Internet Video

posted 02/16/08 by Rick Webb

Ahh, the promise of interactive advertising. A completely new paradigm. Let’s remember one of the original promises of the economics of Internet advertising: for the cost of producing just one broadcast spot, you can have a website that millions can see, without even paying for the media. As true as it was, and, perhaps even more so, still is – it seems so simplistic now. Banners. Value Adds. Viral. MySpace. YouTube. Media titans once again doing battle over the landscape of the Internet. It all seems so complicated, so dot com all over again, and yet new. Web 2.0 is a buzzword, of course, but I think we can all see that things are different now.

Why this is relevant to the topic at hand, however, is because of what we’ve witnessed in the realm of the Internet and Video. We all know about YouTube, of course. It’s changed everything in ways that surprised many of us. But it’s more than that. It’s iMovie. It’s iPod videos. It’s DIY. It’s the Subservient Chicken. And it’s something else.

Video is what ad agencies know. It’s what production houses know. It is the staple of a multi-billion dollar industry. And when it comes to this big bad thing called the Internet, it’s a way of viewing the Internet that advertisers can all understand. We believe that the phrase “viral video” arose almost entirely because it really made advertisers feel pretty good. Funny videos? Hey! We can do that.

But let’s not forget the original genius of the web. It’s interconnected, of course, but it’s also interactive. There are so many new tools at our disposal. Would the chicken have been as funny if it had a bunch of buttons that said “play video number 1,” “play video number 2,” etc.? Sure, there are times that playing a video over the web is pretty brilliant. Right now a series of three videos we made for Milwaukee’s Best Light have received over 4 million downloads on YouTube. It’s crazy. And it’s working. Viral videos can be useful, but they are but one tool in an arsenal.

One of the things we’re most proud of is that someone put our anyfilms.net site on Wikipedia as an example of interactive film1. On television, we are passive viewers who watch a series of frames pass before our eyes. We can change the channel and passively watch another set of frames, or we can get up and walk away. That’s about it. With interactive video, we can change the order of these frames. We can affect what is in the frames. We can get frames more to our liking. We can make the frames. It’s a ridiculously larger palette, and it’s one that we don’t want to throw out just because it’s a more complicated task to produce. Let’s always remember that interactive video is still in its talking head phase – we’ve only just scratched the surface.

Now, there’s something else we want to discuss with you regarding video and the Internet. Remember the original value proposition we started this section out with? For the cost of producing one broadcast spot, we can make a whole site and reach millions of people. Well, that falls apart, doesn’t it, if the website also includes a bunch of video that we produce in the exact same way as we do for television. If we make a website, and shoot not thirty seconds of video, but, say, 5 minutes of video, and do all of it with the same production values and budgets as we would a broadcast spot, well, then, it wasn’t cheaper than that spot anymore, was it? It was actually exponentially more expensive. We tell you this not because we don’t want you to give us millions of dollars to produce your interactive video content (believe you me, we do, we do), but rather because it’s important to keep in mind that if we change that original value proposition, in many cases, our goals and needs change as well. Sometimes this is a good thing – witness Fallon’s groundbreaking BMW films – and we can all rock it. Sometimes, though, we actually love Internet advertising because it can be cheap, so we need to keep it cheap.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course. Web video, though getting better all the time, is a lot lower resolution than television, and especially HDTV. Awesomely and wonderfully, this won’t be the case very soon, but it still is now. There is a level of polish that you may not need. And not only that, the rise of the DIY, of the YouTube and the iPod has given rise to a different kind of aesthetic in web video that we can tap into. It doesn’t always have to look like a million bucks. Of course, there are times when it needs to, and in those cases, give us the resources and we’ll make it look like a million bucks. Amazingly, we can make something look like a million bucks for about $500,000. We’re magic like that. This is a joke. Sort of.

The final thing to keep in mind in all of this, then, is that your web video shoot is not a broadcast shoot. Chances are good, that in this day and age (and again, this will change soon in the future, we feel it), your website, the banners we’re building, any viral boosting, etc., and the web videos we’re making for you are all still costing, in total, less than a broadcast spot or two. This is awesome. We’re a different kind of company, and we’re used to this. Our cost structure is different than broadcast. But it’s important to remember: you didn’t pay us enough to put six people from your company in a fancy hotel, or even to really cater the shoot in the way you’re properly used to. It’s not because we’re cheap, it’s because the economics of web shoots are still fundamentally different than those of broadcast, and we all need to scrimp a little bit to get the job done on a smaller budget. This probably goes without saying, we realize, but if it’s your first web job, and you’re used to the cushy world of broadcast advertising, well, welcome to the world of the cheap. The Internet, though sucking up more of your money every year, is still the poor cousin of advertising. And, by the same token, the shoot might not have PAs. The shoot might not have the size of a crew that you’re used to. Try and not compensate for this by, say, sending our creative lead out to get coffee. Just a thought.

1 Wikipedia Interactive Film Article, as of Jan. 31, 2007. Originally uploaded by a bloke named “Peter S.” on March 1, 2006, bless him. Check his history page. It definitely wasn’t us. We don’t know anything about Dubai. I mean, seriously, look at us

Here are some recent posts from our employees about Internet Video:

Improv Anywhere Stikes Again... uhh Strikes Back!

Just watch it.

Nike Music Shoe

Hell Yes!

TV ads are so easy!

It’s so easy to buy TV media these days even a child can do it. My son Brian spent $2 on Google AdWords to promote his webseries Guitarings (a collaboration with Kyle Gass of Tenacious D) and, after picking his programming schedule and demographic mix, sure enough, on Monday night at 3:19am on Versus, his 30 second TV spot ran, nationally. Haha. Awesome.
Here’s the spot:
I wonder at what point clients are just going to set up an account with Google and make their own media buys?
And ok, so at 24 my son’s not exactly a “child.” But it made for a better opening line to this post.

Holy Shit! The New Redbull.com

You know that Red Bull makes an energy drink. You may even know that Red Bull puts on those wild events where people drive shit off a dock into water. BUT did you know that Red Bull invented it’s own sport (Red Bull Air Race) or a helicopter that can do a back flip? Has two Formula 1 teams? Hosts a Cliff Diving world series? Could definitely take your dad in a fight? Throws the biggest world wide break dance competition? Made downhill full contact ice hockey racing a real thing? Probably not.
That was the problem for Red Bull online: diffused presence, minimal cross-pollination of their awesome properties, poor search, and no clean way to show off and share their sickness. The truth is, Red Bull is everywhere, and they wanted to show everyone who has ever taken a sip of their magical beverage what they mean by “Red Bull Gives You Wings”.
We spent the last few months working with Red Bull and just launched the new Redbull.com! It’s pretty fabulous really. We took all their different properties across the globe, housed them within one awesome CMS, made the site content driven, and got out of the way of all the sick content that you really want to see. Oh yeah, and it’s built in HTML (unlike their previous sites that had heavy use of Flash) so it’s now search friendly and easily shareable and trackable. Bitchin, right?
Take a look at the homepage. It’s built to be modular and highlight the best of the best. It even has a feed that is sortable by media type.

All The Cool Kids Are Doing It

Public Service Announcement: I have joined the ranks of the lazybloggers. That is, I am now importing my Tumblr feed into my TBG blog, which contains the following:
As a result, my posts may be numerous, terse, nonsensical and/or random. Also, since I’m usually not using Tumblr itself to “reblog” content, items may not always properly attribute a source, but I’ll do my best to resolve that where it seems warranted. Otherwise it’s probably safe to assume that anything awesome or funny comes from Benjamin, Rick, Noah or some other Barbarian, and anything transit-related comes from Streetsblog.
Sorry in advance for the additional clutter. But hey, if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em, right?

YouTube and the diss by Time

So, Time has named YouTube one of the biggest tech failures of the last decade. Apparently this is based on the popular, though widely disputed (this comment on Alley Insider knocks down the conventional wisdom very convincingly, for example) calculations out there of their finances. I have to side with New Tee Vee on this one.
Calling them a failure at this point is just absurd. Anyone that knows anything about tech knows that Google and YouTube are trying an insane amount of different things right now to get monetization where it needs to be. Efforts are being made. Have the fruits been borne yet? No – at least as far as we know, but, then, what do we know until a quarterly report? But to say something like “There is a fairly good chance that the search company will never get a return on that investment” as the basis for failure, at this point, is absurd. I love that the journalist won’t even put there money where their mouth is and say “there’s no chance.” And yet they’ve already been branded as a failure.
If there’s a “fairly good” chance Googe WON’T get a return on their investment, logically there’s also a fairly good chance that they WILL. So simple semantics dictate that it’s not a failure YET. May it be in the future? Sure. But who would you believe more on that front? A journalist or, you know, the people that cracked the previously impossible goal of monetizing search, turning a loss leader into a massive profit center (i.e. GOOGLE).
I also have to laugh about how Google is a failure for a mere $1.6B, while it still maintains a dominant position, whereas Yahoo’s FIVE BILLION DOLLAR purchase of Broadcast.com wasn’t a failure. Perhaps they’re just leaving it out on a technicality since the deal was announced 10 years and one month ago and so it’s not in the last decade. I somehow doubt that’s the reason, though.
I honestly don’t understand why people write things like this. My mantra of “assume positive intent” is severely challenged in situations like this. But nor am I conspiracy theorist. Nor do I like to assume people are just dumb.
So what does that leave as an explanation?

Why is the Internet awesome?

Because I watched my nephew, Odeh’s band concert streaming live from Amman this morning. How cool is that? He is the one in the red pajama top that is about a foot smaller than everyone else.

Catching Up With GE Adventure

Over at the GE Adventure blog we’ve been pretty busy cataloging our thoughts and experiences. We’ve now been on three trips with a fourth to come next week. We’ve visited GE’s Global Research Center , climbed the Wind Turbine at Jiminy Peak and gone down to Maryland to check out GE’s Maternal Infant Care business.
Anyway, I thought I’d do a quick roundup of some highlights from the site over the last month:
That’s just a few highlights, there lots more at the blog