Response Magazine Site Response Expo Site Direct Response Market Alliance Site Response TV Site Market Research Job Board

 

   Log in
  



Editorial Advisory Board

Is Online Video Living Up to the Hype?

1 Jun, 2009 By: Thomas Haire Response


What's the most useful online video option for a DR marketer — controlled video on a product's home Web site, or viral video on the YouTubes of the world?

Fays: Both have their respective places in the media plan for a marketer. One hundred percent of one or the other minimizes the potential for the advertiser as spreading the love, so to speak, hits the sweet spot for brand recognition.

Garnett: It depends on what you're selling and the goals of the video. YouTube provides a universal format and is great for search. You can also embed your YouTube video into your company site so customers can find it on YouTube or the company Web site. But your company Web site offers important advantages — including the video quality, making a stronger customer experience, putting the video in context with your other information and tracking more viewing data. People already on your Web site and engaged in your product are more likely to watch a longer, more in-depth video and afterwards they can learn more or go directly to purchase on the Web site. In many ways, the best model is to put your video both places and construct your YouTube video to drive viewers to your Web site.

Hawthorne: Video units for a product's home Web site provide the greatest ROI. Repurposing this video on the many social/viral video outlets is useful but generally does not produce significant views. A DRTV commercial going viral is a rare phenomenon and near impossible to plan for and achieve.

Lee: A fully integrated marketing campaign must use both viral and controlled Web video to take full advantage of all consumer touchpoints.

Medico: Currently, it is controlled video on a product's home Web site. We are quickly moving to video marketing as an ad unit. This includes paid video media and viral media.

Murray: Both are great and should be embraced and leveraged. YouTube is better, because it is not contrived — the company gets "real" response, and a marketer can get a true sense, very quickly, of public perception.

Pruett: If useful means testing and really trying to determine metrics and response in these early stages, then marketers should utilize platforms like Brightcove and Feedroom — and technologies like greenscreen — and then launch videos on their own site. Companies new to online marketing or those rolling out new products may prefer this route. If useful means being more daring, and perhaps trying to initiate community coverage of a new or even fading older product, then letting the viral community take over would be the right option. Bloggers could also be leveraged here too as a distribution source.

Stacey: Both approaches can work extremely well. If your budget is tight and you can't afford to buy or promote your Web site, you can utilize outlets like YouTube to get viewership and spread the word. This can also provide you an opportunity to get instant feedback as to what the viewer thinks — a great tool when you're in test mode. Also, affiliates tend to keep an eye on YouTube products and will be more likely to join your program if it's a well-known item.

Yallen: Because of the analytical data, controlled video is the option for DR. Viral video is best for a branding campaign.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 


Add Comment




©2014 Questex Media Group LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited. Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster. Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security Seals