Posts for 'comScore'

Back on July 22nd I passed on news from comScore that YuMe had broken into the top 10 ad networks, reaching almost 135 million unique visitors in June. Not so fast it turns out. As reported well by both NewTeeVee and Online Media Daily over the few days, comScore has quietly revised YuMe's reach down to 59.2 million uniques, which would actually land it at number 32 on comScore's June Ad Focus report.

The change results from re-assigning some traffic from major YuMe client MSN. comScore had given YuMe credit for all of MSN's page views, when in fact YuMe was only serving ads on certain sections of the portal. So comScore has decided it's more accurate to give YuMe credit solely for those pages.

Needless to say, YuMe is not happy about the change and is protesting the new numbers. Its argument is that with comScore's revised approach, YuMe traffic is being counted differently than all other ad networks. For now it continues to prominently showcase the original comScore numbers on its home page. YuMe seems determined to see a revision to the revision, so we'll all have to see what comScore does next.

There are many posts on VideoNuze about the various ad networks and how they seek to differentiate from each other. Traffic is certainly one of the key battlegrounds, so it's no surprise this skirmish has broken out over the comScore numbers. One is tempted to feel some sympathy for media buyers...if the measurement firms haven't yet figured out how to accurately count the networks' relevant traffic, how are the agencies expected to buy on behalf of their clients?

Another sign of video advertising's continued growth is that video ad network YuMe has broken into comScore Media Metrix's Ad Focus top 10, reaching almost 135 million unique visitors in June. The full stats are in this comScore release. While obviously a big win for YuMe (which I've previously written about here), a larger point that I think is worth noting is that this demonstrates how pervasive broadband video is becoming for all publishers. Going forward I expect YuMe's reach to continue to rise, and also for other video ad networks to keep moving up comScore's list.

Today's post is from TDG's Mugs Buckley, who discusses the confusing state of video advertising projections.

The Reality of Web Video Advertising Just Doesn't Seem to Add Up

by: Mugs Buckley, Contributing Analyst, The Diffusion Group

I used to think I was pretty good at math, but after trying to make sense of recent forecasts regarding web video advertising, I'm beginning to doubt my skills. Let it be known that I'm a big believer in the growth potential of the Internet video ad business; I'm simply struggling to follow the numbers that have been reported. Since no single analysis offers an "apples-to-apples" industry comparison, I thought I'd offer up some of the available forecasts and offer a few thoughts.

So here's where I'm stuck.

The estimates and forecasts for only video ads are all over the place. For example:

• eMarketer estimates that US marketers spent $775M in 2007 and will spend $1.3B in 2008 for online video streaming and in-page ads.
• Jupiter Research predicts that 2008 online video ads in the US will yield $768M.
• comScore reported that online viewers consumed 9.8B videos in January 2008 (down from December 2007's 10.1B) of which 3.4B were Google/YouTube videos.
• In a November 2007 Financial Times article, a leading media buyer for Starcom Media Group (who is well aware of her buys and rates) predicted that the 2007 market for "The Big Four" broadcast networks was likely to generate around $120M.

So here's where it gets a bit confusing.

• If we use the 3.4B monthly view Google/YouTube view estimate for January and run that out for a 12-month period, add some growth for fun, we come up with about 45B views for all of 2008.
• YouTube charges $15 CPMs for their in-video overlay ads (down from the initial $20 CPMs used during beta testing).
• If 100% of the 45B Google/YouTube videos were sold at $15 CPMs, that would yield revenue of $675M. But that assumes 100% inventory sold, which won't happen for a variety for reasons (in particular because YouTube only sells overly ads on their contracted partner deals, not user-generated content).
• According to Bear Stearns, YouTube is set to generate $22.6M in revenue for video ads, about 3.3% of the possible $675M at 100% inventory sold.

Hmmm. So if YouTube (at 34% of all web video consumed) could generate $22.6M in revenue in 2008, and the Big Four were running about $120M in 2007, how does one arrive at these impressive near-billion dollar predictions? Where else is this revenue coming from?

Let's not rule out operator error - I'll quickly admit that I may have misinterpreted how these numbers were derived and what they represent. That being said, however, there doesn't seem to be a rational way to reconcile these disparate estimates. Can anyone out there help to square these numbers? Is it simply a matter of under- or over-reporting? Are the measurement systems currently in place so poor and mutually exclusive in methodology that they necessarily offer conflicting estimates?

Something just isn't adding up. Yes, this may seem to be a bit nit-picky on my part; the rambling of an analyst with too much time on her hands. Then again, without accurate revenue and usage estimates, it is impossible to know the real value of any form of advertising, much less an emerging model such as web-based video advertising.

Please let us know what you think!

You'd have to have slept through yesterday to miss the big news that ESPN is now syndicating video clips from a cluster of its programs to AOL, its first-ever such deal. I interpret the deal as an extremely strong indicator that the "Syndicated Video Economy" (as I described this trend 3 weeks ago) is inexorable, even for the richest and most powerful video brands.

This piece in today's Hollywood Reporter about a newly-released survey ("Broadband Won't Overtake TV, Execs Say") caught my eye because it continues a highly speculative, and largely irrelevant debate pervasive throughout the industry about future video consumption patterns.

Why's the debate highly speculative? Because truly, none of us has any idea how people will consume video in 2012. There are just too many variables and too many unknowns to make an accurate prediction. Here's a point of comparison: let's say 5 years ago, in 2002, you were asked what percentage of Americans would consume broadband video in a given month? How many (or few!) of us would have predicted a whopping 75%? (the correct answer according to comScore in July '07). Better yet, how many of us would have guessed that over 25% of this consumption would be at just one site (YouTube) - a site that didn't even exist in 2002? Given these examples, who's to predict what 2012 will bring?

And why's the debate largely irrelevant?

Read on by clicking here...

Why's the debate highly speculative? Because truly, none of us has any idea how people will consume video in 2012. There are just too many variables and too many unknowns to make an accurate prediction. Here's a point of comparison: let's say 5 years ago, in 2002, you were asked what percentage of Americans would consume broadband video in a given month? How many (or few!) of us would have predicted a whopping 75%? (the correct answer according to comScore in July '07). Better yet, how many of us would have guessed that over 25% of this consumption would be at just one site (YouTube) - a site that didn't even exist in 2002? Given these examples, who's to predict what 2012 will bring?

And why's the debate largely irrelevant? Because, in my opinion, it presupposes a continuation of the existing paradigm: an either/or choice of TV consumption OR broadband consumption. Yet these traditional lines of demarcation are already fading. Broadband programming is starting to migrate to networks, as in the recent case of Quarterlife's move from MySpace to NBC, while at the same time network TV programming is increasingly being consumed online. Meanwhile shorter form programming, not bound by traditional advertising pods is on the rise, further confusing industry definitions. Sites like Metacafe, blip.tv, Veoh and others are driving a whole new category of video that could eventually be a more popular format than 30 or 60 minute programs.

These days consumers themselves are driving this "broadband or TV" debate into irrelevance. They're busy accessing programming on demand - whether "broadband" or "TV" - through a host of devices and services whose popularity is only going to skyrocket in the future. These include TiVo, Xbox, Netflix, Amazon Unbox and many others. Yet traditional thinking is still pervasive. For example, just this week, the chairman of the FCC has attempted to enact new regulations governing how cable programming might be unbundled. Fortunately this initiative collapsed, but take heed, market forces will eventually cause cable operators to offer programming as consumers want it, not how tradition dictates.

I think Jim Denney, a TiVo product management VP whom I spoke with yesterday hit the nail on the head. Jim said TiVo's philosophy is to have their users "not worry about where any particular video's coming from, but rather just have all choices easily available." That strikes me as a winning business approach for the turbulent and converging 5 years that lie ahead. In my view, those companies which think about how to deliver value to consumers on their terms, rather than being guided by increasingly artificial distinctions, will be the ones to emerge as the winners in 2012.