Cup of Joe: There Are No Commercial Breaks On the Internet

Sarah Haskins is part of InfoMania’s line up of commentators that pokes fun at mainstream media. Sarah’s biggest contribution is her recurring segment “Target Women.”

“Target Women” is a video commentary that takes a satirical look at television adverts that target women. As we can see above Sarah doesn’t hold back when discussing the rather broad generalizations that these commercials assume.

Watching a satirical commentary on television adverts exposes one of the major contrasts with broadcast media and the internet. Broadcast media is riddled with assumptions while the internet by its very nature is void of assumptions. Take for example the ads discussed above, they are completely based on the assumptions of the ad executives that created them, and as a result they fall victim to the risk of being irrelevant, ineffective, and annoying. Now, don’t get me wrong, mainstream ad agencies spend millions of dollars on market research, and demographic studies, all so they can make calculated assumptions. But, in the end they are still assumptions none the less!

The internet on the other hand, by its very nature makes very little assumptions. We visit websites that we want to. We digest information that we have requested. 98% of social media is an opt-in medium. And, unless you are visiting a site like Hulu, there are no commercial breaks on the internet. Instead the vast majority of the ads online are topic specific to the sites they are on. I could be reading an article about how to build a bird house and find an ad in the margin for bird house plans.

Effective internet marketing is void of irrelevance. Effective internet marketing is void of assumptions. Effective internet marketing should provide the user as much, if not close to as much, value as the content they are promoting. Effective internet marketing isn’t about gambling away marketing dollars on false assumptions but strategically promoting ideas and information that value the consumer as well as the merchant.

If your internet marketing efforts are based on assumptions, you are doing it wrong.

It’s Official: Baidu into Video

Yesterday’s rumors have proven true: dominant Chinese search engine Baidu has officially announced their entry into the online video market in China. In fact, they’ve confirmed almost all of the rumors floating around yesterday: Baidu is involved, it’s a partnership, they’ll be soliciting content licensing agreements from professional content producers, it will be free with ad support (like Hulu), and Yu Gong, former China Mobile exec, will head up the site. Only Providence Equity Partners’ participation wasn’t confirmed.

As mentioned yesterday, the Chinese video market is lucrative—worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in Q308, according to Analysys International. It’s little wonder that Baidu is eyeing the market (even though the Chinese search market is valued at 2B yuan [$293M], with Baidu controlling around two thirds of the market). China also faces piracy problems that seems more serious than those in the US, where a site with a similar model has enjoyed unexpected success at Hulu.

With all these concerns, the Chinese video market looks even less appealing in light of another point from Reuters: “J.P. Morgan analyst Dick Wei said most video sites in China were still making losses but Baidu had the added advantage of being able to offer more targeted advertisements given its search technology.”

Baidu didn’t say whether the new venture would feature UGC, with the additional content and IP problems it can pose, but even without that, they could face not only competition but content theft from video pirates. The Chinese video market is highly fragmented online, so there’s a definite possibility that Baidu could emerge as the leader (and winner) in this arena—but will they?

What do you think? Can Baidu succeed in two areas? Will China receive a Hulu of their own?

Baidu Getting into Video?

paidContent reports today that private equity company Providence Equity Partners, one of the backers of Hulu, is rumored to be joining up with Baidu for a Chinese equivalent of the popular professional video content site. While China is the largest Internet population (350M) and a huge market for ad dollars in just about every online arena, it’s little wonder both the Chinese search giant and the American investment firm are interested. While Providence declined comment, other sources told PC the deal was already closed.

Reuters reports that the new video site would launch in the first quarter of this year. Providence will back it with $60M, while Baidu is fronting $10M. A recently-departed China Mobile executive is rumored to be the CEO of the new site.

Analysys International reports that the Chinese online video market was worth 162 million yuan ($23.73 million) in the third quarter of last year—again, little wonder these two companies are interested in the market. On the other hand, this is considerably less than the well-established US video advertising market, of which Hulu controlled some 10% (and commanded similar ad rates to TV). Could a Chinese Hulu take over the same proportion of the Chinese ad market (to the tune of $9.5M)?

Hard to say, of course. Before Hulu came along, it seemed doubtful that a site with such a model could succeed—but now it does appear to be successful, as well as a major source for online video content. Naturally, Providence and Baidu would need Chinese television stations and studios to sign on to create the professional content. And while the US isn’t the best counterexample here, China has a reputation for rampant online video piracy that may diminish the appeal (and the restrictions) of a site like Hulu.

What do you think? Can Baidu expand its empire successfully with this? Or is China just not the market for another Hulu?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Yahoo Announces Top 2009 Searches (December, Deschember)

Yesterday, Andy took a look at the top searches for bing in 2009 (am I supposed to capitalize bing or not, someone PLEASE clear that up for me). Today, courtesy of Digital Beat we look at the top searches for Yahoo for 2009. Whether they are playing follow their new leader or they want to still be known as a search engine, honestly I don’t know. One thing for sure is, as Anthony Ha, wonders aloud

While we’re on the subject of “year in review” lists, I’ll add that I’m baffled that these lists are coming out now. I understand why some publications feel comfortable doing a list of the best movies or books or whatever (since critics have often received advanced copies or screenings of what’s coming out before the end of the year), but search terms? Really? Don’t we have another month to go?

Gotta agree with Anthony on that one but let’s not nitpick when there’s a silly list to dissect! Yahoo’s top searches read like a referendum on just how shallow we are in this world (social commentary is a freebie for you today)

1. Michael Jackson
2. Twilight
3. WWE
4. Megan Fox
5. Britney Spears
6. Naruto
7. American Idol
8. Kim Kardashian
9. NASCAR
10. Runescape

So to prove just how shallow I am, I recognized 80% of the top 10 and I have to ask this: “How the heck did NASCAR make the list?!” Is there wifi at stills now? I have to admit I have no clue about Naruto or Runescape.

I’m back because I did a quick search for each of those on Yahoo to goose their numbers and I have determined that I was better off not knowing about them but now I’m in.

Now when talking about business related searches we have the classic showdown between Facebook and Twitter and ……..drum roll please………

1. Facebook
2. Twitter
3. Hulu
4. Bing
5. iPhone
6. LinkedIn
7. Dollar Stores
8. Palm Pre
9. Rosetta Stone
10. Kindle

Well, while it still baffles me that people do searches for these terms at least Google didn’t make the list.

So now the question remains if Google will hold out and wait for 2009 to actually end before reporting their top searches for the year. Not much to look forward to, I agree, but it’s a slow news day.

Bada Bing! Bing Adds New Video and SERP Features

Microsoft has announced several new features for its rebranded search engine—I mean, “decision engine”—Bing, including the rollout of Bing Videos, a partnership with Wolfram Alpha and a new hover preview feature.

Bing Videos

Yesterday, Bing announced a new video site that will take over the old Microsoft Video (yeah, I’d never heard of it, either). In addition to MSN videos, Bing Video will feature content from Hulu, ABC and YouTube.

While it’s unlikely that Bing Videos will challenge YouTube in a major way, I think it’s a good idea for them to launch their own site, if their goal is merely to increase time on site, and make Bing even more of a go-to resource.

Partnership with Wolfram Alpha

A searchable database of information, Wolfram Alpha announced APIs this summer in the wake of rumors of a deal with Bing. The APIs seemed quell the gossip—but now the two really are teaming up.

The partnership is limited to the area of diet and nutrition (I’m guessing as a test run for a possible wider deal in the future). Bing says this partnership will help its users make decisions about their food choices. When you search for a food on Bing, nutrition information from Wolfram Alpha will appear in a tab on the SERP.

This will also include tools like a BMI calculator.

Advanced Hover Preview Feature

Bing is also bringing and advanced hover preview feature to their SERPs. The press release states that this feature adds:

• An actual snapshot of the Web site in question
• A link to the customer service number (where appropriate)
• Deep links, the most-often-clicked links on the site
• A search-within-this-site box that allows you to scour the site to find what you’re looking for.
• Facebook page previews, from which you can view a person’s picture, see who is in their Facebook network and send them a message or friend request.

Conveniently, this preview only shows up when you mouse over a plus-sign on the right side of the screen, rather than every time you mouseover a link (like Snap Preview, which I find so obnoxious). Microsoft made a video so you can see it in action if it’s not on your SERPs yet (warning, it autoplays):

Interestingly, this does showcase some feature that have long been a part of Google’s SERPs, including deep links to the most popular pages of a site and a search box to use the site’s internal search.

What do you think? Which of these features will you be most likely to use?

Google #1 Site Worldwide with 6% Global Traffic

What do you get when you analyze nearly 300 quadrillion megabytes of Internet traffic? Aside from really tired, I mean. Well, if you’re Arbor Networks, you get the largest study of global Internet traffic since the beginning of the commercial Internet in the ’90s. And ten guesses who came out on top. (No fair cheating, reading the headline!)

Yep, Google received 6% of all traffic worldwide. Meanwhile, 29 other giants, including Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft, rounded out the top 30% of traffic—meaning that these days, a few big sites are getting a lot of the Internet’s traffic.

Considering that only 52% of Internet traffic is web-based, this is even more significant. (The other 48% is made up of email and private networks. And did you know that P2P constitutes 18% of Internet traffic? That’s down from 40% two years ago.)

The study shows a few interesting Internet traffic shifts in recent years, and not just in P2P data (though Read Write Web says the shift away from P2P is probably due to the growing popularity of streaming from YouTube, Hulu and Netflix, with up to 20% of web traffic coming from video). As we see so often, the big sites are acquiring more and more of the little sites, amassing a greater and greater percentage of web traffic—and consolidating traffic more and more into the hands a few companies.

Who makes up the rest of the oligarchy?

The other companies making the list of Internet giants include names like Akamai, Limelight, BitGravity, Highwinds, and Gravity – hardly household names, and certainly not big telco providers. Instead, these content delivery networks (CDNs), are the new Internet backbone that help move large amounts of data across the web.

Arbor Networks Chief Scientist Craig Labovitz says that “as content is getting faster and better quality it will change the face of the internet.” What do you think? Is content the next wave of Internet revolution?

<img border="0" src="http://constanthit.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/755ed_vertical-leap-seo-234.gif”>

Cup of Joe: Transparency is Killing Ad Profits.

Not long ago we reported that Hulu is now attracting more viewers than Time Warner Cable. However, despite that, the cable networks that own Hulu are still making the majority of their ad profits from traditional media.

Hulu is not the only one suffering from failed ad programs while their user base rises. Facebook now has a user base larger than most first world countries. Despite this they have failed to turn a profit even after releasing a sophisticated ad platform.

Even as users are flocking to online media, traditional media companies are still making the majority of the ad profits. Lets take a look at how traditional media is making loads more than online publishers.

How to Be a Traditional (Rich) Media Fat Cat.

1. Develop addictive content, that preys on people’s emotions.
2. Use preexisting infrastructures to scale and distribute.
3. Keep your advertisers in the dark.
4. Sell ad space at inflated margins.

Notice that I put an emphasis on point 3. This is the most important aspect of the above formula because with out it, point 4 won’t fly.

The truth is, most of the corporations that buy ad space in traditional media have absolutely no idea if it works or not. Sure they can look at their sales numbers over time and predict that this ad or that commercial was successful or not, but compared to Internet marketing they are literally in the dark.

With Internet marketing we can use analysts tools, sophisticated tracking techniques and even user behavior analysis to nail down conversion rates to exact numbers. Couple this data with PPC and CPM ad models and we can calculate ROI to the penny–in real time–and make adjustments to ad spending instantly.  All of these exact measurements can enable the advertisers to only spend the bare minimum needed on ads.

And this is why online publishers are failing at making a profit. Traditional media companies make huge profits on wasted ad spending. In an attempt to lure big money to the Internet, companies like Google pushed tools and ad platforms that enabled advertisers to spend less. In the end the only way a company can make substantial profits in this radically transparent environment, is to monopolize the flow of information.

Hey folks I just reread this post for the third time, and I realized that its incredibly boring! I am sorry about that. To make up for the above, here are a few things to look at that I think better represent my regular style of content. Enjoy!

<img border="0" src="http://constanthit.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/73484_vertical-leap-seo-234.gif”>

Connect Propelled Facebook Past MySpace

In case you missed it, Facebook is pretty popular. As of June 2008, they’d beat MySpace in terms of total unique visitors worldwide (ballooning to twice as many uniques as MySpace in January 2009)—and even in the US, one of the few Facebook-is-#2 holdouts, Facebook has caught up to MySpace. Hitwise takes a look at the stats—and they say that Facebook Connect gave the popular social network the boost it needed to achieve world domination.

Hitwise mentions other factors that have helped FB: the new layout, mobile apps, especially for the iPhone and BlackBerry.

Another is certainly the Facebook Connect program, which allows users to share stories in their news feed and make comments on websites and blogs. The program launched in beta during July of last year, then officially launched to developers in early December. The number of websites participating in Facebook Connect has grown quickly to over 15,000 websites (globally) including CNN.com, NBC.com, ABCNews.com, Hulu, WashingtonPost.com, The Huffington Post, and others.

Most convincing, of course, is the cold, hard data:

While it’s obvious that the members of Facebook Connect have helped FB gain some visibility and perhaps even legitimacy, personally, I’m still a little skeptical that Connect did all that. What else was going on then?

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that such a sudden, steep climb came from a snowball effect alone.

What do you think? Is it just a coincidence, or was Connect really the tipping point (for the US, anyway—Facebook had already beat MySpace worldwide at that point)? Do you use Facebook Connect?

<img border="0" src="http://constanthit.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/e1f33_vertical-leap-seo-234.gif”>

Nielsen to Measure Online TV Audience

Nielsen has been measuring television audiences for decades. Now online TV is starting to take over—but do we have accurate measurement of the online TV audience?

comScore and other online measurement companies are watching videos—I mean, online video audiences—grow and grow. Now Nielsen will use a new “Internet Meter” with its People Meter families to measure online as well as offline TV consumption.

The Internet Meter will measure the “extended screen”—online television from cable companies, such as OnDemand Online from Comcast and TV Everywhere from Time Warner. This type of viewing may have slipped past online measurement companies looking at web-based TV, like from Hulu. Nielsen has worked in online measurement as well, though they don’t say if they’ll be combining Hulu numbers with the online cable numbers.

According to Read Write Web, Hulu has tended to prefer comScore’s measures of its audience, since comScore’s numbers have shown a higher viewership than Nielsen’s. Online measurement is notoriously tricky in this area, since there aren’t set industry standards on how to count audiences, and as always, there can be sampling biases.

RWW says that the Internet Meter might combat inherent problems in sampling—but the Internet Meter will be based on the same statistical principles, which are fairly sound. (Yeah, I know, it doesn’t seem like a small number of people can accurately predict the habits of the general population, and a larger sample usually yields more accurate data, but if people are truly chosen at random, a small sample has a 90-95% chance of accurately reflecting the population, depending on how they do their calculations. </AP stats lesson>)

What do you think? Will this make a difference to online television? Will it affect ad prices online?

Boy, We Watch a Boat Load of Video

Of course everyone knows that Americans watch a lot of video. Why not, right? We spend a lot of time online and we like to make excuses to not exercise. It’s the perfect storm for YouTube and Hulu and the rest of the video distribution sites of the world. It is somewhat amazing though to see the numbers attached to it, though. comScore reports, in fact, that in July US Internet users watched a staggering 21.4 billion videos. That’s a new record, by the way. I feel like Frank Barone from the Everybody Loves Raymond show because all I can say to that is – “Holy crap!”

In July, Google Sites continued to rank as the top U.S. video property with a record 8.9 billion videos viewed, making up 42 percent of all videos viewed online. YouTube.com accounted for more than 99 percent of all videos viewed at the property. Viacom Digital ranked second with 812 million (3.8 percent) followed by Microsoft Sites with 631 million videos viewed (3.0 percent).

So Google leads the pack (yawn!) but Hulu reached an all time high with 454 million video views. Not bad. As for number of viewers Google logged 121 million viewers who averaged 74 videos a month.

Other notable findings from July 2009 include:

• The top video ad networks in terms of their actual delivered reach were: Tremor Video Network (20.1 percent viewer penetration), Brightroll Video Network (17.4 percent), and BroadbandEnterprises.com (14.4 percent).
• 81.0 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
• The average online video viewer watched 500 minutes of video, or 8.3 hours.
• 120.3 million viewers watched 8.9 billion videos on YouTube.com (74.1 videos per viewer).
• 48.2 million viewers watched 518.6 million videos on MySpace.com (10.8 videos per viewer).
• The average Hulu viewer watched 12.0 videos, totaling 1 hour and 13 minutes of videos per viewer.
• The duration of the average online video was 3.7 minutes.

I still marvel at the amount of video content consumed. My question is what percentage of it is stupid human tricks and the online version of the last words of every redneck, “Hey y’all watch this!”?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Next Page »