pedaling as fast as they can, trying to get as digital as they as fast as they can, because that’s what the growth in ad dollars is happening. The New York Times Company says that 27 percent of its ad revenue is now driven by digital, and that’s up three points year over year. So it has a quarter of its ad business in the new world, and three-quarters in the old world. Add it up, and you get those negative numbers overall. The trick of the next several years: pedal (and peddle) even faster on the digital bike, while stoking the steady, if slowing train of print — and pray that the train doesn’t run out of coal too quickly.

July 01 2010

12:57

April 08 2010

14:13

The Newsonomics of online ad trending

[Each week, our friend Ken Doctor — author of Newsonomics and longtime watcher of the business side of digital news — writes about the economics of the news business for the Lab.]

Through all the twists and turns of economic boom and bust, Apple innovation after Apple innovation and news company bankruptcy drama, Internet-based advertising keeps growing its share of the ad market.

In a report just released by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers, there are signal numbers that tell us what the next several years of the ad economy will be like. The big, compelling numbers, though: In 2005, the Internet generated 8 percent of of the ad revenue in the U.S. In 2009, that share more than doubled to 17 percent, to $22.7 billion.

So, through thick and thin, digital marketing, with better targeting being introduced around the clock, keeps pulling dollars away from traditional media — TV, newspapers, radio, and magazines. TV ($26.2 billion) and newspapers ($24.6 billion) are still ahead of Internet, but cable (at $20.4 billion) and TV networks (at $15.5 billion) are below. Radio pulls in $14 billion, while consumer magazines take in $10 billion and trades $7.5 billion.

Targeted media continue to grow the fastest. That’s no surprise in ad world in which Yahoo’s real-time ad bidding Right Media exchange is now aiming to match an advertiser with a consumer in the 50 milliseconds or less before a page loads. (How fast is that? A twentieth of a second — fast enough to align reading and commercial interests — and by some accounts the time it takes for each of us to decide whether we’ll stay on a web page, or not).

So, paid search moved up to 47 percent of digital ad spend in 2009, from 45 percent in 2008.

Classifieds were the big loser, down to 10 percent from 14 percent year over year.

Banner ads held steady, up a point to 22 percent, with digital video now grabbing 4 percent of the market, up 39 percent in revenue in one year.

Overall, online revenues were down about $700 million — or 3.6 percent — for the recession-wracked year, and that’s attributable to digital classifieds by itself.

So the online ad industry managed to pull off quite a feat: it stayed almost above water in a year in which traditional media lost more than 20 percent of its revenue. Significantly, newspaper companies’ are reporting a steady-as-you-go year in 2010, meaning what’s been lost in recent years — newspaper ad revenues are down 44 percent since 2006 — is unlikely to be regained in any great numbers.

For the online ad industry, it’s a different story. For the fourth quarter of 2009, it gained 2.6 percent increase year-over-year and 14 percent over the third quarter of 2009, bringing in $6.3 billion.

Collectively, those are sobering numbers.

Even pre-iPad — with its direct questions about how it and its successors may hasten the print-to-digital transformation — the movement is in one direction. More targetable, more measurable and seemingly more efficient digital advertising beats the selling of space (in newspapers and magazines) and time (on TV and radio). Certainly, brand advertising has a place in the marketing future, but as I’ve noted, marketers have far less need for big brands than they used to.

News companies, unevenly, are acting on these trends. They’re increasingly offering a panoply of online marketing services in their areas, with McClatchy’s just-announced embrace of WebVisible search engine marketing programs just the latest public example. It’s a slow rebuilding of the business, digital brick by brick, but it’s one that recognizes which way the wind is blowing.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl