Snapchat. Recently, they’ve been injecting ads into their stories (these clips are on average about 10 seconds). A few things I found interesting about the implementation and observing others interactions with the ads:
1) At being 10 seconds, the ads are relatively short and contextually relevant. They flow more naturally in the stories than a television ad in linear programming. There’s likely strict quality control being enforced by Snapchat. It will be interesting to see them scale this.
2) As a user progresses further along in a story, does a user become more invested in the story (this is a thread of related snaps that Snapchat curates) or are they more likely to bounce before the end. In television, you’ve got the hook of the narrative keeping the user until the end. That would dictate ad placement. Recently Snapchat has done something interesting to combat this: giving the user different story paths to go into (from a given story point).
3) Most importantly, as a user, you’re able to skip the advertisements if you want (and go on with the story). This creates a pressure on the advertiser to create engaging and contextually relevant ads. The feedback of length of time played, number of times skipped, etc all create signals on creative performance (historically difficult to judge on television as it’s not an interactive medium).
This is markedly different from the typical television advertisement. There’s the element of engagement of the user (skip or stay), the constrained view time, and constraint of being relevant to the surrounding content. This creates a competitive pressure that television ads haven’t faced.
Edit: This isn't to say that Snapchat is final platform for this medium of advertisements. These learnings (and more) will likely be applied to most social networks that enforce constraints on short-form video advertisements.
I take issue with this. An ad for Deoderant spliced into the middle of my friend's feed is not contextually relevant. The list of "suggested feeds" aka ads they shoved into the top of the client are not contextually relevant.
It's difficult for their ads to be on target for anything other than their promoted feeds. Video is not search.
Given that a small number of companies are responsible for a large proportion of brand advertising spend, I would posit that it isn't too difficult to scale quality control if you focus on building relationships exclusively with heavy spenders. Quality control becomes a bottleneck at the long tail end of the market, where ad budget per creative is much smaller. At the top end, you can behave like a TV channel and reuse established quality control practices. If you have 100m+ active users and a video-heavy medium, this shouldn't be impossible to accomplish.
That said, I have heard several reports about Snapchat's eagerness to build programmatic ad expertise, which (in the context of this discussion) may pointing to one of the following possibilities:
1. Large brands are not exhibiting TV-style buying behaviour (i.e. large upfront buys) on Snapchat. This would make sense as it mirrors trends in the rest of the industry. If you, as the buyer, have access to technology that lets you better control and manage your spend, gather intelligence, and understand ROI, then why wouldn't you? This is the buying mechanism that programmatic technology enables, and its more or less incompatible with TV-style upfront buys.
2. Snapchat wants to open their doors to mid-market and long tail advertisers. The goal might be to boost spending, drive up prices, or to go after performance advertising dollars. If I were a Snapchat investor, I'd find this second scenario slightly worrying, as quality control becomes very very difficult.
How do you see their recent policy updates[1] in this context?
[1] http://marketingland.com/snapchat-changed-terms-service-priv...
It might be that they want to pass this ID into programmatic platforms. Some systems treat them as pseudo-cookies for frequency capping, measurement, and basic targeting.
edit: Information is now free, barring firewalls. Consumer Reports had to rely on low bandwidth magazine delivery, and its transparency was limited simply due to how well it could communicate its own internal structure and activities. We can now create peer-to-peer systems where people could solely rely on information approved by people who they already trust, and that trust could be revoked at any time. In addition, people could recommend who to trust, and that recommendation could be revoked at any time.
Unwanted advertising is just cynical manipulation.
Whenever a debate about advertising pops up on HN, many people defend it as the necessary way for consumers to find out about good products. Healthy free markets depend on informed consumers, but to think that advertising results in informed consumers makes little sense. I find it strange that a community of logic and science oriented people can hold such a notion.
When communities were small, reputation was king. If your town had two bakers, everyone knew which one was good and which one sucked. No amount of advertising would fool the townsfolk into going to the sucky one.
But this doesn't scale to huge cities with tens, hundreds or thousands of choices. We can't know the reputation of such a wide array, and we can easily be fooled by advertising. Internet-based recommendation systems make the grapevine and reputation scalable. I hope we see more innovation. Yelp is a start, but it fails miserably because if I rate a place 5 because I love very authentic Thai food, and another person rates it a 1 because they are used to Americanized Thai, the restaurant gets a 3 (I'm simplifying for illustrative purposes). In other words, Yelp's rating is useless to both me and the other person.
I'm hoping for a future where recommendation systems and collaborative filtering get so good that they render marketing and advertising useless.
(original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10398290)
- Upton Sinclair
As for what TV gets replaced with - well I believe we're in a kind of awkward patch between platforms at present. One AR matures and reaches a critical mass it will set the course for the next couple of generations of advertising.
Nowadays it is very easy to find people just like you online and ask them what they bought and whether or not they are happy with the product (although not everyone has trained themselves to do it).
That neighbor to neighbor information dispersion replaces a lot of the function of broadcast advertising.
Not from the perspective of companies, who are the ones paying for advertising — their goal is to get the word out about a specific brand or product, which sometimes aligns with consumers' needs, but definitely not always.
No, the future of TV is like cable TV, but on the Internet (Subscription Fee + Ads)... like Hulu.
Hulu isn't the future of TV; Hulu is the future of TV as envisioned by a bunch of major TV networks. I think HBO and Netflix are closer to the future of TV than Hulu is.
Wasn't that the promise of the early cable TV? How long did that last?
No, early cable TV was a way to provide signals from broadcast (and, thus, ad supported) channels to areas where, for geographic reasons, there was poor reception.
(The CATV acronym frequently used for cable TV originated as an acronym for its earlier name, "Community Antenna Television" -- reflecting it as a model of consumers sharing an antenna to receive broadcast signal.)
Premium, ad-free content, cable-specific programming didn't turn up until decades later. So, you've basically got it backward: instead of being something that originally promised subscription fees for no ads content but fell away from that, cable is something that initially offered subscription fees for access to ad-supported broadcast content but later evolved to include subscription-based (and pay-per-view) ad-free content available on top of the basic ad-supported content.
I'm not sure what Netflix's endgame is, but they're leaving a LOT of money on the table by going subscription-only.
Ads should only exist in free/no subscription fee content.
Consumers are very sensitive to pricing, especially for entertainment.
> Ads should only exist in free/no subscription fee content.
Why? It's a spectrum, not binary.
Amazon and HBO are already basically forcing ads in front of the shows now though it remains self-promotional. There is a substantial amount of value that could be unlocked if TV ad budgets moved to Amazon and Netflix. Irregardless of current claims I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of sponsorship appear on Netflix if subscriber growth starts reaching its limits. Quite honestly strongly merchandised brands like Disney should be paying for video distribution rather than licensing it out.
If I'm paying for content, but that content also has tons of ads I feel like the provider is double dipping. Charging me to access the content and making money from advertising.
If the content is distributed for free (as over the air TV originally was) then I understand the advertising supported model.
If I'm being charged for it then I think ads are not acceptable under any circumstance.
Consumers are sensitive to pricing relative to free, but when you're charging for both I suspect most would pay extra for no advertising.
No, the future of TV is like cable TV, but on the internet -- a mix of subscription + ads services, subscription ad-free services, and ad-free pay-per-item services. The difference is that, in the internet form, these services are more likely to be separately purchased rather than bundled on top of each other.
The advertisers who advertise on TV are the biggest, slowest, oldest companies. They're largely just interested in "brand advertising" and they don't understand how to properly do digital advertising.
TV money is absolutely going away -- the future of TV is commercial-free subscription VOD (like Netflix). But we haven't replaced TV with anything that the marketing managers at these companies know how to measure and report on. For all its faults, the cause-effect relationship in TV advertising is well-understood. That's not the case for digital, so advertisers aren't as comfortable spending $300 million on digital ad spend. They don't believe that they have to change the balance of media buys and creatives; it's been an invaluable rule their whole career so why change it now?
The big question is "What does TV advertising get replaced with?" I'm not sure digital is the answer; and I think the need for traditional advertising somewhat disappears along with their use cases. As we start to rely more and more on AI to make decisions for us, promoting one product versus another in AI applications will become a new form of advertising (which is why Google is all-in on AI).
But we don't know what form those products will take because the market hasn't taken shape yet. The next 5 years will be really interesting on the AI front with regards to advertising.