Afterbirth of the 30-second spot
iMedia Connection asked me to contribute my opinion to a piece they're running today, presenting industry expert points of view on a recent Online Publishers Association study that reports that pre-roll advertising -- and in particular the 30-second spot, as compared to shorter, more web-friendly fomats -- is not only more effective than other options (although all of the measured options were derivatives of the television spot) and -- get this -- actually preferred by consumers.
You can check out the results of the study itself here.
And here's an edited-down version of what I had to say after reading the results:
Our industry loves to fund studies that justify blind allegiance to the status quo, even though our own experiences clearly demonstrate that the same old things simply aren't as effective as they once were. For example, the research heads at broadcast networks continue to announce proprietary studies indicating that TV audiences really haven't changed much at all and that they do watch commercials, even though their DVRs empower them to fast-forward through them.
Really? I have a TiVo and almost never watch commercials; neither do any the other TiVo owners I know, and most of them aren't cynical industry pundits. But it's too easy to blame the media companies. Advertisers and agencies are willing co-conspirators. Why else would they lock-in billions of dollars in the television upfront, paying ever higher effective CPMs for increasingly ineffective placements that reach smaller audiences every year?
Which brings me to OPA's Online Video Advertising study; it really isn't much different from those TV studies. The findings seem to indicate that the interruptive 30-second pre-roll is an obvious "best practice," and yet it -- and mild variations of it (the only difference between a 15-second and a 30-second is a few seconds) -- was the only format tested.
The study tested pre-roll versus post-roll, 30 seconds versus 15 seconds and repurposed TV versus original for the web, but it ignored the many other video-based marketing options that can be easily supported with today's technologies.
Do publishers really need to prove to advertisers that they should be porting the familiar old interruption ad model to the web? They're already more than willing to make those buys, as evidenced by some major video portals' claims that their inventory is chronically oversold...
... It's easy to see that the survey poses the wrong questions.
My question then is: where's the study that helps marketers, agencies and media companies navigate a path to true innovation in online video? Where are the questions about branded content, the integration of product placements into online video and the use of next-generation video interactivity, including hotspots, overlays and telescoping? Where are the findings that justify the development of new video ad models that don't rely upon intercepting consumers when they just want to watch some content?
Maybe as an industry we're still afraid to ask those questions because the answers will force us to rethink the foundation of our business. That's a shame, because I'm convinced that they're the very questions we need to ask if we want to move our business forward.
You can see my complete response and read what the other experts had to say here -- most were considerably more favorable, but then again three of the experts lead companies that make their money selling pre-roll to advertisers. As the old saying goes, "if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
It's an interesting read and a constructive debate. I'd love to hear what you think, so once you've digested the iMedia piece, come on back and let me know.
