With a population approaching half of a billion users, if Facebook was its own nation it would be the third largest in the world behind China and India. With that in mind, it’s no surprise that secondary activities on Facebook – like viewing videos – can still produce high rankings for the site that compete with the likes of Hulu and YouTube . One of the ways users on Facebook view video is through advertisements, and a recent study by TubeMogul revealed some interesting stats on which ones worked, and why. Sponsor TubeMogul studied the various forms of video advertising displayed throughout Facebook, including in-banner video, interstitial and virtual currency ads. Virtual currency ads are served to gamers who receive points or virtual money within a game in return for completing them, and they turned out to be one of the best methods of attracting traffic. You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours According to the study, around 43% of virtual currency ad viewers completed the entire ad, and roughly 52% watched at least three quarters of the ad. These numbers just barely inch out those of in-banner and interstitial ads, but where the virtual currency ads excel is in click-through and share rate. By rewarding viewers for completing ads, advertisers see a click-through rate double that of in-banner ads and over 5 times that of interstitial ads. Users share these ads on Facebook and Twitter roughly 50% more than in-banner ads and around 6 times more than interstitial ads. Additionally, virtual currency ads are watched 6 seconds longer than in-banner ads on average, and nearly 5 times longer than interstitial ads. The most intriguing statistic from the study, especially for advertisers, is the price of these ads compared to how long they are watched. The study found that virtual currency ads average $0.22 per minute viewed, nearly identical to the $0.23 cost for interstitial ads. In-banner ads, on the other hand, averaged $6.27 per minute viewed. How Facebook Ads Stack Up Against Web Benchmarks But how do these Facebook ads compare to ads placed outside of the site. TubeMogul used an off site benchmark to gauge the advantage or disadvantage of using Facebook for video ads. The study found that Facebook users are nearly twice as likely to finish watching ads than they would outside of the site, but click-throughs for the benchmark ads were higher than in-banner and interstitial Facebook ads. Virtual currency and in-banner ads are watched between 9 and 15 seconds longer than offsite ads, but the offsite ads tend to be better value to advertisers than many Facebook-based ads. Targeting Ads at User Behaviors User behavior seems to play a large role in determining which Facebook video ads work the best. By rewarding game players with virtual currency, advertisers see higher click-throughs, longer watch times and higher value from their ads. Interstitial ads, which pop up as users navigate through games and apps, garner just a fraction of the view time and click-through rate despite being cheaper to implement. Interstitial ads seem obtrusive to users since they only appear at the exact moment a user has clicked to navigate from one screen to another, so it makes sense that users close them quickly in frustration. By offering Facebook users with rewards for watching videos at their own discretion, advertisers attain much higher view times and click-throughs. Discuss

Click here to read more

A report yesterday from PricewaterhouseCoopers found that online ad revenue is on the verge of surpassing print ads – an inspiring milestone for new media and convergence. However, the PwC survey was based on combined figures across all online media outlets; are individual news outlets having success detaching themselves from the traditional print ad revenue addiction? The Financial Times , London’s version of the Wall Street Journal , says it has leveraged its niche market and will see print ad revenues dip below direct payments made to the paper this year, according to the Los Angeles Times . Sponsor So what does “direct payment” mean in this case? For the Financial Times, it means subscriptions to its print circulation – which costs readers roughly £235 ($348 U.S.) for a year’s subscription – and for access to the paper’s content online at a price of around £125 ($186 U.S.). But the newspaper has created alternative sources of revenue as well, including iPhone and iPad applications and a series of glitzy events and conferences drawing luminaries from various industries. Earlier this month, we mentioned that the Financial Times had reached 130,000 downloads of its free iPad application in its first two weeks. The app is being downloaded nearly ten times faster than its iPhone companion, which launched last year but required an online subscription to use. All this just from the U.S. launch of the app; the U.K. version has yet to be released into the AppStore. The faster pace of downloads is likely due to the fact that the app is free, and provides access to the Financial Times content that is normally behind subscriptions. The newspaper is running a two-month sponsorship to fund the app and grow its popularity, and will likely switch to a monthly subscription model soon. One reason why a digital subscription via the iPad is likely to succeed for the Financial Times is because much of the readership of the paper (like that of the Wall Street Journal) is mainly wealthy financiers and business executives – just the type of audience that’s likely to subscribe and more likely to own the expensive iPad. According to the Los Angeles Times story , the paper estimates that by 2012 a full third of its revenue will come from its digital efforts. As with the report regarding online ad revenues from yesterday, this news from the Financial Times is very encouraging for the online media industry. But the Financial Times is leveraging its upper-class audience in other ways as well. According to the Los Angeles Times, the paper hosts events and conferences aimed at these high-rollers. At the forefront of these events is the Business of Luxury Summit, which has become a strong source of profit for the paper thanks to high-end sponsorships and expensive registration prices, with executives from companies like Estee Lauder, Calvin Klein and Jimmy Choo drawing in the wealthy attendees. The ability of traditional news outlets to break their dependence on print ad revenues is certainly a welcome change and a good sign that the industry can in fact survive at a healthy level online. The Financial Times, however, may be a poor example since they have a significantly different audience – one that may be more willing to pay for an online subscription. Discuss

Click here to read more

On the heels of a report which found that online ad revenues will likely surpass those of print ads in the next year, television networks are poised to increase the number of ads run during episodes of shows viewed online. Will Richmond of VideoNuze reports that ABC intends to double the amount of advertisements displayed when viewers watch episodes of ABC shows on the network’s website after implementing a similar policy for its iPad app. Sponsor According to Richmond, who was briefed by ABC executive Albert Cheng, the network’s iPad app has been downloaded over 800,000 times and has served 4.2 million episodes of video in just over two months since its April 3rd launch. Yesterday, says Richmond, ABC launched a new ad initiative on the app that would double the amount of ads seen during programs in some cases – an adjustment that will soon be seen on ABC.com as well. Typically, online episodes contain between 2 and 3 minutes of advertisements while traditional television broadcasts contain roughly 20 minutes for each hour. While the difference in time for ads between TV and online is significant, online ads have been found to be more effective despite being run less frequently. Therefore, it only makes sense that broadcast networks want to increase their online ads. ABC isn’t the only network making shifts in online ads for viewing television episodes. Just recently, Cartoon Network announced it would also be increasing ad numbers for online video, and other networks are pulling away from stream aggregators like Hulu to have better control over the ads and revenue. When Hulu and Comedy Central could not agree on revenue splits, the cable channel chose to remove two of the most popular Internet generation television shows – The Daily Show and The Colbert Report . Instead, Comedy Central is only allowing viewers to watch these shows on the network’s homepage. Could other networks follow in their footsteps in hopes of gaining more control over advertisements? Currently, ABC still allows viewers to watch shows both at its homepage and on Hulu, but if it sees decent returns from doubling its ads, it may not hesitate to remove its content from the aggregator. While “Hulu” is becoming a household word for “online video” in the same way “TiVo” and “Kleenex” have evolved to mean “record” and “tissue,” other devices and services are still vying for competition. With set top boxes like the Roku and free services like Boxee , there are plenty of options for networks to syndicate their content and control their advertising. Discuss

Click here to read more

We are all aware of the floundering print industry that has seen a steady decline in revenues over the last several years. Newspapers that once thrived on the cash-cows that were classifieds and print advertising have had their lunch eaten by the disruptive forces of Craigslist and online advertising, which have slowly chipped away at print ad sales. Soon, however, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Internet advertising revenues will surpass those of print advertising to become the second largest segment of advertising in the U.S. behind television. Sponsor “Over the next five years digital technologies will progressively increase their impact across all segments of entertainment and media … It is clear that the consumer is firmly in the driving seat of these changes.” – PricewaterhouseCoopers Report As reported by the Wall Street Journal , The PwC report found that in 2009, online ad revenues continued to climb to $24.2 billion, while print ads fell 28.6% to $24.8 billion. Online ads are expected to rake in $34.4 billion by 2014, which means print ads should dip below their online counterparts in a matter of months. PwC’s figures for online revenues don’t include mobile advertisements, which they believe will nearly quadruple in the next four years from $414 million to $1.6 billion. “Over the next five years digital technologies will progressively increase their impact across all segments of entertainment and media (E&M) as digital transformation continues to expand and escalate,” a press release from PwC said Tuesday. “The uncertain economic background has done nothing to slow the pace of change, which has been far quicker than predicted 12 months ago. It is clear that the consumer is firmly in the driving seat of these changes.” According to the report, increased access to broadband has played a large role in helping boost online ad revenues. The Wall Street Journal reports that broadband penetration in the U.S. nearly doubled from 34% in 2005 to 64% in 2010 thanks partly to $7.2 billion in federal stimulus money put towards expanding broadband access. Additionally, PricewaterhouseCoopers expects that global consumer spending on Internet access will increase from $228 billion 2009 to $351 billion in 2014. It was only a matter of time until online ad sales outpaced those of print, and once they do, they will only continue to gain momentum. Legacy media are driven by numbers and are slow to change their ways, and thus have not thrown their entire weight behind online initiatives. When the scales tip over to online advertising in the next year, those that have been reluctant to embrace new and online media will be forced to allocate additional resources to the winning market. The ultimate demise of print media is still many years away, but it is pretty clear that ad revenues are slowly dropping away. It will take one of the predominant newspapers ceasing to print physical copies to set off the domino effect that will likely follow, but it is unlikely to happen any time soon. While newspaper ad revenues have been falling, they’ve been leveling out, and a balance between print and online is likely to exist for several years before print entirely fades away. Discuss

Click here to read more

Last month , Google announced the advent of “Tags.” For $25 monthly, businesses can leverage these yellow symbols to communicate additional information. Tags rolled out initially on a trial basis in 11 cities. As of late last week , they are becoming available nationwide. Tags appear below a business’s listing and carry information such as coupon offers, sales and website URLs. Starting with the states where the previous 11 trial cities are located, the goal is to roll them out across the U.S. Currently, the only place they are available statewide is in California. Sponsor The next states they will be available in will include Georgia, Texas, Colorado, Illinois and Washington. Location-based advertising has proven very profitable, as we have reported before. One in four U.S. adults use location-based services. Half of those users engage with location-based advertisements on those services. Check-in service Foursquare has grown wildly . Competitors like TopGuest have entered the arena, offering real-world deals . We looked up vinyl, books, shoes, archery and other searches in both San Francisco and Seattle to no effect. (The screenshot above is from the Google announcement) Admittedly, this is in the early stages. But, Google Tags will prove useful, to both businesses and customers, only if they get used and get seen. Thanks to Charly Omer Discuss

Click here to read more