Internet Video

posted 02/16/08 by Rick Webb

Ahh, the promise of interactive advertising. A completely new paradigm. Let’s remember one of the original promises of the economics of Internet advertising: for the cost of producing just one broadcast spot, you can have a website that millions can see, without even paying for the media. As true as it was, and, perhaps even more so, still is – it seems so simplistic now. Banners. Value Adds. Viral. MySpace. YouTube. Media titans once again doing battle over the landscape of the Internet. It all seems so complicated, so dot com all over again, and yet new. Web 2.0 is a buzzword, of course, but I think we can all see that things are different now.

Why this is relevant to the topic at hand, however, is because of what we’ve witnessed in the realm of the Internet and Video. We all know about YouTube, of course. It’s changed everything in ways that surprised many of us. But it’s more than that. It’s iMovie. It’s iPod videos. It’s DIY. It’s the Subservient Chicken. And it’s something else.

Video is what ad agencies know. It’s what production houses know. It is the staple of a multi-billion dollar industry. And when it comes to this big bad thing called the Internet, it’s a way of viewing the Internet that advertisers can all understand. We believe that the phrase “viral video” arose almost entirely because it really made advertisers feel pretty good. Funny videos? Hey! We can do that.

But let’s not forget the original genius of the web. It’s interconnected, of course, but it’s also interactive. There are so many new tools at our disposal. Would the chicken have been as funny if it had a bunch of buttons that said “play video number 1,” “play video number 2,” etc.? Sure, there are times that playing a video over the web is pretty brilliant. Right now a series of three videos we made for Milwaukee’s Best Light have received over 4 million downloads on YouTube. It’s crazy. And it’s working. Viral videos can be useful, but they are but one tool in an arsenal.

One of the things we’re most proud of is that someone put our anyfilms.net site on Wikipedia as an example of interactive film1. On television, we are passive viewers who watch a series of frames pass before our eyes. We can change the channel and passively watch another set of frames, or we can get up and walk away. That’s about it. With interactive video, we can change the order of these frames. We can affect what is in the frames. We can get frames more to our liking. We can make the frames. It’s a ridiculously larger palette, and it’s one that we don’t want to throw out just because it’s a more complicated task to produce. Let’s always remember that interactive video is still in its talking head phase – we’ve only just scratched the surface.

Now, there’s something else we want to discuss with you regarding video and the Internet. Remember the original value proposition we started this section out with? For the cost of producing one broadcast spot, we can make a whole site and reach millions of people. Well, that falls apart, doesn’t it, if the website also includes a bunch of video that we produce in the exact same way as we do for television. If we make a website, and shoot not thirty seconds of video, but, say, 5 minutes of video, and do all of it with the same production values and budgets as we would a broadcast spot, well, then, it wasn’t cheaper than that spot anymore, was it? It was actually exponentially more expensive. We tell you this not because we don’t want you to give us millions of dollars to produce your interactive video content (believe you me, we do, we do), but rather because it’s important to keep in mind that if we change that original value proposition, in many cases, our goals and needs change as well. Sometimes this is a good thing – witness Fallon’s groundbreaking BMW films – and we can all rock it. Sometimes, though, we actually love Internet advertising because it can be cheap, so we need to keep it cheap.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, of course. Web video, though getting better all the time, is a lot lower resolution than television, and especially HDTV. Awesomely and wonderfully, this won’t be the case very soon, but it still is now. There is a level of polish that you may not need. And not only that, the rise of the DIY, of the YouTube and the iPod has given rise to a different kind of aesthetic in web video that we can tap into. It doesn’t always have to look like a million bucks. Of course, there are times when it needs to, and in those cases, give us the resources and we’ll make it look like a million bucks. Amazingly, we can make something look like a million bucks for about $500,000. We’re magic like that. This is a joke. Sort of.

The final thing to keep in mind in all of this, then, is that your web video shoot is not a broadcast shoot. Chances are good, that in this day and age (and again, this will change soon in the future, we feel it), your website, the banners we’re building, any viral boosting, etc., and the web videos we’re making for you are all still costing, in total, less than a broadcast spot or two. This is awesome. We’re a different kind of company, and we’re used to this. Our cost structure is different than broadcast. But it’s important to remember: you didn’t pay us enough to put six people from your company in a fancy hotel, or even to really cater the shoot in the way you’re properly used to. It’s not because we’re cheap, it’s because the economics of web shoots are still fundamentally different than those of broadcast, and we all need to scrimp a little bit to get the job done on a smaller budget. This probably goes without saying, we realize, but if it’s your first web job, and you’re used to the cushy world of broadcast advertising, well, welcome to the world of the cheap. The Internet, though sucking up more of your money every year, is still the poor cousin of advertising. And, by the same token, the shoot might not have PAs. The shoot might not have the size of a crew that you’re used to. Try and not compensate for this by, say, sending our creative lead out to get coffee. Just a thought.

1 Wikipedia Interactive Film Article, as of Jan. 31, 2007. Originally uploaded by a bloke named “Peter S.” on March 1, 2006, bless him. Check his history page. It definitely wasn’t us. We don’t know anything about Dubai. I mean, seriously, look at us

Here are some recent posts from our employees about Internet Video:

Musical Things

Ruby and I recorded a little thing yesterday. I played the nord and he recorded, added some beats, edited the video, and uploaded it! thanks Ruby!
here’s a little pic of the setup

Who Needs a TV?

My TV broke a week ago, two months to the day after my five year service plan ended. It was very sad. It was a 40 inch Sony XBR, the largest tube on the market clocking in at 500 pounds. My friends told me I needed to get in the 21st Century and buy at least a 50 inch LCD or Plasma and what the hell was I doing holding on to this monster. Five years ago it was the best HD picture on the market and, by the way, it still ranks among the best so what’s wrong boys? Well..I guess now it won’t turn on.
Of course I first turned to the internet for my “television” entertainment.
I started off with hulu. Awesome variety. Not a lot of commercials. Nice full screen player. Great nav bar. I watched a lot of SNL clips, like this hilarious Justin Timberlake skit, some recent episodes of Family Guy I had missed, and Xmas specials from 30 Rock and The Office. Sweet. Digging deeper I found The 2007 Fiesta Bowl that I had always wanted to see because my son had watched it live and kept texting me about it when all the crazy plays were happening. And I even watched some old episodes of Bewitched I remembered from when I was a kid. Man, I had a crush on Elizabeth Montgomery and wanted to be a big ad exec in New York City just like Darren, haha.
And then I found myself putting on CNN.com/video and just letting it run. There’s something comforting about sitting back and letting somebody else pick what you should watch. Makes it easy to read some magazines and multitask (play) on my iPhone. It’s also nice to instantly fast forward or skip the segment if you need to.
I still found myself wanting longer forms of entertainment but I remain resistant to the “new” Netflix. I just yesterday, however, hooked up to my laptop my Harman Kardon Soundsticks that had been gathering dust to the side of my desk ever since I dumped my desktop computer. My Old School and Deer Hunter DVDs looked and sounded perfect.
And the Wall-E and Juno downloaded movies my wife and I watched were equally impressive. Maybe it’s time to consider Netflix again. I don’t know. (The speakers are a little awkward and ugly wrapped around the front of my coffee table.)
I’m sure someday I’ll miss having a TV. Certainly when there’s live sports or I want to play Tiger Woods Golf on the Wii. Oh wait. I can do both those on my computer too. Huh…
Ok, I am not joking, but I just got a call from Circuit City wondering if I wanted to extend the warranty on my Sony 40 inch XBR. It’ll only cost me $350 to cover the TV for another five years. hahahaha

Longer Ads or Short Branded Films?

As filmed advertising changes into longer forms (brought to you, of course, by the Internet) it will be interesting to see how storytelling will change and who specifically (creatives and directors) will rise to the top. It’s tough to break free of more than fifty years of intuition and the reduction of stories into a mere thirty seconds.
Saatchi recently tried on a 4plus minute bit for JC Penney and it feels a bit too long.
But hey, at least they’re trying something new.

Inside Netflix's New Hotness

Speaking of transparency: Being the nerd that I am, I was fascinated by Netflix’s recent blog post about the nitty-gritty of the encoding process for their “Watch Instantly” streaming service. Of particular interest to me as a Mac user was the amount of effort they’ve had to put into switching to Silverlight—basically re-encoding every item in their library, much like YouTube did when they began supporting RTSP streaming on mobile devices. Of course, this transition also opens the door for the new Xbox streaming service, so maybe I shouldn’t feel so special, but it’s still quite a feat.
I’ve been trying out Netflix’s new Silverlight player at home and I’ve been very pleased with the results so far. The automatic bandwidth adjustment isn’t entirely seamless on my slow home connection, but I have to say that the frustration of the occasional “buffering” progress bar is far outweighed by the joy of being able to watch old History Channel documentaries and episodes of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (ad-free!) on my Mac Mini at home. That plus terrestrial high-def TV makes it that much easier not to be a cable subscriber. Yay!
(By the way, in case you haven’t heard: If you’re a Netflix member who’s interested in joining the Silverlight beta program, you can opt in here.)

Election Eve and the Internet

The Internet has once again shown its mightiness. I am so proud. On the eve of this historical election people worldwide are glued to their computers. As I am.
My favorite thing? The CNN clickable map. It lets you pick how states are going to vote and see what impact that will have on who wins. It starts with the present situation based on the latest polls and then you can play around. You can assign the states you like with Obama and the states you don’t care for that much with McCain (or vise versa, of course). You can choose “all Obama” or “all McCain.” Or you can make a nice pattern. It’s pretty fun.
Here’s my striped version of the electoral map. Apparently in this example, Obama wins 321 to 217.
Then of course there’s internet video. Online video dominated this entire election. From SNL reruns on hulu to the even more hilarious real life Palin-Couric interview series. It was amazing. Here’s a nice article from Time the Top 10 Campaign Moments summarizing the best video moments. My favorite is Wassup 2008. Pure genius.

Opera Study concludes 4.13% of web standards compliant

Opera also ran the pages indexed by MAMA through the W3C’s validation tools to see how many conform with standards. The results show that only 4.13 percent are valid. A more startling conclusion that Opera derived from its MAMA data is that only 50 percent of sites that display a badge touting validation are actually valid. This could indicate that many sites which are initially designed with valid HTML later cease to be valid as changes are made and new content is added.
And I’ll just add in here that http://barbariangroup.com does pass validation. What is interesting is that our blog page fails validation due to embed code that we grab from other sites to embed content in blog posts, which totally reflects the findings of that study. Too bad because I know Kenji worked hard on that markup!

Youtube really gets me.

John McCain gets BarackRoll'd

This is pure genius. Serves them right for posting a HUGE blue screen behind John McCain during is speech, and its brilliantly edited.