Tagged with " youtube"
Unless you were under a rock for the last week, the Super Bowl finally went off last night, and after a slight hiccup with the power system the show went on. I won’t be discussing scores, or players or any of the hits or events of the actual game, instead the focus will be on the commercials that played during the game.
Easily for the last decade, the Super Bowl commercials have been watched by an ever increasing audience sitting comfortably in the 100 million+ viewer range. That is a captive audience, and the owners of the NFL know it, as a result any company who wishes to have their commercial on during the game has to pay a premium. That cost this year rang up with some big numbers, with a 30 second spot during the 2013 Super Bowl ticking in at around $4 million; that comes out to $133,333.33 per second if you were curious. The NFL has two massive hooks however, which makes it easy for companies to write off the cost of the ad time, one is the incredible amount of hype generated up until the game itself, and then there is the aforementioned captive audience which they can practically guarantee will see your ad. So another way to look at the cost would be your company is spending $4 million, to serve an ad to 100 million people – or 25 cents per viewer, so it makes it easy to justify.
A rather more interesting metric that doesn’t get exploited nearly enough however, is the negative marketing you can do around the Super Bowl. Every year there are 30 or so commercials which are accepted by the NFL as being the chosen ones, those who will be gracing the airwaves for that steep cost. Everyone else, so sorry, better luck next year. But instead of looking at the marketing attempt as a fail, it’s very simple to turn that negative, into a huge, free advertising campaign. Your searches will vary by region of course, but here in Winnipeg when I search for ‘banned super bowl commercial 2013′ I return just over 1,200 results. All of those companies who didn’t have to spend millions to have their clip watched by Super Bowl viewers, will likely get massive exposure anyways, as searching the web for those commercials is a business all their own.
The power of negative advertising can be used as leverage to definitely get your brand and business out there, and for a significant cost savings, depending on how you look at it. Make it catchy, make it viral content bait, and instead of spending millions to advertise during the game, post it up on Youtube and let the web work it’s magic.
Later today there is going to be an announcement, it’ll be a change to the way you conduct yourself online, and will likely affect your friends and family as well. Late yesterday I saw word of the impending news, and in just a few hours the tech world will get it’s answer, just what could Facebook have planned?
There’s been a lot of ideas thrown around about the future of Facebook, with discussions covering almost everything from phone hardware and/or software, to search engines. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Facebook is the largest social site on the web, and with somewhere near a billion members for a user base they have the potential market to influence massive online change. As for what option really makes sense for the company is anyones guess, but you can bet that there is going to be a massive audience tuning in for it.
Facebook likely won’t be going down the road of building their own phone, while the company has a strong digital presence, it wouldn’t likely translate into as strong an audience in the hardware market. A great option, and one that makes sense especially since they recently closed their purchase of Instagram, would be to add video support to the platform. It’s already globally accepted as a way to rapidly share the photos you take, it would make sense in a number of ways to offer the same feature to any videos that are taken. Not only would this allow Facebook to monetize any videos that are put up by placing ads in the stream, but it would give a reason for YouTube to possibly step up it’s game as well. It has been the dominant online video source for ever it seems.
And then there’s the elephant in the room, the question that has been asked of Zuckerberg and the Facebook machine a number of times – are you building a search engine. Other times when the question was pointedly asked, they have sometimes shied away from the question by avoiding it, and other times saying no, not yet. Perhaps today is the day, where Facebook announces their own search engine, driven entirely by social signals? Even if today is the day that Facebook does let loose with a new search engine, or even a coming one, the true effect of what that could do to the online scope is unknown. There would be a great deal of unknown territory, as a search engine driven by social signals would be prone to massive manipulation, both positive and negative. And with a user base of somewhere around a billion members, that’s a lot of leverage that can sway an algorithm one way or the other. The other question that could be asked, is what happens to those people who remove their accounts, either by deleting or deactivating them, what happens to their social links they may have bestowed? Over the last month in the UK there have been more than a half million accounts deleted from the social service, what would happen to a search service if a mass migration hit the site? So many unknown variables, stay tuned to the web in a few hours and the picture will begin to become clearer.
Today overseas in Germany, Google both won, and lost a court case with Youtube. How can that happen? Well it’s an interesting case, one which, if the verdict is upheld, will be used as a marker case for future dealings with the platform.
Google has long contended that Youtube is simply a host, not a creator of the content which you can find on it. Because anyone can create an account and upload anything they want, Youtube is by definition a host for content. There are some very basic editing tools on the site, but you can’t record anything on, or through their site or software. And today a court in Germany has ruled that (currently) Google needs to install filters within Youtube, in order to detect and stop people from gaining access to materials to which they do not own the rights. The judge also said that Google is not responsible for the uploaded material, merely needs to help do more to help stop copyright violations. That, is how you can win, and lose at court. Google and Youtube were legally absolved of being responsible for the content on it’s service, and were instead charged with helping to clean it up.
In the list of small victories as well as being told Youtube isn’t responsible for the content being uploaded? They were also saved from having to sort through it’s entire catalogue and purge anything that has a copyright tied too it. With billions of hours of video, that would be an impossible undertaking at best guess. Just because the case has been decided, Youtube and Google, aren’t exactly taking it lieing down. They still intend to appeal the decision, as any loss can be viewed as a loss. The GEMA party in Germany which controls royalty payments to materials it has copyrighted is the company which took Youtube to court, over 12 songs uploaded in 2010. Google has said they will be negotiating with the company so artists which have been copyrighted receive their due.