CBS Interactive Advanced Media has tapped into a market ripe for reinvention: the home video fitness industry–though “home” might be a misnomer given the fact that mobile increasingly dominates video and consumption. CBSi Advanced Media just debuted TrainerPass, which features hundreds of workouts from fitness pros, which is offering via website access and on iOS and Android Apps.
“It’s an interesting time for fitness,” says David Katz, Vice President and General Manager of CBS Interactive Advanced Media. “Home fitness was dominated by a huge DVD market for a time, but that’s fading away and nothing has replaced it.” Though there have certainly been web-based forays into this market, Katz feels confident that TrainerPass is the first to aggregate such a large variety of trainers’ content in one place.
According to Katz, cross-platform delivery was a given because of the way mobile has effected users’ behaviors and expectations of anytime anywhere content access. He points out that users won’t just want to access content from home or hotel room — certain types of technique-oriented content, for example, may prompt them to review a short video at the gym or before heading out on a bike ride.
Another distinctive aspect of TrainerPass is that it highlights interaction. Features include direct messaging that trainers can use to react quickly and respond to user needs and requests. While not every trainer who has signed on will feel that audience interaction is essential to their content offering, Katz looks forward to seeing how the opportunity to connect with audiences impacts different trainers’ engagement level and popularity. “It’s quite possible that one who hustles and listens and hears their fans and delivers what they want may even be more successful than better known trainers who aren’t as engaged.”
And while CBSi Advanced Media is enthusiastic about any trainer bringing their own audience to the platform, Katz is confident that, given his company’s reach as the eighth most trafficked brand online, they will be able to deliver significant audiences to all those participating. He notes that creating an offering like this one under the larger CBS umbrella has the added advantage of allowing him to “leverage all of the great technology, learning and experience that happens within this company all of the time across our disparate sites and services from CNET to CBS’ College Sports Live to CBS All Access.”
One key component of this is in helping to develop a business model around a specific content vertical. TrainerPass offers two types of memberships so subscribers can sample a variety of workouts across disciplines or dive deeper into the complete workout libraries of individual trainers. The FlexPass subscription ($4.99 per month) features access to more than 100 videos from multiple celebrity trainers and workout programs, including yoga, Pilates, kickboxing, boot camp and barre, allowing users to discover the program that fits them best. The Trainer’s Pass subscription (starting at $6.99 per month) offers complete access to a specific trainer’s workout library, as well as nutrition tips and more.
TrainerPass, which is built on CBS Interactive Advanced Media’s suite of digital product offerings, gives trainers the flexibility to manage their content and subscription pricing and interact with their followers through videos, blog posts, and social media integration. Trainers can continuously add new content to their libraries to help followers keep their workout routines fresh—all with the support of CBSi’s customer services team.
Katz foresees the TrainerPass model being emulated for a variety of different verticals. Next up: identifying areas that “may or may not have an existing audience, whose business model has been disrupted or in which there’s not yet a fully-developed digital business model” and then leveraging the technological and publishing acumen at CBSi to create new interest-based offerings that meet the needs of consumers and foster the growth of the digital content marketplace.
One in three podcast listeners expect to increase their podcast consumption over the next six months, following a similar increase in their behavior in the past six months. The results were revealed as part of comScore’s first study dedicated to podcasting, commissioned by audio on-demand network Wondery.
Significantly, among all forms of advertising on mobile devices, podcasts create the highest improvement in perception. And among all forms of digital advertising, podcast ads are considered the least intrusive.
Key findings include:
Over two-thirds of online Americans aged 18-49 are aware of podcasting and nearly one in five listen to podcasts at least once a month.
Incidence of podcast listening is highest among males aged 18-34, at 30%, who spend an average of more than 11 hours per month listening.
About half of podcast consumption is done via mobile devices.
Podcast listeners like the educational and entertainment value of the experience, and report an increase in positive emotions after listening to an episode.
Two-thirds of podcast listeners say they have engaged in various research and/or purchase related behaviors as a result of advertising exposure from podcasts.
More than half of non-podcast listeners say they would be interested in listening if they knew where and how to find podcast episodes.
The study was commissioned between March and April of 2016 among over 2,000 respondents in the US aged 18-49. Full results are available upon request at wondery.com/contact-us.
New York Times President and CEO, Mark Thompson addressed the IAB Ad Blocking Summit, held June 6, 2016 in New York City. In his talk, An Update from The New York Times on Its Approach to Ad Blocking, Thompson took a hard look at the factors contributing to the rise of ad blocking and urged the entire industry to take responsibility for fostering a climate in which digital advertising degrades the user experience and fuels the adoption of ad blockers. Through the lens of The New York Times experience, Thompson provided insights into productive and proactive steps that digital content companies – and the entire industry – can take to address ad blocking.
Below is the full text of the talk he delivered:
Mark Thompson, President & Chief Executive Officer, The New York Times Company
Thanks Randall [Randall Rothenberg. President and CEO of the IAB].
I want to make five points this morning. The first is that we have to clean up our own act as an industry.
To a significant extent, the root cause of digital ad-blocking is digital ads and the way many websites deploy them on their sites.
Too many ads. Intrusive and distracting ads. Ads which slow page-load to a crawl, or are slow to load in and of themselves. Boring and uncreative ads, which no user can possibly enjoy viewing. ‘Relevance’ –if it means endlessly retargeting users with ads for something they searched for and bought or lost interest in weeks ago. The pervasive and indiscriminate tracking and sharing of user data.
We’re not all equally guilty. At The New York Times, we’ve kept the number of display ads on the page low. We’ve worked hard with our advertising partners to develop campaigns that are creative and compelling. We’ve developed new units and ideas – like Flex Frames which we launched last year as Mobile Moments on smartphone and which we’ll extend to all platforms this September.
But we shouldn’t kid ourselves. If a user installs an ad-blocker because of unacceptable ad experiences somewhere else then, guilty or not, we still face the challenge of persuading them to uninstall it or, more plausibly, to whitelist us so that their ad blocker allows our ads to load. Our first task as an industry is get rid of the bad experiences which make that whole tricky process necessary.
And our second is to develop and promote digital advertising whose originality and quality engages and delights users and, because of that, also delivers real results for advertisers.
In a world of phones and feeds, marketers need to think like programmers rather than as traditional advertisers, not trying to steal attention which is directed at something else, but offering consumers content which actually has value to them, in the right context and user-experience.
Our branded content business at The Times is all about that – creating and distributing high quality programming for marketers. It didn’t exist in 2013. It delivered more than $13m of revenue in 2014, and $34 million in 2015. We expect it to grow very substantially again in 2016.
For us, branded content does not mean fake journalism trying to pass itself off as genuine newsroom output. It’s work like the animated virtual reality film we made for GE for the launch of our VR app and the distribution of a million Google cardboards. High quality content well worth consuming in its own right.
And it’s not just about branded content; we’re also focusing quite a bit of energy on making display advertising better. Fewer, faster ads, delivered at the pace of mobile and more compelling at the point of discovery, where the user first sees the ad. Clearly labeled but an integral part of the main news feed, on both the phone and the desktop. Bigger, punchier units that provide a better canvas for creativity.
Third, we must do a much better job of explaining our business model – and the connection between advertising revenue and high quality content – to our users.
Let me talk about The New York Times first, then turn to digital publishing as a whole.
At The Times we have two big revenue streams in both print and digital: subscription and advertising. In print, where we make around $1 billion of revenue a year, the proportion is currently about 60/40, with $600 million coming from home delivery subscription and newsstand sales, and $400 million from print advertising. In digital, at present it’s more or less 50/50.
Our digital news subscription business is the largest and most successful in the world and it’s still growing rapidly. In the first quarter of 2016, we added 67,000 net new subscriptions – that’s more than we did in any of the three previous years. Our model is accelerating, in other words.
But delivering national and international journalism to the quality to which The Times aspires and our users expect means massive investment. We believe we can grow our digital subscription business until we have many times the current number of subscription relationships, which across print, digital, news and crosswords stands at around two and a half million. We do not believe that we will ever be able to sustain Times journalism or The New York Times as a flourishing business without an advertising business of real scale.
We need to spell this out clearly to our users. The journalism they enjoy costs real money and needs to be paid for. Advertising is a vital part of the revenue mix.
Everyone knows and accepts that physical newspapers cost money to produce and that someone who steals a copy of a newspaper from a newsstand is a thief. That’s not a word I’d use of those who install ad blockers – the Internet has left many people with the erroneous impression that digital high quality content doesn’t cost anything to produce – but there are some awkward facts to be faced.
If you consume great journalism without making any contribution towards paying for the journalists and the editors and photographers and videographers and graphics artists and engineers, and if enough people follow your example, that journalism will either be diluted or restricted to the relatively small number of people who have the willingness and ability to buy a subscription. And not just you but everyone will be impoverished as a result.
We want our journalism to be widely available and for non-subscribers as well as subscribers to be able to sample large amounts of it. Of the around 110 million people who come to us each month, more than 107 million are not subscribers. If ad blocking becomes ubiquitous, that kind of free reach will no longer make economic sense.
We believe in the civic value of our journalism and we want it to be widely read across America and the world, but not if that undermines our ability to continue to produce it.
No one who refuses to contribute to the creation of high quality journalism has the right to consume it. We are not there yet but, if we judge that it will strengthen the long-term prospects of that journalism to prevent non-subscribers who employ ad blockers and refuse to whitelist us from reading it, we’ll do it.
But if this is a real issue for us, consider those publishers who do not have a digital subscription model and who are entirely reliant on digital advertising, to replace falling print revenues in the case of legacy companies, and for the whole of their revenue in the case of digital ones.
I don’t need to tell anyone here that digital advertising is going through a wider disruption with the astonishingly rapid switch of consumption to smartphone, the decline of standard web rotational display, the power of the major social and search platforms and so on. My friend Shane Smith talked recently about a likely bloodbath among advertising-dependent publishers this year. I’m British and I find the word ‘bloodbath’ a shade melodramatic – especially from a Canadian – but I agree with Shane’s analysis.
This is why proportionate but meaningful industry-wide action on ad blocking is so important.
So put my first three points together and think of them as a potential new agreement between publishers and users. We have a responsibility to work with advertisers to deliver rich, enjoyable, valuable ad experiences, and to use and pass on data about their visits to our sites fairly and transparently. They have a responsibility to contribute to the economic sustainability of quality content creation.
In the end, free riding will not just damage us and the wider public realm. It will damage them.
Let’s now turn to my fourth point, which is a practical one. There is early but encouraging evidence that a significant proportion of users will respond to clear messaging about ad blocking and the threat it poses to quality content.
And that point is grounded in a basic idea that has become a requirement of digital business: when you empower your customers by providing them with choice, good things can happen.
Over the past few months, as part of a wider program of experiments and surveys, we’ve tested both dismissible and undismissible messages about ad blocking. Both sets of messages sought to explain to users who had installed an ad blocker the connection between advertising revenue and the journalism they wanted to consume.
With the dismissible messages, the user could click and close the message and go on to read the story they had come to The Times for in the first place. undismissible messages prevented users who got them from reading the journalism at all, unless they agreed to whitelist us in their ad blocker.
We tested both dismissible and undismissible messages with non-subscribers. You won’t be surprised to hear that, at least in these limited tests, undismissible messages were much more effective than dismissible ones. Indeed, more than 40% of those who encountered the undismissible message agreed to whitelist The Times.
Times subscribers are already making a significant contribution to the funding of our journalism, so we think of them very differently. We did not put undismissible messages in front of these valued paying customers. But we did try dismissible messages – and no fewer than 30% of the ad blocker-using subscribers we tested agreed to whitelist The New York Times.
We’re still testing and analyzing, but even at this early stage we have confidence that – if we decide to move in this direction – we will be able to convince many of those who use ad blockers to whitelist us so that ads still load on The New York Times site. It may be that, in both cases, the percentages of those agreeing to whitelist would grow over time – though we also recognize that some ad blocking non-subscribers, who are repeatedly confronted with such messages but who are unwilling to whitelist, might give up using our site altogether.
That would be a pity, but neither they nor we can have it both ways. It’s not fair to continue to consume something you’re not prepared to support in any way. As for us, in principle we don’t want to stop anyone from sampling Times journalism, but we also have to accept that someone who won’t subscribe or look at ads doesn’t help us succeed in any way at all.
But we do want to offer all of our users as much choice as we can, and we recognize that there are some users – both subscribers and current non-subscribers – who would prefer to have an ad-free experience.
So we are also exploring the possibility of offering a higher tier digital subscription offer which would allow users to enjoy Times journalism without seeing advertisements, while still making a fair contribution towards its creation.
My fifth and final point is that – although we recognize some of the frustrations that have led users to adopt ad blockers – there are technologies and practices associating with ad blocking which are unfair and deceptive. We intend to push back against them and we want to encourage the rest of the industry to do the same.
We are particularly troubled by the business model of some of the largest ad blockers who whitelist advertising in return for payment, thus effectively requiring digital publishers to pay in order to receive advertisements to their own users – including advertisements which are, by anyone’s definition, non-invasive.
The largest entity engaged in this practice is the private limited company Eyeo, which owns both the leading desktop ad blocker, Adblock Plus, and the so-called Acceptable Ads whitelist, which seeks a 30% of revenue from any firm that generates more than 10 million unblocked ad impressions a month as a result of appearing on its whitelist.
This is a manifestly unsavory business practice. Ad blockers often portray themselves as an answer to unsatisfactory digital advertising experiences. But Eyeo wasn’t founded by concerned citizens. It was founded by a digital ad veteran and represents the most cynical, most money-grasping end of the old unreformed digital ad business. We need to expose Eyeo, Adblock Plus and the Acceptable Ads whitelist, so that the public can see them for what they are.
Unlike most of the other ad blockers in the marketplace, Eyeo is not attempting to limit tagging to protect privacy – they permit trackers to pay to be included in their Acceptable Ads programs.
Eyeo’s secondary line of business has been to license the “Acceptable Ads” whitelist to other ad blockers, including some smaller mobile ad blockers. The second largest ad blocker, Ad Block, which was sold in October to and unknown buyer, also uses Eyeo’s Acceptable Ads list.
We want to encourage other publishers and counterparts throughout the industry, and the organizations which represent us, to be trenchant in publicly confronting ad blockers who engage in these coercive and misleading business practices. Recently, we have joined with other publishers in the NAA in filing a complaint with the FTC to investigate certain deceptive practices of ad blockers.
It is not just publishers who are vulnerable to these trade practices, and we encourage our partners across the industry to seek out opportunities to oppose them.
Five points then:
We have to clean up our own act as an industry.
We must develop digital advertising which is valuable and a pleasure to consume.
We must make sure our users understand the link between ad revenue and high quality content.
There is evidence that many users will respond to the right messages about ad blocking.
We must fight the unacceptable and deceptive business practices associated with some ad blockers.
Ad blocking is undeniably a challenge – I wouldn’t have said what I have this morning if it wasn’t – but let me finish by putting it into perspective.
We’re still certain that digital advertising will play a critical and positive role in our future success. As you’ve heard, we’re pivoting our ad business towards less intrusive, leaner, inline display; branded content; bold new smartphone executions, video, virtual reality and other kinds of visual storytelling. We believe that right now we’re offering our users the best digital advertising experiences in the history of digital publishing.
We’re already seeing tangible results – revenue from smartphone advertising, for instance, grew 149% year over year in the first quarter of the year – but the best is still to come.
So let’s take firm action on ad blocking. But let’s also unlock the full creative and economic potential of our ability to bring great content, great users and great creative advertisers together. Thank you.
Dueling studies aside, the Pew research team took a long look at people’s smartphone reading habits. Conventional wisdom suggests that we want to just dip in and out on our phones: We might review headlines, but we won’t do much more.
In fact, the Pew study found the opposite is true. We spend almost twice the amount of time reading long articles — 123 seconds for long form versus 57 for short — and long and short articles get almost the same number of visitors. (ForthepurposeofthestudyPewdefined long form as over a 1000 words and short form as 101-999 words. And lest you question the methodology, Pewclearlyputinthework.)
“All told, Center researchers spent months digging deeply into the details of 117 million anonymized, complete cellphone interactions with 74,840 articles from 30 news websites in the month of September 2015,” according to the research organization
My gut response to these findings would be, Duh! Of course people spend more time on longer articles than shorter ones — because they’re longer. But the fact we are reading these long articles on our smartphones at all is news in itself because it flies in the face of our preconceived notions of how we interact with content on our phones.
Julia Beizer, who is director of product at The Washington Post told Digital Content Next in a recent article, There‘smorethanonewaytosucceedatdigital that research suggests our smartphone usage might vary more than we believe.
“One of the early misplaced assumptions around mobile was that mobile users are standing in line waiting for coffee. A lot of people are doing that, but a lot of people are on their couches at home too. Research shows upwards of 70 percent are at home,” she said.
We are also on long flights and commuter trains and other places where we are captive and have a lot of time to kill with our phones in our hands. It makes sense that we would be using our phones — which are getting bigger and higher resolution screens — to do more reading.
But a single study doesn’t necessarily prove anything, even one as comprehensive as this one appears to be. That said, there are plenty of long form content initiatives that seem to be capturing their share of attention.
Last year the Huffington Post without the benefit of this study tookaleapoffaith and launched Highline, a long-form article site designed to let writers and readers dig into a story instead of getting a short, high-level view. Ayearlater, while the editors aren’t sharing their numbers, they’re still around and they claim it’s been a huge success and the articles on Highline are among the most read on the Huffington Post site. It suggests that when you produce quality work people will read the articles, no matter how long they might be or on what device they might be reading them.
What this all means is the attention studies could be wrong or at least misguided. Certainly, we lack patience. Wewon‘twaitaround if your content is taking too long to load, but it is important not to confuse that lack of patience (or the expectation of a good mobile experience) for short attention spans.
This is a big lesson for digital content creators, whether writing an article, creating content marketing pieces or writing website copy. If you write good stuff, you can keep people engaged regardless of the length. And given that time spent is increasingly being touted as the true measure of engagement, understanding the value of long form content is essential.
There‘stonsofotherdata in the Pew study including the impact of social media to drive traffic, the topics people like most (crime is big), the days and times we are more likely to engage with content and so much more. It’s worth digging into, but if your only take-away is that we will read an article whatever the length if it’s good enough, that’s more than enough.
Last week at the NewFronts, Time Inc. announced the upcoming launch of INSTANT, a mobile-first, all-video platform featuring content about the lives and projects of digital celebrities as well as content created by digital celebrities exclusively for INSTANT. The new brand will deliver news, features and exclusives about and by “the new famous,” the digital artists of YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, YouNow, Vine and other influential emerging platforms.
Significantly, the content will be mobile-centric, to reflect the dominance of mobile in the content consumption habits of INSTANT’s target audience. Content will be delivered as a fluid video stream that facilitates audience engagement. Slated for launch early this summer, INSTANT is being designed to offer a native app-like experience directly in the mobile browser.
We caught up with Kirstin Benson, INSTANT’s editorial director, to learn a bit more about the origins of the project and her plans for INSTANT.
Kirstin Benson, Editorial Director, INSTANT
Describe the origins of INSTANT: The seeds for INSTANT were planted long before I joined the company. Word on the street is that the concept was born last summer during a strategy meeting after an executive pointed out that there was no outlet covering digital artists the way People and EW cover traditional Hollywood stars and entertainment.
Was this launch motivated by the behavior of your digital audience? Advertiser driven? Recognition of larger industry trends? There were a number of factors that motivated us to launch INSTANT, including trends with users and advertisers. But, most importantly, we saw an opportunity to be the first media outlet dedicated to a group of people – digital artists – who play an increasingly important role in our audiences’ lives but are massively under-covered in the media. Until now, there has been a gap in the space.
Why do this as a multi-brand initiative rather than leverage one particular brand’s strength? There is no media company better positioned to launch a platform like INSTANT than Time Inc. From TIME came People, from People came InStyle and Entertainment Weekly…and now, People and Entertainment Weekly are joining forces to launch INSTANT. Just like People and Entertainment Weekly curate the best in entertainment, human interest, and pop culture, INSTANT will tell its audience who and what to care about in the vast and frenzied digital world. Thus, we wanted to leverage both of the brands for INSTANT’s launch.
Given that you’ve opted for a 100% native and branded ad offering, could you describe what will the advertising experience be like? All advertising on INSTANT will be presented through native and branded videos that play in-feed. In the absence of banner ads, pre-roll, and pop ups, the experience will seem fluid and seamless for our audience.
This native ad content will be created in house by the INSTANT team to ensure a consistent voice and aesthetic across content experiences, both branded and editorial so that it meets our audience’s expectation of great content experiences. All ad content on INSTANT will follow Time Inc.’s well defined guidelines for native and branded content and its labeling.
Why the focus on mobile and video for INSTANT? Our goal with INSTANT is to create content that our audience craves (read: video) and deliver it to them in their native environments – mobile web and social media. And the statistics support this logic: Video is taking over the web and will account for 80% of web traffic by 2019. Meanwhile, 78% of teens check their phones hourly and a third of them say they “feel addicted” to their devices. It was a no brainer to make INSTANT an all video, mobile-first platform.
Why have you opted to make INSTANT browser-based rather than develop an app? From an audience development and retention standpoint, it made more sense to make INSTANT browser-based rather than an app. We want INSTANT to be as accessible and as native to our audience as possible – and forcing them to download, register, and open an app does the exact opposite of that. That said, the INSTANT experience feels very app-like, despite being browser-based, so it delivers the best of both.
The NewFronts started out as a sideshow (even a joke to some) compared to the TV Upfronts. But it’s no longer in the shadows, as everyone from the New York Times, Bloomberg, CNN and BuzzFeed stole the spotlight at this year’s NewFronts in New York. This series of events provides a forum for digital to court advertisers in an increasingly competitive market.
With two-thirds of U.S. agency and marketing professionals reporting increased investments toward desktop and mobile video, video — whether original series, virtual reality or live-streaming — naturally took center stage at this year’s event. Alongside new metrics for measuring advertising also came reflections about what exactly constitutes an advertisement now, as well as more of a natural acceptance, articulated some time ago, that the Internet indeed is becoming the new television.
Here’s a rundown of the most important trends from this year’s showcase, and some caveats:
1. Virtual Reality is Everywhere Following the 360-degree viewing capabilities the name implies, virtual reality is seemingly all around us now as more media outlets jump into the fray. As Adage reported, publishers “are bringing virtual reality to almost every pitch.” Some indicators: National Geographic, AOL and Refinery29 are all launching VR studios. Conde Nast too is producing a VR series. The Economist revealed plans for a second year producing virtual reality documentaries. Time Inc. also announced a virtual reality app will be included around its Life brand, which will encompass publications such as Time, People, EW and Sports Illustrated. In addition, Hulu and Live Nation, the world’s largest concert promoter, announced a partnership to curate virtual reality concert experiences to be available on Hulu’s VR app. The New York Times, meanwhile, announced its continued push toward VR on both the advertising and the editorial front.
Caveat: While virtual reality might be in the air, it might not have a big enough installed base or active user base yet.
2. Original Video Series Are Hot Alongside publishers bringing VR to almost every pitch was their announcements of original video series. Playboy, the New York Times, and The Economist announced new original video programming. Yahoo announced it was “doubling down” on its video focus and constraining it to four verticals — news, sports, finance and lifestyle. WebMD also announced it was bulking up on its lifestyle programming, and Vice unveiled plans to create up to 20 TV channels around the world. Furthermore, among other video-based initiatives, Vox revealed it’s creating a standalone studio to create content for Snapchat, as Poynter’s Benjamin Mullin reported.
Caveat: There are so many original video series that no one has time to watch them all.
3. Technology & Metrics Matter Major endeavors in the world of video also means that new metrics must emerge to keep up with industry demands. Mashable, for example, announced two additions to its Velocity technology suite. “Joining the Velocity Dashboard, which uses natural language processing to mine for topics about to go viral, is Velocity CMS, which is used to create competitive stories on those topics, and Velocity Kg, which will optimize content for multi-platform sharing,” as Troy Dreier of StreamingMedia wrote. Hulu is building interactive ads specifically for connected TVs, and is “working with Nielsen to enable the measurement of ads through over-the-top video delivery devices such as Roku, PlayStation, Xbox and Apple TV,” AdAge’s Jeanine Poggi’s reported. Yahoo also announced expanded video metrics through a partnership with the advertising analytics platform Moat to measure viewability and and metrics beyond viewability. YouTube, meanwhile, announced “Breakout Videos” through its Google Preferred product, to help find the next viral hit. It’ll allow brands to automatically buy ads on these soon-to-be trending videos.
Caveat: Technology is cool, but often it’s the tech companies who can build better technology than publishers.
4. Live-streaming Becoming Routine It goes without saying that live-streaming is becoming bigger than ever. Facebook, for example, revealed it will create a live-streamed morning show, and is partnering with Activision Blizzard, a videogame giant, to offer live e-Sports coverage on the platform. Among Time’s new video offerings is a streaming video network geared toward cord-cutters. YouTube and Hulu are also both launching live TV offerings.
Caveat: Same as VR: There might be more live-streaming show ideas than people who want to watch all those live streams.
5. Internet is the New TV We’ve been hearing this for some time, but it seems that the Internet is truly becoming modern-day television. National Geographic, long a fixture on TV, is now putting its efforts toward Instagram and other digital platforms. While Vox is backing a new television show, tellingly, more hype surrounds its pivot toward content creation on Snapchat Discover. Ellen DeGeneres has long been known for her television talk show, and now she’s starting her own digital network. Telenovelas are now coming to the digital world — specifically targeting Millennials — thanks to a joint effort by Telemundo and BuzzFeed. The digital news company Newsy is also trying to attract Millennial eyes with online programming and advertising meant for a generation not interested in broadcast.
Caveat: While Millennials make up a large segment of cord-cutters and “cord-nevers,” pay TV continues to rebound, and Comcast even added subscribers in the last quarter.
6. Dizzying Numbers None of the investment toward video and its related endeavors make sense unless companies have the data and metrics to back up their ambitions. BuzzFeed reported it now gets more than 7 billion content views a month (compared to 2.8 billion monthly views a year ago). And only a quarter of BuzzFeed content is consumed on its actual website, underscoring the importance of its social and other platform strategies. The entertainment and trend publisher PopSugar, meanwhile, reported that its video views on Facebook have jumped 452 percent since it first debuted its Facebook show, PopSugar Rush, a year ago. Hulu revealed that 70 percent of its viewing happens in a living room environment, reinforcing the trend of digital being the new TV. And Bloomberg Media also announced it has doubled its video streams since last year, as well as gained a 25 percent increase in mobile users. The company now attracts 20 million video views a month.
The Daily Mail, meanwhile, had its own impressive statistics: “The U.K.-based publisher is now posting 650 videos a day, which has resulted in a 516 percent jump in views in the past year. It’s getting 383 million monthly video views, 12 million video views per day, and claims an 80 percent completion and viewability rate,” Adweek’s Christopher Heine wrote.
Caveat: Some metrics are more valuable than others. Video views on Facebook have been maligned as too generous, counting after only 3 seconds. And huge numbers of eyeballs don’t always equate to huge income.
Founded in 1995, Salon is one of the oldest online publications. But it’s far from “old school” thanks to an aggressive and innovative approach to content creation, “co-creation, and sponsored advertising spearheaded by Cindy Jeffers, who took the helm as Salon Media Group, Inc.’s CEO and CTO in 2012. Jeffers, who was inducted into min Online’s Digital Hall of Fame last May, is often credited leading a turnaround for the business — one that has allowed Salon to experience unprecedented growth in traffic and ‘buzz’.
But the real news is the increase in audience engagement thanks to edgy and exciting content (and the launch of new content sections such as Tech and Sustainability), proactive social media campaigns and sponsored-content advertising programs that harness tech and video for effective and emotive storytelling. Peggy Anne Salz, chief analyst and content strategist at MobileGroove, caught up with Jeffers to discuss how a strategy sharply focused on social and mobile has allowed Salon to cultivate new audiences and ensure the continued growth of its native advertising initiatives.
You are CEO and CTO. How does having these responsibilities shape your mission for your company?
For us at Salon it’s all about driving the national conversation with fearless, strong, independent voices. It’s also about being platform-agnostic so that we can share those voices and the conversation from platform to platform. The fearlessness, the analysis, and the points of view that we express has to happen on any platform that we’re on. So, technologies matter a lot, but the focus is to get the voices out there on the platforms that matter most to our audience. It’s about the fearlessness of what we do and bringing that to every platform.
The technology backbone is the most critical piece of that. Our API allows us to be platform agnostic and spread the content that we build — whether it’s video, articles or social — onto any number of platforms.
You have been credited with the turnaround at Salon.com — but what measures really get the credit for this transformation?
I was brought on a little over four years ago and since then we’ve really been focused on a couple of key areas: First, we’ve broadened our editorial coverage, and we’ve really pushed into social and mobile in order to expand our reach and reach new audiences. Each of these platforms have very different demographics. We also launched video just last summer as a way to broaden out into more visual story telling. On the advertising side, we pivoted in 2012 to really focus on custom integrations and, more recently, storytelling through video.
On the product side, our big focus has been mobile. Right now 60% of our audience is accessing our content using mobile. At first had some catching up to do since we didn’t have a mobile browser experience or offer a mobile app in 2012, but that has changed with the launch if an iPhone app, an Android app and then apps for tablet devices. In April, we launched an app for the Apple Watch, one that was timed to day one of the Apple Watch. The focus has been to mobilize and optimize the main site for a mobile-focused experience.
With one in three consumers watch video on their mobile devices, it’s clear that mobile video is eating the world . You are not only using it to enhance your editorial content; you have inserted video into sponsored-content, working with advertisers using video in their storytelling. What is the attraction of video?
We’ve been really excited about video. We launched video on the site in 2012 with third-party video providers such as AOL On. At first, we wanted to get our feet wet and see how the audience would respond. Since then we’ve seen more uptake and more interest in the third-party videos on the site. Based on this positive outcome we decided last year to make it a priority, so we hired video editors and also established a video platform on the site. It’s been amazing to watch the editorial team explore video and see what Salon can build and become on this new platform.
A big part of this is storytelling, and at Salon the process is very collaborative. In fact, Matthew Sussberg, VP of sales at Salon Media Group, is quoted as saying that “when it is done well, native advertising is in the site’s overall editorial voice so that it sounds authentic.” How is that approach progressing and what’s next?
Visual storytelling in general is very popular with our audience and we want to be telling stories that are accessible to them and meet them where they are. For over 20 years, Salon has been home to a lot of amazing writers, but that doesn’t limit us to one style of content or one platform. It’s why we’ve been pushing out into video and mobile — and why we’re also seeing the majority of our audience is there. Looking at interactive and VR [Virtual Reality] I think that there’s a lot more room to grow our brand. For now, video is one of a set of tools we’re exploring to deepen visual storytelling.
One of reasons for the super-sharp focus on video and mobile is because the vast majority of your audience is already consuming and enjoying content on these platforms. What else can you tell me about your audience?
As I said, we’ve focused the last few years on broadening out the demographic — and this is definitely part of our push into new storytelling techniques, new social platforms and new content verticals. And we have been broadening out the mix on the home page as well. Today we have long-form opinion and analysis, but we also are filing timely content that is capturing what is moving through the news at that moment.
It’s the content that appeals to our broad and growing demographic. Certainly, one consistent characteristic across all of the age groups that we serve is that they’re a highly educated group. Having a very smart audience which presents us with a lot of good challenges. It means the content has to engage and empower our audience — and everything we do has to make that conversation smarter. It also means our advertising has to be a lot smarter than what you might find elsewhere. The advertising needs to meet them [the audience] where they are, and it also needs to have a level of sophistication that will actually pull them in. Finally, our audience also consists of influencers across culture, technology and politics.
And this is also why sponsored-content creation is more like ‘co-creation’. Please elaborate on the process since there have been some notable outcomes — I’m thinking here about the campaign when Salon partnered with fashion brand Cole Haan a few years back for its 85th anniversary and the launch of its “Born in 1928” campaign. It was a multimedia campaign with a very effective and engaging social element…
There are certain campaigns that we build in-house. For this we have a creative team that can build custom videos for advertisers and this is a separate creative team from our editorial staff. We also build interactive content. In the fall we did two interactive pieces with Hulu: one was an interactive advent calendar and the other was a crossword puzzle for Seinfeld. Both of those were interactive pieces that lived on the site we created in-house. We also with Cadillac last year on a series to spotlight creative visionaries across the various creative fields. Another was storytelling and video with MOMA [the Museum of Modern Art] looking at the impact of the Internet of Things on the cultural sector.
So those are some examples where it’s not our editorial team that is creating the content. Instead, it’s a collaboration with a team that really understands our editorial team’s sensibilities and how they relate to the audience. The outcome is content that can live on the site and really match the voice of the site.
You have a highly educated audience and that is what drives your content — not to mention a fearless approach to journalism. But it is also the driver on the ad side of your business, meaning sponsored advertising has to be quite sophisticated. How do you keep the balance between content and content marketing?
Given our demographic and just how smart they are, we are not trying to put anything past them. We are absolutely maintaining a church-state divide here. We make sure to the advertisement label accompanies all of the sponsored content and native advertising content that appears on the site.
That said, we also work closely with advertisers to bring the highest quality content that we can to the site — content that allows us to meet our users’ interest while also meeting the advertiser interest. From our perspective, unless the content is quality content, it’s not going to well anyway, so it’s important to produce content our users appreciate and marketing pieces that can, therefore, also go viral because of that appeal.
And since you’ve been at Salon social is baked into your strategy…
Overall, social is very much a part of what we think of as our ‘other homepage’. We don’t think of Salon as just Salon.com. We think of Salon as existing as a brand on many platforms including social. So, posting to our social media pages is just as important to us as getting our content out onto our homepage. Our editorial team is on their social accounts and very active 24/7 on those social accounts promoting the editorial content. Occasionally we work with advertisers that wants to see some of their content to go through that social feed. As long as the content is something that editorial signs off on, then they do promote it. But, otherwise, we determine other channels that it can go out on.
And then there is video to amplify this impact. How does one set the stage for the other and what results can you share?
We’ve been experimenting with video and with uploading videos directly to Facebook, and our Facebook videos have done really well. Two that stand out because they each counted over 10 million views is a rap video that our editorial team made as a mash-up of Palin’s speech with Trump in January and another was a mash-up style video that they did with Trump and teens based on part of The Big Lebowski. These were the first really big viral videos that we had on Facebook. We definitely see a lot more reach through our videos than we had with our written content, so we’re excited about the potential to bring people back to our platform through viral video.
So, in a way, video is big part of what will allow you — and your content — to rise above the noise?
Yes, absolutely. We see video as a big opportunity and an area for growth. Mark Zuckerberg recently said he’s obsessed with live-streaming. I think that we’re starting to see even the social media platforms that haven’t historically had a big focus on video are shifting and starting to explore it. After all, so much video is consumed on their platforms that they really can’t look away from it. It’s the way that people are consuming content.
Peggy Anne Salz is the Content Marketing Strategist and Chief Analyst of Mobile Groove, a top 50 influential technology site providing custom research to the global mobile industry and consulting to tech startups. She is a frequent contributor to Forbes on the topic of mobile marketing, engagement and apps. Her work also regularly appears in a range of publications from Venture Beat to Harvard Business Review. Peggy is a top 30 Mobile Marketing influencer and a nine-time author based in Europe. Follow her @peggyanne.
Americans assigned a value of nearly $1,200 per year to the array of free, ad-supported services and content currently available to them online, according to a survey conducted by Zogby Analytics. Unsurprisingly, the majority (more than 85%) prefer an ad-supported internet model instead of paying for online content, and three-quarters said they would reduce their online activities “a great deal” if they had to pay for those services and content. At the same time, almost as many say (72.8%) that free internet content such as news, weather, email and blogs is very important.
Commissioned by the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), the Zogby Analytics poll of 1,004 adults sought to better understand the aggregate value that Americans perceive in the major types of services and content made available free to consumers because of advertising. Respondents were asked to estimate how much people would have to pay for 17 different types of online services and content, ranging from e-mail to video and weather, if they were offered only on a subscription basis rather than for free with ads.
Among the survey’s key findings:
Consumers assigned an aggregate value of $99.77 per month to a package of 17 major types of ad-supported services and content.
Eighty% of respondents said they had found ads useful in finding new products, researching a purchase, or assisting with the shopping process.
The types of advertising that consumers had found most useful were movies/TV shows (43%), technology/devices (37%), clothing (36%), local restaurants (34%), groceries (33%), phone/internet services (32%), and travel (30%).
Zogby Analytics was commissioned by Digital Advertising Alliance to conduct an online survey of 1004 adults in the US. The survey was conducted from April 19-20, 2016. Based on a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error is +/- 3.2%age points.
According a recent report in the New York Times, the majority of new online advertising revenue—85%—will go to two companies: Google and Facebook. While these companies have consumer-facing services, the reason they dominate the digital advertising ecosystem is because of the technology and algorithms they employ as third parties. Third parties collect data about consumers yet have no direct relationship with them. In addition, those people usually have no idea that their data is being collected.
When you consider that direct response ads represent nearly two thirds of digital advertising and these companies only get paid when consumers click on ads it’s no wonder we see the digital experience dominated by annoying, intrusive, and crappy ads.
And how are consumers reacting to this situation? As TRUSTe has noted, clearing cookies is still the primary method employed by consumers to protect their privacy. However, clearing cookies has detrimental effects to the user experience such as requiring consumers to log in every time they revisit a site which then makes the stalking, creepy ads come back even more. Yet they still clear cookies because it’s one of the main tools they know about to prevent being tracked. In this dysfunctional dynamic, big data is being used to drive down costs of serving targeted ads rather than drive up relevance to the consumer.
A few years ago, consumers started activating their Do Not Track (DNT) signals in an effort to express a choice, even though there was no industry standard yet. As Doc Searls plotted out, the number of DNT signals declined at the same time that the number of consumers with ad blockers started climbing. It’s not a coincidence – consumers have been looking for easy ways to express choice. If this continues, publishers won’t be able to fund quality content like this piece about the early season slide of the Yankees.
It’s interesting that our members are having some success asking consumers to turn off their ad blockers in order to access the content they love. The conversation goes something like this:
Website owner: Hi loyal reader, would you pretty please turn off your ad blocker or whitelist this site? We need advertising revenue to pay for quality journalism.
About 40% of consumers: Sure! I love you guys.
The remaining 60% of consumers: Meh. I’m gonna go look elsewhere for that story about Trump. I really, really hate those annoying ads on those other crappy sites I visit.
My take on this is that consumers understand premium experiences and are willing to view advertising in exchange. But, the value proposition gets out of whack when there’s no transparency for the consumer and the experience is poor.
Meanwhile, advertisers aren’t happy either. As the ANA pointed out, $7.2 billion was lost to fraud last year. They’ve been paying for ads that aren’t even viewable. There are also huge concerns about the inability to fully document where all of their digital advertising dollars are going. In short, there’s a lack of transparency and trust for advertisers. Sound familiar?
So, how does our industry find its footing again? We’ve got to be more clear with consumers about the value proposition and provide them with easy ways to express choice over ubiquitous data collection. By putting consumers first, we also force the issue on ad fraud, viewability and accountability. Every company involved in the digital advertising supply chain would have to justify how it’s adding to the overall value proposition. They would need to “put in more value” than they “take out” – the best way to build trust.
The FCC recently proposed privacy rules for broadband providers that aim to give consumers more control. The problem is that this only applies to ISPs – not all of the other entities that relentlessly track consumers around the web. And, government regulation often becomes outdated very quickly – market solutions or real industry self-regulation are far more able to adapt to new business models and practices. Maybe the FCC proceeding will lead to a new conversation within industry.
With the growing market of Internet of Things, immersive experiences and connected world we live in, the strains on trust between advertisers, consumers and publishers are only going to get worse. We need to find the right balance of providing consumers with transparency and real choices. Consumers are looking for a better experience. Advertisers are demanding fairness. And, I would like to live in a world where I can read all about how badly the Yankees are playing.
/ An inside look at the business of digital content
Archive
One key component of this is in helping to develop a business model around a specific content vertical. TrainerPass offers two types of memberships so subscribers can sample a variety of workouts across disciplines or dive deeper into the complete workout libraries of individual trainers. The FlexPass subscription ($4.99 per month) features access to more than 100 videos from multiple celebrity trainers and workout programs, including yoga, Pilates, kickboxing, boot camp and barre, allowing users to discover the program that fits them best. The Trainer’s Pass subscription (starting at $6.99 per month) offers complete access to a specific trainer’s workout library, as well as nutrition tips and more.
