Some of you may recall this earlier post: YouTube and a whole new world of free classified ads.
I contacted Icapmedia (the small firm dabbling with video classified ads for dealers on youtube).
The chap behind it has just got back to me. He says: "It is a great tool to help promote the cars, allot of work but I post on google now more than youtube, one in the same now I guess."
He adds that the idea has proved successful - though hasn't revealed exactly what kind of response rate he gets.
"I've sold many cars this way, it gives an honest, un-adulterated,fresh approach"
I suspect the honest and unadulterated aspects are why it works so well in a social-networking environment like YouTube.
The further ahead you look - the faster you go | davidpcushman AT gmail.com | These are my views and my views only.
Showing posts with label youtube classified advertising video free. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube classified advertising video free. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Famous for 15 minutes? Famous for 15 people is better...
A mate of mine rang me last night (mobile-to-mobile even though we were in our own homes... see below etc etc...).
He told me he'd been spotted in the street. His claim to fame? An 11-year-old lad had seen him on YouTube.
Now, this mate of mine ain't LonelyGirl15! The video the lad had spotted has been viewed a grand total of 244 times since early July. It's an obscure bit of nonsense filmed in a pub.
But the content ain't the interesting bit here - it's the reaction. The lad had probably been looking for videos from his home town - because that's what interests him. Low viewing numbers (on YouTube or anywhere else for that matter) are clearly irrelevant - a handful of engaged viewers must have much more value.
Classified video ads anyone?
Land Rover Owner (0ne of the brands I'm currently working with) has clicked up 80,000 views of its videos in the last few months. They've never been featured, none has huge individual viewing numbers - but I bet they've all been found by people specifically looking for Land Rovers - exactly who these videos were aimed for.
Briefly - this is just one more example of the ever-growing body of evidence that big viewing numbers aren't the all-important measure they once were. Engagement through self-selection (by search, platform, niche brand etc) is where growing response (with real value) lies.
He told me he'd been spotted in the street. His claim to fame? An 11-year-old lad had seen him on YouTube.
Now, this mate of mine ain't LonelyGirl15! The video the lad had spotted has been viewed a grand total of 244 times since early July. It's an obscure bit of nonsense filmed in a pub.
But the content ain't the interesting bit here - it's the reaction. The lad had probably been looking for videos from his home town - because that's what interests him. Low viewing numbers (on YouTube or anywhere else for that matter) are clearly irrelevant - a handful of engaged viewers must have much more value.
Classified video ads anyone?
Land Rover Owner (0ne of the brands I'm currently working with) has clicked up 80,000 views of its videos in the last few months. They've never been featured, none has huge individual viewing numbers - but I bet they've all been found by people specifically looking for Land Rovers - exactly who these videos were aimed for.
Briefly - this is just one more example of the ever-growing body of evidence that big viewing numbers aren't the all-important measure they once were. Engagement through self-selection (by search, platform, niche brand etc) is where growing response (with real value) lies.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
YouTube ads really annoy (the ones the community calls ads, that is)
This video (below)...
...was in the main featured slot on YouTube for the best part of 3 days - racking up over 300,000 views in that time. It's an advert. And judging from the comments it's really pissed off the YouTube Community. Maybe that's why it's not featured any more - or maybe they only paid for three days. Whatever the case the community is fearful this is the evil hand of google at work.
I really hate it, too. I regard it as disingenuous because in its design, style and call-to-action it is EXACTLY like all other (user generated and contributed) videos on YouTube.
Now that's not really on. In print if you run an ad feature you have to, at least, change the fonts and layout from the editorial norm and make a clear statement that this is an advertising feature (at least, you do in the UK).
Even on TV it's very clear what is advert and what is program content - the ad breaks are clearly signed.
I don't think it will take reglation to stop YouTube doing this stuff in the future - just concerted negative community response!
However, what's interesting is that certain kind of adverts don't FEEL like the one that's annoyed everyone (above). And they seem to elicit a positive response from the YouTube community.
I'm talking about trailers for movies and TV series. Perhaps because these are things people actively want to know about. eg...
Maybe this is a reflection of the fact that the consumer wants to make their decisions rather than have them thrust on them by an ad. (might be worth checking out this from Doc Searls - and particularly the Vendor Relationship Management link, or even this previous post of mine.
"If I want it it's fine - and you'd better find out what it is I want before you offer it!"
And to do that of course, you have to engage (see engagement marketing etc).
...was in the main featured slot on YouTube for the best part of 3 days - racking up over 300,000 views in that time. It's an advert. And judging from the comments it's really pissed off the YouTube Community. Maybe that's why it's not featured any more - or maybe they only paid for three days. Whatever the case the community is fearful this is the evil hand of google at work.
I really hate it, too. I regard it as disingenuous because in its design, style and call-to-action it is EXACTLY like all other (user generated and contributed) videos on YouTube.
Now that's not really on. In print if you run an ad feature you have to, at least, change the fonts and layout from the editorial norm and make a clear statement that this is an advertising feature (at least, you do in the UK).
Even on TV it's very clear what is advert and what is program content - the ad breaks are clearly signed.
I don't think it will take reglation to stop YouTube doing this stuff in the future - just concerted negative community response!
However, what's interesting is that certain kind of adverts don't FEEL like the one that's annoyed everyone (above). And they seem to elicit a positive response from the YouTube community.
I'm talking about trailers for movies and TV series. Perhaps because these are things people actively want to know about. eg...
Maybe this is a reflection of the fact that the consumer wants to make their decisions rather than have them thrust on them by an ad. (might be worth checking out this from Doc Searls - and particularly the Vendor Relationship Management link, or even this previous post of mine.
"If I want it it's fine - and you'd better find out what it is I want before you offer it!"
And to do that of course, you have to engage (see engagement marketing etc).
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Google and YouTube - and a revolution in user content?
Google's £900m purchase of YouTube not only reveals how important both 4C-style engaged community marketing is and how absolutely essential innovation is (see Death of me-to-ism), it could also represent the first giant leap towards the 'better content' that Google's chief recently referred to in a bit of a throw-away line (see here).
I initially thought that might mean choice editors (of the consumer media brand kind) were about to find an increasingly important role in a proliferating world.
But that may be just part of it.
From what I understand from the BBC's reporting of the YouTube sale, the google plan includes paying users for the content they provide. Perhaps learning from OhMyNews (see 'ones to watch) or perhaps just applying their adsense model for good, google will pay the video makers on YouTube.
Exactly how remains unclear. Will you get a share of the adsense revenue generated on ads placed against your content. Will you get a pay for play.
What ever the model the intention is clear - make good stuff that more people want to see and you'll get paid the most.
And when you line that up alongside the UK launch of Al Gore's Current TV... well, where do you think this leaves/takes media companies?
Oh, and here are the YouTube founders laughing all the way to the bank:
I also have to recommend you read Publishing2.0 today (Oct 10) (see recommended blogs) on how the gootube deal raises questions about what media is - has it got anything to do with content anymore, or is it just about the aggregation of audience by whatever means?
I initially thought that might mean choice editors (of the consumer media brand kind) were about to find an increasingly important role in a proliferating world.
But that may be just part of it.
From what I understand from the BBC's reporting of the YouTube sale, the google plan includes paying users for the content they provide. Perhaps learning from OhMyNews (see 'ones to watch) or perhaps just applying their adsense model for good, google will pay the video makers on YouTube.
Exactly how remains unclear. Will you get a share of the adsense revenue generated on ads placed against your content. Will you get a pay for play.
What ever the model the intention is clear - make good stuff that more people want to see and you'll get paid the most.
And when you line that up alongside the UK launch of Al Gore's Current TV... well, where do you think this leaves/takes media companies?
Oh, and here are the YouTube founders laughing all the way to the bank:
I also have to recommend you read Publishing2.0 today (Oct 10) (see recommended blogs) on how the gootube deal raises questions about what media is - has it got anything to do with content anymore, or is it just about the aggregation of audience by whatever means?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FasterFuture.blogspot.com
The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?
