This blog is the second of two considering the impact of the arrival of dynamic VOD advertising on the Sky and Virgin set top boxes in the UK. The first blog here made the case that catch-up VOD on a set top box is fundamentally different to catch-up ‘player VOD’ on Smart devices and needs to be treated as a wholly new format. This second blog looks at the implications of that statement for advertising and offers a suggestion to make TV VOD ads work in the converged TV future that is now arriving. more “TV VOD Advertising – Its complicated!”
This blog is concerned with the arrival of a significant new form of VOD advertising – ‘platform’ VOD. This is the VOD advertising format that is slowly emerging on TV set top boxes in the UK and other TV markets.
In the UK ‘platform VOD advertising has been taking some time to get established. On Virgin set top boxes in the UK there have been experiments with VOD advertising going for a few years, but only with the recent upgrade of its systems is it properly taking off. On Sky+ boxes (where until recently, it was impossible to insert adverts into VOD programmes) we are promised a summer roll out of ad insertion. On the Youview based boxes and the other free-to-air platforms, platform VOD has been treated as an extension of ‘player’ VOD – formats delivered through a broadcaster app like ITV Player or 4OD. It has been bundled and sold within the broader VOD advertising deals, and has not been broken out for reporting or measurement purposes. more “VOD Ads On TV Are Different to VOD Ads On The Web..and It Matters!”
By Matt Walters – @matthew_walters – email@example.com
How we groaned. And, days on, how we continue to. The morning that followed a tumultuous day before – the day that had seen the industry react to the BBC Trust’s backing for the closure of BBC Three, banishing the channel to an uncertain online-only future – began ordinarily enough, with the publication of the conclusions of Ofcom’s Third Public Service Broadcasting Review. The final document – if not headline-grabbing – brought to the surface the significant contribution made by the PSBs, and yet was cognisant of the challenges ahead facing them. Then something odd happened. And it’s led us to the view that July – though only thirteen days old – has not been the proudest month for the UK’s TV journalism community. Permit me to explain. more “TV and the 16-24s: Careless Whispers”
In many ways, 2014 was a successful year for future ad-tech. Blockbuster M&A deals saw the ownership of Adap.tv, Brightroll and SpotXchange change hands (to AOL, Yahoo and RTL respectively). And the UK’s very own Channel 4 has announced (but not detailed) plans for a private, automated ad trading marketplace for All4, its rebranded catch-up service, to be launched early next year.
Yet dark clouds sit on ad-tech’s horizon as we start 2015. A recent Financial Times investigation highlighted the malaise. According to a study the FT conducted with Pixalate, a company specialising in detection and prevention of ad fraud, over the course of a single month 72% of ad impressions being offered on open exchanges under the FT.com name were fraudulent. more “Will ad tech require a regulatory revolution?”
August 8 2014
RTLs recent acquisition of a majority stake in SpotXchange gave Decipher a nervous moment of deja vu last week, reminding us of a previous broadcaster’s dramatic foray into emerging digital media.
In 2005, ITV under a previous management regime, paid £175M for the British social media site FriendsReunited. The deal delivered £30M to the founders, Steve and Julie Pankhurst. At the time this was charitably viewed as an ‘unusual’ deal – what Sir Humphrey would have called ‘brave’- although Friends Reunited was one of the most visited UK web sites of its day. But the reality for ITV was this was a deal made in desperation by a management team who didn’t understand the new market that was unfolding in front of them. They needed a ‘digital’ play and didn’t know how to deliver it. more “Is RTL Having A ‘Friends Reunited’ Moment With The SpotXchange Deal?”
Nigel Walley – 2nd April
I have finally recovered after AdWeek. I went to four conferences and followed two more on Twitter, which was over-kill. As I sat in the final conference, my over-riding thought was how those of us in new media have yet to make the case for a central role for the web and social media in marketing budgets. It was like 2003 all over again. There were some truly dreadful presentations from new media types, but the area that bothered me most was the perpetual over-claiming for the role of Twitter around TV.
I am a massive Twitter fan and probably count as a ‘super-user’. I am also a massive fan of broadcast TV. I like the story that they are somehow mutually beneficial, however it appears to have spun out of control. It has leapt from an observation of concurrent use, to an implication of symbiotic dependence, to the point where now Twitter are peddling the line that not only do they influence TV audiences, but that a brand advertiser can get material benefits from co-ordinating Twitter campaigns with TV ad spots. The only problem is that there is no data to back any of this up. Or if anything, the data disproves it.
Nigel Walley – July 2009
I received a flyer in the post from the Institute of Direct Marketing (IDM) the other day, outlining the curriculum of their ‘Complete Digital Marketing Course’. What was remarkable about this flyer and its grandiose claim, was just how incomplete the course was. In a week when AudiTV launched an on-demand service on Virgin cable’s Showcase, and Honda’s webTV service moved to the front page of the BT Vision EPG, there was nothing about breakthrough digital TV marketing in it at all. With Sky launching green button advertising on the satellite platforms, there was nothing about interactive television formats; and with both Sky and Virgin developing targeted broadcast and targeted on-demand mechanisms, there was nothing about converged marketing principles, bringing together internet techniques with broadcast content. And it wasn’t just TV that was ignored.
Adrian Stroud – June 2009
I recently challenged myself to work-out why I still watch so much ‘live’ TV. I don’t mean news or sport because I can rationalise those genres quite easily. I mean bread and butter programming.
The challenge came about because I was debating just how much more damage all the VOD services and PVRs will do to live TV viewing figures in the long-run. This is important because it is those live viewing figures that contribute the vast bulk of advertising impacts. VOD currently delivers far, fewer impacts per hour of viewing than live TV, so the ‘end game’ for advertising funded TV programming is defined by this question. My guess was that live TV won’t drop more than perhaps 25%, no matter how many VOD and time shifting gadgets like Sky+ launch, but I could not say why. I suspect I’m making the mistake of confusing the technology with the benefits.
VOD and the PVR are the rational way to consume all but the livest of live TV events. So, when VOD has all the content you want and it is available on every screen in the house, why would you want to watch ordinary old broadcast TV at all?
In 2006 at the height of the Web 2.0 explosion, as new acronyms were flying and buzz words abound, we saw the release of one of the most successful virals ever to grace the Web. As we see in this article, two years on, the Mentos/Diet Coke geyser clip is still alive and kicking…
Inspired by a friend who told them of the explosive reactions that can take place when acids and bases mix, two creatives, Steven Voltz and Fritz Grobe, from a little known agency EepyBird.com set about experimenting with a range of household products looking for the ultimate in combustible consumer product partenrships. Eventually they literally struck gold when they combined a bottle of Diet Coke, with the minty sweet ‘Mentos’. The resulting viral video that was filmed consisted of a feast of fantastically elaborate experiments, with fountains of exploding Coca Cola gushing in time to classical music.