Yesterday morning I had a call with a company that wanted to acquire our company (how’s that for transparency?).
Right now, they’re slightly larger than we are. When I say slightly, I mean enormously.
As such, I extended a considerable amount of respect, props and shout-out’s to them. Throughout our call, they asked a series of questions surrounding our cost of production per minute of footage. In other words, how much it cost to produce one minute of video footage.
- Hollywood’s cost per minute is in the greater than $1,000 (forget movies, we’re talking low-end Hollywood folks).
- Many Web companies producing video today weigh in below $1,000 but come in somewhere in the $500/minute range.
- What’s ours?
Well, I haven’t tabulated yet… but here’s a table for you to guess if you wish:
To read the table: say I’ve invested $2.5M in WatchMojo.com and we have 125 hours of footage, then the cost per minute is $133… what have I invested and how many hours of footage do we have?
Well… it’s getting late… so maybe we can get to that at a later date.
All I can say, my friends, is good night, and good luck.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterDave Winer’s answer/reply/manifesto to Steve Jobs is pretty good. Read it here.
But, hands down, the winner today is Duncan Riley of Tech Crunch. He had a double whammy. Let’s see, he starts off by using “Clown Co.” as a query example in a seemingly unrelated post on “Google Adds Search To Google Reader”.
That was pretty funny… actually very funny (admittedly, I’m one of the loopy ones who wants Clown Co., I mean Hulu, NewCo/Newsite, whatever… to succeed cause Google cum YouTube has way too much market share - then again, I like YouTube and their a distribution partner, but I digress).
But then as I scroll down on Tech Crunch, in the previous post, Riley uses an image of a train wreck, an actual freaking train wreck… to talk about Lulu’s lawsuit against Hulu (no, neither are typos).
That was early in the [East Coast] morning… I fell off my chair. All to say, Winer’s post came close… but Riley wins Day 1’s Crazy Post of the Day.
Let’s see who snatches this manana…
Back in the day, Coke and Pepsi would duke it out on the main streets with TV ads.
Today is the watershed moment when Web replaces TV.
I alluded to this this morning, and Search Engine Land has a gem of a screen grab:
Today, TV advertising officially takes a back seat to the Web.
You sort of understand why I also argued that any fallout from the subprime mortgage lending situation would help web advertising and hurt print, TV and radio advertising.
Regardless of what you think about Apple’s Steve Jobs dropping the price of an iPhone by $200 two months after its launch and two months before Christmas… the reaction by Nokia was swift and suggests what to expect from advertising in years to come.
TV, historically the best medium to reach the masses, is slow. Case in point. The next morning, Nokia uses search advertising to sway Apple users / would-be users to consider Nokia:
Image grabbed off Tech Crunch.
Text advertising creative is the easiest and fastest one to create, I’d guess by noon EST the creative departments of Nokia’s ad agency will have churned out display/banner ads along with rich media ads and using their ad management tools, they will be able to swap out any existing ads and in their place run these. That, folks, is the power of advertising.
Of course, getting very technical, this also stresses the importance for global marketers to always be “in the money” in the sense that they always need campaigns with flights running. Admittedly, were Nokia want to start an offensive to counter Apple’s price cut, it would take weeks, days at the very least, months in all likelihood.
In fact, one reason why even TV video ads are dead is that Nokia could create made-for-web video ads and run these online and these would take less time to create and less time to hit consumers.
Point of the story: not only is the Web reaching critical mass and growing faster, it’s also cheaper and more effective by leaps and bounds.
TV advertising is simply too costly and ineffective to compete with the Web.
