Types of Videos Facebook Won’t Monetize

Facebook is expanding pre-roll video ads to more areas on the platform. The company is also clarifying its monetization policies giving additional detail on the kinds of videos that aren’t eligible for ads.

The company has announced that after testing pre-roll ads for shows in its video section, Facebook Watch, it will be expanding the test to other places where videos can be found, like in search results or on a Facebook Page timeline.

In addition to previous ad-eligibility guidelines released last fall that restricts ads from running on certain kinds of content — including videos that have sexual themes, depict violent or illegal activity, contain inappropriate language, or misappropriate children’s characters — Facebook will not monetize certain low-quality videos or publishers who engage in sharing and distribution schemes.

“We are focused on growing payouts for creators and publishers who develop engaged and loyal audiences and are working on growing payouts for partners who develop loyal, engaged viewing,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Other types of video content ineligible for monetization include:

Manufactured sharing and distribution schemes:

Content partners with paid arrangements for Pages to methodically and inorganically share videos can no longer monetize views originating on the third party Pages. According to Facebook, this behavior optimizes for distribution rather than quality and does not build deep relationships between people and content.

Formats unsuitable for an ad:

When content partners use video formats that aren’t actually video – like static or minimal movement videos or content that just loops – they are creating experiences not intended for ad break monetization, says Facebook. People do not expect to see ads in this type of content, and this is not the type of content advertisers want to run ads in.

Limited editorialization of content:

Facebook says that pages primarily distributing videos of repurposed clips from other sources with limited editorialization do not foster engaged, loyal communities in the way that Pages that produce and publish original, thematic or episodic videos do. “While we will not be taking immediate enforcement action on this issue, we want to signal to content producers that this is a programming style we will more deeply evaluate over the coming weeks and months to assess what level of distribution and monetization matches the value created for people,” the company wrote in the blog post.

read more here: thevideoink.com

Why It’s Time To Stop Treating OTT And TV As Different Channels

by Allen Klosowski

My parents have seen a lot of technology come and go during their lifetimes. When they were young, television was in its infancy, limited to black-and-white images on a small, dimly lit screen. Today, they have not one, but two high-definition televisions side by side in their living room: One is a traditional cable television set and the other is a Roku TV.

My parents don’t care that one TV receives programming through a cable box while the other streams video through the Roku app and other smart-TV apps. They like to be in the same room together, and this setup avoids the need for compromise; my dad watches sports silently with closed captioning and my mom keeps up on her favorite shows at the same time.

If you switched on the same show on both TVs, you wouldn’t be able to discern which was which because the image quality and viewing experience are identical.

While this story is unique to my family, it’s representative of the larger reality that the lines between television and over-the-top (OTT) video are becoming blurred. Consumers don’t dwell on how some televisions have internet capabilities and others do not. The only relevant factor is whether they can access their desired content at a satisfactory level of quality. Once that need is met, OTT, traditional TV and everything in between become insignificant distinctions in the minds of most consumers. All in all, it’s just “TV.”

OTT origins

Was OTT video streaming spurred by the first smart TVs in the late ’90s and early 2000s? Or maybe Netflix’s rollout of streaming video in 2007? Whatever beginning point you choose, one pattern holds true: Early users of OTT sought a different experience than traditional television. Audiences wanted greater control over the specific content they consumed, and they wanted to watch it on their own time.

A decade later, however, the definition of OTT video has significantly evolved and broadened to include features and capabilities that weren’t in the picture early on. Consumers who leverage over-the-top video have undergone a parallel transformation, and the user base today looks very different than it did years ago. These factors are evidence of ongoing progress that should continue to shape the way video is packaged, supplied and monetized for years to come.

In the early days, over-the-top video and video-on-demand (VOD) were often one and the same, so it was acceptable to use terms like OTT and VOD synonymously. On the other hand, OTT and linear TV described entirely different experiences. OTT represented a limited selection of video streamed to televisions or computers over the internet, unbound by dayparts or bundles.

Television viewing was subject to network scheduling, but a wide variety of content was available, including live events such as sports and newscasts. Moreover, the experience available in OTT fell short of the premium standard that had been set by traditional television – navigation was clunky, user interfaces were not well-suited to the available devices and buffering was a constant annoyance.

Due to these discrepancies, early OTT was mostly seen as a supplement to regularly scheduled programming. While it was clearly a disruptive innovation that quickly established staying power, it wasn’t regarded as an acceptable alternative to TV.

Today’s OTT

Over the last several years, however, OTT has advanced to the point that it rivals traditional television. Live, broadcast-quality video can be streamed over the internet and viewed in an uncluttered, lean-back environment where viewers are in complete control of what they watch and when.

Many media owners have also upskilled in video streaming, bringing a greater variety of content into the space. Leading broadcasters have developed TV Everywhere applications to make their original content available in OTT environments, and pioneers like DirectTV Now, fuboTV, Hulu and SlingTV have even brought live and linear programming into the mix. Viewers can now enjoy a comparable experience regardless of whether they’re accessing content over-the-top or through traditional channels.

The natural upgrade cycle for video viewing technology has also driven “passive adoption” of OTT. Many consumers buying smart TVs are not necessarily doing so on purpose, but brand-new televisions are often equipped with internet capabilities by default. In these cases, OTT adoption isn’t a conscious choice, but rather a natural evolution and simply a sign of the times.

Cord cutters, cord shavers and cord nevers have all made their content consumption decisions for very different reasons than the early adopters of OTT, and the audience has broadened as a result. Now, the delivery method of choice is less about what the technology represents – innovation, modernity, being ahead of the curve – and more about the experience it can deliver. From a consumer perspective, over-the-top is not a new category but rather the next evolution of how TV can be enjoyed.

read more here: adexchanger.com

Three Strategies to fight Netflix

In just a few years’ time, the way we consume entertainment has changed drastically. Netflix and other video streaming services have taken the industry by storm, encouraging consumers to cut the cord and enjoy their content on demand. In fact, last year Netflix users collectively watched 1 billion hours of content each week, and more than 22 million U.S. adults were expected to drop cable services, up 33% from the previous year — a major blow to cable companies.

With streaming on the rise, how can cable outlets keep their current customer base coming back?

Stay Transparent

Open communication is key to maintaining a healthy customer relationship. When it comes to set-up fees, service upgrades or any extra charges, cable providers should be up front about a customer’s tab.

Unexplained price increases are a common cable customer gripe, and with monthly charges up an average of 53% in just a decade, according to S&P Global Intelligence figures cited by the Associated Press, customers are turning to alternate options. Nobody likes seeing an unexpected uptick in their monthly bill — be prepared to explain why things may be changing, and it’ll go a long way toward maintaining customers’ trust.

Tap New Revenue Streams

Who doesn’t like a healthy bottom line? By offering a valuable benefit like customized consumer electronics warranty products for TVs, gaming systems, laptops and more, cable companies can give current customers another reason to stay on board. Include this protection in a customer’s overall package, and you become much more than just a cable provider — you’re a one-stop shop for devices, service and coverage. Plus, you’ll be adding another line of revenue.

Don’t Be a Robot

While consistency in messaging is important when communicating with your customers, train your service reps to avoid being robotic in delivery. Sure, everyone has a script to read, but a simple gesture like asking the customer how their day is going can make a tremendous difference in the tone of a service call.

That interaction can have effects beyond one call as well. Angry customers aren’t hesitant to post bad reviews or recorded conversations online, potentially affecting your reputation. Take Comcast for example, where $300 million was pledged toward an updated customer service strategy. After multiple complaints, the cable giant promised customers incentives like $20 if a representative is late to an appointment, and a redesigned monthly bill to better answer customer questions.

read more here: www.multichannel.com

6 Magazine CEOs, 4 Strategies: How To Survive and Succeed!

The magazine industry is consolidating in the face of multiple challenges.

Rather than the newsstand, competition is coming from social platforms. Marketers want the performance advertising sold by key digital players. And as print circulation declines, magazines struggle to maintain the steady revenue from their direct-to-consumer subscription businesses.

The CEOs and presidents of Condé Nast, Meredith, Hearst, Bonnier, Active Interest Media (AIM) and New York Media spoke Tuesday at the American Magazine Media Conference in New York City about how they are addressing these challenges. In recent years, Rodale and Time Inc. CEOs took the stage – but those companies are now part of Hearst and Meredith, respectively.

1. Evolving to serve performance advertisers

Magazines are struggling to prove their value to marketers who know and love their content but need to prove ROI in a more concrete, logical way.

“There is a disconnect between what [marketers] think and feel [about the magazine experience] and … the KPIs and marketing science,” said Andrew Clurman, president and CEO of AIM.

Bonnier has incredibly old brands, but today it’s focused on connecting that editorial authority to the engagement and results that brand voice can create.

“Gone are the days of leading with how iconic or old your brands are in today’s performance-based environment,” said Bonnier CEO Eric Zinczenko.

The magazine CEOs said they were focusing on building first-party data assets and using this data to diversify their own businesses or help advertisers.

Condé Nast, for example, is investing in its data platform – and if it makes an acquisition, it will be driven by data, not a magazine brand, said CEO Robert Sauerberg Jr.

“We are in a world where whether we like it or not, more money is being spent on performance-based advertising,” he said. “We built a database business 25 years ago. We have been doing this forever. One of the things this industry can do is to use our first-party data to create some targeting.”

2. Paid content

As revenue from print advertisers declines, magazines want to boost subscription revenue.

Meredith’s Magnolia Journal earns 95% of its revenue from consumers, not advertisers. “Usually, it’s 60-40 the other way,” noted Tom Harty, president and CEO of Meredith.

At Condé Nast, The New Yorker is a standout in convincing readers to pay for its expensive-to-produce content, including a recent scoop about Harvey Weinstein.

“Our culture is about getting these stories right,” Sauerberg said. “Creating really great premium content that consumers will pay for its very expensive, hard and time-consuming.”

But such efforts are paying off, even online: “We have one of the most successful paywalls in the world, and it’s growing 40% a year,” Sauerberg said.

First-party data helps in this realm, too. New York Media is building up its data and analytics to help advertisers, and it’s expanded into events, where it can get its readers to pay for cultural experiences like the Vulture Festival.

“We have taken the understanding of why our audience is attracted to us and applied it to building new businesses and developing new brands,” said New York Media CEO Pam Wasserstein.

3. Brand safety

Magazine CEOs see an opportunity with Facebook’s and Google’s challenges policing their content.

“All these CMOs are saying, ‘I had no idea my content was showing up here and here and here – next to terrorists and Nazis,’” Wasserstein said. “Magazine brands are not only brand-safe but brand-enhancing. It’s a step beyond.”

Magazine media companies are also trying to position themselves as more authoritative than digital media startups.

“We have to remind our clients that smaller startups know if they don’t cut a corner sometimes, they won’t show revenue growth … and might go out of business,” Hearst Magazines President David Carey said. “We need to reinforce that [magazine] companies play for the long term.”

4. Revenue diversification

Magazine companies don’t plan on always relying on advertising to bring in revenue. Instead, they are turning to both conventional and surprising sources of revenue.

Case in point: AIM, which publishes Practical Horseman and American Cowboy, also sells horse trailer insurance. To further diversify, the company, which also publishes magazines about skiing and yoga, is applying its expertise in content and video to create online training and certifications.

read more here: adexchanger.com

Is Amazon’s video strategy working?

Amazon is taking a strikingly different approach to Prime Video than rivals such as Netflix and Hulu are with their services. Rather than bundle content together into a single offering, it is providing most of the video in channels that customers must subscribe to separately. It is working very hard to build up the number of channels available to cover every niche and content genre a viewer could possibly want.

There are already 120 content services available through Amazon Channels. The company continues to press to expand that list. It is rumored to be in negotiations with “dozens” of smaller cable channels to buy them. TV channels providing content with unencumbered rights (rights that aren’t locked into exclusive distribution agreements) are of the most interest. Amazon will be able to launch them quickly to a global audience as part of Channels.

Amazon is not just waiting around for other providers to fill out the content available through Prime Video. It is working with companies directly to fill out important genre categories. For example, animated content creator Genius Brands International is partnering with Amazon in the creation of a channel offering targeted at children. Kids Genius Cartoons Plus! will be available Thursday to Amazon Prime members for $3.99 per month. Genius properties such as Baby Genius and Thomas Edison’s Secret Lab will be available as well as non-Genius shows such as Inspector Gadget and Carl Squad.

Building the library of included content with originals, sports

Amazon recognizes that a large collection of content available as part of a basic subscription is critical to success. It gives customers a no-commitment reason to go to the video portal. Once there, Amazon can use its marketing muscle to get them to subscribe to other content. That is why it has committed to spending $4 billion this year on original content. It is spreading the investment around in genre’s like comedy (The Tick), drama (Mozart in the Jungle), and Crime (Bosch.)

It is also plunging into the world of premium sports. Amazon members will be able to watch ten Thursday football games this season, starting this week with the Bears versus Packers. This is the first time Amazon has streamed live content as part of Prime Video membership. It will be a test of the home-grown streaming platform that Amazon uses, as live streaming continues to be challenging for providers.

Is Amazon’s strategy working?

Amazon doesn’t provide any specifics on how many people are watching the content it provides through Prime Video. Luckily, there are other data sources we can draw on to assess how well it is doing.

Last year, Clearleap reported that 75% of Amazon Prime members say they watch video available through the platform. Most, however, see Prime Video as a nice bonus, not the main reason to subscribe. Still, if most of the 66 million Prime members are using the video apps that is certainly a big win for the company. Unfortunately, engagement still lags well behind other online video providers.

According to comScore, Netflix and Hulu are used more than twice as much as Amazon Video. Hulu streaming households watch 28 hours and 54 minutes a month, while Netflix homes watch 26 hours and 54 minutes a month. Amazon video streaming homes watch just 10 hours and 42 minutes a month.

This data strongly suggests that Amazon customers start looking for video somewhere else before they turn to Prime Video. For Amazon to be successful, it will need to reposition Prime Video as the first place its customers turn to when they want entertainment video on television.

YouTube: What’s Your Video Strategy There?

We’re always focused on gaps when it comes to our clients’ digital marketing strategy. Search engines aren’t just a channel for businesses and consumers to find the brands they’re looking for, the algorithms are also an outstanding indicator of a brand’s authority online. As we analyze the content that’s driving attention to the brand, we compare the content on each competitor’s site to see what the differences are.

Quite often, one of those differentiators is video. There are several types of videos that can be produced, but explainer videos, how-to videos, and customer testimonials are the most impactful for businesses. How-to and style videos on YouTube receive an average of 8,332 views Tweet This!, the most popular category next to entertainment videos.

If it’s time to compete with video content, I’d recommend your company put together a balanced strategy:

Put aside a significant budget for an explainer video that’s up to 2 minutes long. Remember that this video is going to stick with you for a while, so ensuring consistent branding, removing any time-specific mentions, and teasing the future would be a great strategy. An animated video that performs well may be $5k to $10k – but a great return on investment.
Take every opportunity you can to film testimonial videos. Even if it means that you hire film crews and send them to your customers, you should absolutely invest in it. Testimonials are indicators of trust that can not be beaten. They can also be repurposed for written content throughout all of your digital and print mediums. Don’t underestimate the power of an emotional testimonial on your company.

Work on thought leadership videos that spotlight the human resources and culture of your company that differentiates you from competitors. For efficiency, we often schedule an entire day or two of shooting of the leaders of the business. By doing this, we can create spotlight videos that focus on one person at a time, or we can mix and match thematic videos on different topics.
Don’t forget that videos aren’t just a fantastic asset for your site, YouTube itself continues to lead online searches next to Google. Optimize your YouTube channel and each of your videos for maximum impact. Produce other videos on a regular basis to build subscribers and start a community of your own.

What’s around the corner? Live video. YouTube is jumping heads first into the live streaming game. We’re still early, but sometimes that’s the best time to jump into an emerging technology. Before the big brands make the investment, smaller agile businesses can take advantage and drive some great market share. It’s definitely a gamble – but we’ve seen it pay off over and over again.

This infographic from Visual Z Studios will provide you with the overview of how critical this channel is when working with video.

read more here:

https://martech.zone/youtube-video-strategy/

Video Is Not Display, So Publishers Should Stop Using Display CPM Strategies

– by Yoav Naveh

The concept of online advertising has long been associated with the standard banner ad – the square unit that consumers breeze past as they scroll down a page.

That’s changing rapidly, though, as video viewership grows and introduces more opportunities for engaging video ads. As a result, video ad spending is predicted to grow by 12% this year while traditional banner spending shrinks, according to JP Morgan.

Publishers have long relied on display as their primary revenue source. As a result, many of the publisher-focused technology solutions have addressed display ad selling. But video isn’t sold or served in the exact same way as display advertising, which means that established tactics aren’t necessarily transferable.

For instance, when publishers try to optimize toward the highest CPM with video, as they do with display, they run the risk of inconsistent fill rates and long load times. Rather than trying to mimic display strategies, publishers need to look for a strategy that leads to the same desired outcome, rather than a direct technological equivalent. In video, that means optimizing toward overall ad revenue rather than CPMs.

Video advertising is far more technologically intense than display. VPAID tags can take 10 seconds or more to fire and actually load an ad, and some ad calls time out, resulting in no actual payment to the publisher. With all this heavy lifting, publishers want to maximize the chances they’ll get paid for every potential video impression. As a result, many are loading up on video ad networks to get the highest CPMs possible.

Unfortunately, this focus on CPM has a downside. Adding more networks means adding more tags, which means even longer load times. To make matters worse, the entity that wins a video ad auction may not always pay for the impression. This may be attributable to technological errors at times, but a delinquent buyer is most likely rooted in video’s archaic arbitrage practice, where even prominent supply-side platforms own seats on demand-side platforms and bid for impressions.

These attempts to buy up inventory and resell it for a higher fee have created a mess of a consumer experience and set up a very dangerous house of cards for publishers. A buyer trying to resell an impression can push the load time toward 20 seconds or more. These excruciatingly long load times lead to user abandonment, which can cause traffic to crater, thereby bringing fewer ad impressions and ultimately resulting in no business at all for the publisher. Maxing out on ad networks in an attempt to optimize for CPMs in this way is not optimizing for revenue, especially if it has the potential to destroy revenue and the online user experience altogether.

What are publishers to do if they want to maximize return in the increasingly competitive video market? Rather than optimize impressions around the highest CPM, publishers need to take the longer view toward revenue, which is part and parcel with understanding fill rates and load time.

The first step is shifting the focus toward revenue per thousand page views, or RPM, rather than the CPMs from auctions. Simple A/B testing should provide a clearer understanding of this metric. Publishers may find a new partner can generate $20,000 RPM, which is great. But if that source is potentially taking $25,000 away from another bidder, then that’s a net loss of $5,000 per thousand page views. Getting the highest CPM for each impression might provide a real-time rush for the publisher, but careful analysis needs to be done to ensure that a quick thrill won’t negatively impact long-term revenue success.

read more here:

https://adexchanger.com/the-sell-sider/video-not-display-publishers-stop-using-display-cpm-strategies/