If I wasn’t happily married, I’d ask Liz Gannes to marry me. The NewTeeVee reporter points to a Forrester report - the most bullish ever, by far - that US video ads will hit $7.1B by 2012. Obviously, this must be true. As we have done over the years, we’re updating our “video ad market tale of the tape accordingly:
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2009 - set in 2004: $657 million | Source.
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2009 - set in 2005: $1.5 billion | Source.
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2010 - set in 2006: $2.3 billion | Source.
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2010 - set in late 2006: $3 billion | Source.
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2011 - set in late 2007: $4.3 billion | Source.
An estimate of the worldwide online video ad market for 2011 - set in 2007: $10 billion | Source.
An estimate of the US online video ad market for 2012 - set in 2007: $7.1 billion | Source.
Here’s the graph, so it must be true:
No comment. Actually, as bullish as that sounds, look at the historical, actual growth in search ads:
By the way, my crazy post that web ads will surpass TV ads by 2021 isn’t so crazy now, is it? Let’s admit that such projections are self-serving, notwithstanding that, if search ads will be over $16B by 2012 and web video ads will be over $7.1B by 2012, right there, you are at $23B… my projections done earlier this year put 2012 ad revenues online at $36B. So figure search + video = $23B, that means classifieds, display/banners, sponsorships need to weigh in at $14B to make the numbers hold up. And, if we’re right about 2012, can we be that far off for our 2021 projection?
Not so crazy, heh?
And, here are some related posts:
- will video surpass search ads?
- why online video is a $150B market cap opportunity, but not for old media.
- understanding old media (read TV’s) envy.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterSo, apparently there was a funny Saturday Night Live iPhone ad.
I rarely watch SNL because I don’t feel like sitting through 70 minutes of filler, 14 minutes of ads for 6 minutes of funny entertainment (translation: I was sound asleep).
Anyway, turns out that indeed, there happened to be a funny ad pertaining to the iPhone (forget that NBC boss Jeff Zucker declared Jihad on Apple, for a second).
In analog days, that would be the end of it, until SNL repeats this show and I would have the chance to see the ad in question.
In the digital era we live in, we can actually view things on demand. That’s the theory of course. In practice, there are issues of control and of monetization. In all fairness, NBC is right to want to control the user experience (it has since the beginning of television’ history, after all) and naturally it needs to make money on the content it produces.
Of course, because TV networks are freaking out over the likelihood of their businesses shrinking, the’ve yet to embrace the web.
Up to last year, I’d go to YouTube to view a pirated version of the clip.
Up to last week, I’d go to YouTube to view a version copy of the clip on NBC’s channel.
That changed two weeks ago when NBC cut off its channel on YouTube to prepare for Hulu, its joint venture with News Corp.
This morning I found out that the funny as appeared on YouTube, only to be removed. So I went on Hulu, but, of course, that is still not live. Great.
Where to next? Let’s try to NBC.com. I commend NBC for wanting to be in control of their destiny online. What I condemn is their sheer ineptitude for how badly they actually control that destiny. Here goes:
On NBC.com, I searched for “SNL ipod” in the search engine. I begin to wonder: “what if NBC is right, why should the content be on YouTube, or even Hulu. It’s NBC’s content after all…”
My deep thoughts are interrupted by the results page:
“the keywords you asked for are not found but try these results.”
Hmm… Ok, I’m optimistic, I click on one of the results… not what I want, but at least, I’m getting close. I click on “SNL Main”, and lo and behold, I see a link to the magical fake ad for the iPod.
I click on it.
Your video will play after a brief ad. Fair enough. I didn’t stay up at night on Saturday, I now get to see the fake ad in question on demand…
Ad ends. What do I see?
The video you are trying to watch cannot be displayed. Replay. I press Replay.
Nothing, for my troubles, I got two see two ads.
Thanks. Seriously. With media like this, who needs writers in the first place?
On the one hand, traditional media’s moguls hate the Hollywood writers’ strike, because at a time when consumers are shifting online and marketers are following, TV networks and movie studios can’t afford to skip a beat. In fact, this could really be more detrimental (or an accelerator) because users/consumers don’t care about macro trends and what not, they care about the product, and naturally, if David Letterman, Jay Leno or Jon Stewart are off the air or repeating shows, users will notice and tune out.
But, I also think that some media moguls welcome this, because they realize that TV’s cost structures - including everything from content creation, to production and distribution - is inefficient. A couple of years ago, the NHL (that’s the pro hockey league folks) missed out an entire season and the producers (the team owners) preferred that than keeping the status quo because players were getting 75%of revenues and it was not sustainable.
I know that writers do not make 75% of the fees, actors do (if anything), but in a somewhat analogous way, those who own the means of production (the studios and networks) are willing to let this one play out, because they realize that TV’s inefficient business model will make the fate of newspapers seem like a walk in the park.
I can’t speak for old media moguls, but as a new media video producer and entrepreneur, I welcome it, some food for thought, from TechDirt:
[the strike] is only going to create a content vacuum that will be filled by small independent producers who understand how to use digital technologies to produce and distribute content on a tight budget
And speaking of that, check out WatchMojo.com.
Today IAC did something that was very overdue: it blew itself up into five companies.
This is the next natural step after IAC spun off Expedia, but I still think the emerging 5 separate companies are not lean and quick enough to take on agile competitors. Let’s first see what the offspring will look like:
-- IAC, which will include:
-- The businesses currently comprising its Media & Advertising sector:
Ask.com, Bloglines, Citysearch, CursorMania, IAC Advertising
Solutions, Evite, Excite, InsiderPages, iWon, My Fun Cards, My Way,
Popular Screensavers, Smiley Central, Webfetti and Zwinky;
-- Match.com, ServiceMagic, Shoebuy.com, Entertainment Publications and
ReserveAmerica;
-- The businesses currently comprising its Emerging Businesses sector:
Black Web Enterprises, BustedTees, CollegeHumor, GarageGames,
Gifts.com, Green.com, InstantAction, Primal Ventures, Pronto, Very
Short List, Vimeo and 23/6;
-- IAC's current investments in Active.com, Brightcove, FiLife, Medem,
MerchantCircle, OpenTable, Points.com and SHOP Channel.
-- HSN, which will include the primary businesses currently comprising
IAC's Retailing segment, including HSN TV, hsn.com, and the
Cornerstone Brands, Inc. portfolio of catalogs, web sites and retail
locations, including Alsto's, Ballard Designs, Frontgate, Garnet Hill,
GrandinRoad, Improvements, Isabella Bird, Smith+Noble, The Territory
Ahead and TravelSmith;
-- Ticketmaster, which will include its domestic and international
operations including Admission.com, Biletix, Billetnet, BillettService,
Cottonblend, Echomusic, Kartenhaus.de, Lippupalvelu, LiveDaily,
TicketService, Tick Tack Ticket, TicketWeb and Ticnet.se, as well as
Ticketmaster's current investments in Frontline and iLike;
-- Interval International, which will also include CondoDirect, Resort
Quest Hawaii and VacationSource.com;
-- LendingTree, which will also include RealEstate.com, Domania, GetSmart,
Home Loan Center and iNest.
Call me a skeptic, but there remains a lot of confused sub-companies here. The company that shall retain the IAC moniker could itself be broken up into 3-5 companies…
But, for what it’s worth, it’s a step in the right direction. This begs the question, will the companies really remain separate and distinct? Of course not, for Barry Diller, the dealmaker maven will maintain control and remain the five companies’ Chairman… which means that they’ll be as separate and distinct as a massive new media Siamese quintuplet.
