This is a bit of a lazyweb post because it’s Sunday and this is in my brain right now and I know I won’t have time to research it.
I have a couple of questions about ads at the beginning of video clips on news websites, and price points for DVDs and online TV.
It’s become popular, notably here in NZ, to run ads of 15 seconds at the beginning of video clips, even fairly ordinary 1.30 minute to 2 minute clips, across entire news sites.
I’m interested to know what the viewing figures are for video on these sites and how well the ads work for advertisers.
As a site visitor, I might sit through an ad now and then happily enough. But let’s say I want to watch four or five video clips during a single visit to a news site. What are the chances of me sitting through five ads so I can watch maybe 8 or 9 minutes of video? That would have to be pretty interesting video.
I can’t speak for anyone else but I often exit news websites from a video page because I get annoyed with the ad, can’t be bothered waiting to see the clip or, worse, wait for the clip only to be disappointed and then can’t be bothered having to sit through another ad to see whether the next clip is of any more use to me.
I particularly struggle with the idea that someone who is reading, say, a story about what the prime minister said in the House would want to click through to a video page, sit through an ad, then watch a narrated TV clip of the PM talking in the House when all they want is 30 seconds of the PM in action, preferably embedded in the story page.
I remember Eric Ries, a lean startup specialist, and another speaker at the Webstock conference held in Wellington earlier this year talking about the importance of gathering properly useful statistics. Not vanity statistics such as how many page views were served in a given day, but useful ones like how often people come back to your site, how much of each video they watch, and which are the biggest exit pages.
I’d be really interested to see the viewing statistics for video served with ads on news sites – not just how many people clicked through to the page or clicked on play, but how long they spent, how many watched the ad right through, how much of the video they watched, how many got to the end of the video and how many exited the site from a video page.
On a related note, I’m interested to know if anyone in New Zealand offers or has tried to offer pay-to-view versus free-but-with-ads video options, and what the outcome was.
I ask because the few times I’ve used TVNZ’s On Demand service, which I think is a great innovation, I’ve become annoyed with the 7 ads I’ve had to sit through. I’ve found myself thinking ‘I’d rather pay $2 and watch the episode right through’, or maybe pay $5 and download the episode to watch when I feel like it.
Which brings me to meandering Sunday thought number three: price points. You could, perhaps will, call me cheap for offering a measly $2 to watch a TV programme. But that’s what price feels right to me. I’m just looking for a little distraction, after all. I can just as easily pick up a book or go to www.ted.com.
It’s got to be cheaper than going to the video store and, for many people, quick and cheap enough to deter them from finding a free download somewhere. iPhone apps have taught me that I will spend $2 without blinking and $5 with little trouble, but that a $10+ price tag will make me pause and think about it.
The same applies for DVDs. I unplugged my television four months ago and haven’t missed it much, but every now and then I fancy settling in on the couch to watch something that entertains but requires little thought. I’ve looked at box sets of TV series but every time balked at the price. I can’t bring myself to pay $80 for what is basically a throwaway experience – something I’ll watch once and never again. I’d probably pay half that, though, and then buy twice or three times as much.
All of which is a roundabout way of wondering out loud which is the greater source of revenue over time from already-broadcast content – more buyers at cheaper prices or fewer buyers at dearer prices. My instinct says the former, but I’d rather see some data.
All Evolving Newsroom
Video ads and price points
This is a bit of a lazyweb post because it’s Sunday and this is in my brain right now and I know I won’t have time to research it.
I have a couple of questions about ads at the beginning of video clips on news websites, and price points for DVDs and online TV.
It’s become popular, notably here in NZ, to run ads of 15 seconds at the beginning of video clips, even fairly ordinary 1.30 minute to 2 minute clips, across entire news sites.
I’m interested to know what the viewing figures are for video on these sites and how well the ads work for advertisers.
As a site visitor, I might sit through an ad now and then happily enough. But let’s say I want to watch four or five video clips during a single visit to a news site. What are the chances of me sitting through five ads so I can watch maybe 8 or 9 minutes of video? That would have to be pretty interesting video.
I can’t speak for anyone else but I often exit news websites from a video page because I get annoyed with the ad, can’t be bothered waiting to see the clip or, worse, wait for the clip only to be disappointed and then can’t be bothered having to sit through another ad to see whether the next clip is of any more use to me.
I particularly struggle with the idea that someone who is reading, say, a story about what the prime minister said in the House would want to click through to a video page, sit through an ad, then watch a narrated TV clip of the PM talking in the House when all they want is 30 seconds of the PM in action, preferably embedded in the story page.
I remember Eric Ries, a lean startup specialist, and another speaker at the Webstock conference held in Wellington earlier this year talking about the importance of gathering properly useful statistics. Not vanity statistics such as how many page views were served in a given day, but useful ones like how often people come back to your site, how much of each video they watch, and which are the biggest exit pages.
I’d be really interested to see the viewing statistics for video served with ads on news sites – not just how many people clicked through to the page or clicked on play, but how long they spent, how many watched the ad right through, how much of the video they watched, how many got to the end of the video and how many exited the site from a video page.
On a related note, I’m interested to know if anyone in New Zealand offers or has tried to offer pay-to-view versus free-but-with-ads video options, and what the outcome was.
I ask because the few times I’ve used TVNZ’s On Demand service, which I think is a great innovation, I’ve become annoyed with the 7 ads I’ve had to sit through. I’ve found myself thinking ‘I’d rather pay $2 and watch the episode right through’, or maybe pay $5 and download the episode to watch when I feel like it.
Which brings me to meandering Sunday thought number three: price points. You could, perhaps will, call me cheap for offering a measly $2 to watch a TV programme. But that’s what price feels right to me. I’m just looking for a little distraction, after all. I can just as easily pick up a book or go to www.ted.com.
It’s got to be cheaper than going to the video store and, for many people, quick and cheap enough to deter them from finding a free download somewhere. iPhone apps have taught me that I will spend $2 without blinking and $5 with little trouble, but that a $10+ price tag will make me pause and think about it.
The same applies for DVDs. I unplugged my television four months ago and haven’t missed it much, but every now and then I fancy settling in on the couch to watch something that entertains but requires little thought. I’ve looked at box sets of TV series but every time balked at the price. I can’t bring myself to pay $80 for what is basically a throwaway experience – something I’ll watch once and never again. I’d probably pay half that, though, and then buy twice or three times as much.
All of which is a roundabout way of wondering out loud which is the greater source of revenue over time from already-broadcast content – more buyers at cheaper prices or fewer buyers at dearer prices. My instinct says the former, but I’d rather see some data.