Skip to main content

Planning a Short Video Advert? - Think Again

Mediaweek reports that the typical ad agency conventional wisdom regarding video advertising length in new media is all wrong. Why? Longer is actually better. It's therefore proof positive for a change -- new media requires new thinking.

That's according to a new whitepaper presented at the Advertising Research Foundation's Audience Measurement Symposium in New York by The Atlas Institute, a division of aQuantive. The new report, Introduction to Brand Exposure Duration, finds that viewers of both video on demand (VOD) content delivered via cable boxes and video delivered on the Web actually gravitate to longer ad spots, and that advertisers have more to gain by producing longer form creative executions.

That flies in the face of most of the industry's thinking, which has generally been summed up as "shorter is better" when it comes to new video distribution outlets. In fact, while many brands have been repurposing their existing 30-second TV spots for these platforms, the consensus has been that 15, 10, or even five-second ads would become the norm down the road, as advertisers work to capture the short attention spans common to these media.

Not so, says John Chandler-Pepelnjak, the author of the new report, who emphasized that for advertisers it is all about how much time the most willing-and-interested users spend with a brand, rather than making something palatable for the masses. "If it's something people want to see, they're not as much in a hurry to get it over with," he said. "With all things being equal, a brand planning a two-minute spot should make a four minute spot. The people that are going to watch are going to watch more."

Popular posts from this blog

Bold Broadband Policy: Yes We Can, America

Try to imagine this scenario, that General Motors and Ford were given exclusive franchises to build America's interstate highway system, and also all the highways that connect local communities. Now imagine that, based upon a financial crisis, these troubled companies decided to convert all "their" local arteries into toll-roads -- they then use incremental toll fees to severely limit all travel to and from small businesses. Why? This handicapping process reduced the need to invest in building better new roads, or repairing the dilapidated ones. But, wouldn't that short-sighted decision have a detrimental impact on the overall national economy? It's a moot point -- pure fantasy -- you say. The U.S. political leadership would never knowingly risk the nation's social and economic future on the financial viability of a restrictive duopoly. Or, would they? The 21st century Global Networked Economy travels across essential broadband infrastructure. The forced intro...