Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Search advertising will retain its number 1 position as the advertising format garnering the most ad spend. However, even though absolute spending on search advertising will continue to increase, its market share will slowly decline from 40% in 2006 to 32% in 2011 as video advertising grows.
Link is here [idc.com].
In the context of this forum, the relevant issue is how growth in non-search (and non-text) advertising will affect AdSense publishers. I suspect we'll continue to see a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots as publisher growth outstrips ad-budget growth and advertisers take advantage of site-targeted contextual ads.
Sounds like a swat to try and bump G's stock down... =)
The overall pie may grow with new advertisers, and relative to the bigger pie search may look smaller percentage wise, but I think it's overblown to say this represents an actual erosion, at least not to search's reach.
As far as silly Wallstreet analysts that want to grab headlines with ridiculous claims, just remember that they mostly DON'T invest in the companies they write reports on. Analysts are basically just employees that really don't know the inner workings of the industries that they are paid to cover since in reality they aren't in those industries at all. Anyone who's taken the advice of an expert market analyst and lost their shorts say I......I
Video ads are strong when it comes to creating demands - for example advertising a movie - or for impulse buys. But they fall short when the demand already exists. Because I do not want to watch a 60 second video ad to find out where I can order a certain product. Thats enough time to check out 6 or 7 text ads and visit the sites to get a first impression.
However it might convince me to watch a certain movie which I had not heard of before or in buying a product I did not even know it existed ten minutes ago.
So video advertising will fill a gap but won't take any money away from text ads. Also you can run only one video ad on any page at a time, but can show a dozen text ads or more. Also producing a video costs money and time.
Since video ads are really just another type of contextual ad (assuming the ads are remotely targeted to the video they appear with) and since Google is poised better in video then any other company I know of, video ads are simply another extension of the contextual market as maximillianos said, so yippie skippie get on the video bandwagon already.
Contextual video ads may be a useful niche product (not unlike infomercials on TV), but the real future of video ads is likely to be in the mass market where ads are matched to demographics and not to keywords. Whether Google will be a leader in video advertising remains to be seen, but the purchase of YouTube was obviously a step in the right direction.
They 're not webmasters, but business is business.
They are stating a simple truth, that change brings both threats an oportunities to all the players in any market.
Google is the market giant in search, it is not necessarily the market giant in the market space inhabited by
youtube, myspace an a host of other online video entertainment providers,
These industries require different competences than those at which google currently excels,
Hence, supposing myspace with the backing an immense media experience of News international becomes the Titan of this new world?
If the greatest percentage of spend is now in this market , what then?
Perhaps its a pertinent time to point out that a further threat is to all the webmasters who are perhaps more tied to adsense than they should be
cheers
Thanks to the OP for that link
Video advertising may be great for corporate image ads and maybe for entertainment ads, but I don't think they will be able to seriously compete with contextual ads for a long time to come. Keep in mind that the very attraction of Adwords is that it's not the shotgun media advertising that TV, radio and print has tradionally been.
Keep in mind that the very attraction of Adwords is that it's not the shotgun media advertising that TV, radio and print has tradionally been.
Traditional media advertising isn't necessarily "shotgun." Sure, commercials for Coke, Tide, or Toyota may be, and for good reason: those products appeal to mass audiences. But ads for The Tire Rack in ROAD & TRACK or CAR AND DRIVER are likely to be more targeted than AdSense ads for the keywords "tires" or "snow tires" are, because they're reaching an audience of car enthusiasts, not just anyone who happens to be looking at a page that contains "tires" or "snow tires."
Realistically, though, video ads aren't likely to be used in the highly "grantular" way that contextual text ads are, just as TV commercials aren't used for keyword-targeted direct marketing. Still, it's certainly possible that a video ad for, say, Home Depot could be bought on home-improvement sites, in the same way that site-targeted CPM display or text ads are bought now. I know of at least one vertical ad network that's running video ads, so why not Google?
Thats one point the article appears to address
absolute spending on search advertising will continue to increase
The article guesses that the overall online advertising pie will almost double by 2011, so a "market share" drop from 40% to 32% seems trivial compared to that.
This is actually a very neutral comment in the article,
Inflation usually means that an absolute increase, might mean a relative fall.
For overall advertsing expenditure to increase, the whole world economy would have to increase,
In the long term, decades, that ought to happen, as more generation go out to work, world pop increases, etc etc
But, imediate term 5 years, 10 years, who knows
Thing is to pay attention, methinks anyway, open mind an all that :)
I think its a serious article written by serious people who should be taken seriously.
Are you serious?
I know some of the people that work for these places, and most of their long-term guesswork makes the quizzes in Cosmopolitan magazine seem like quality research. They are pretty good at telling you what next year's market for DRAM will be, as long as the economy doesn't make any major turnarounds, but anything more than that and they are no better than anyone else in the business.
Do these so-called experts think that flashing and distracting video ads are going to get passed the ad blockers any better than the flashing and distracting graphic banners?
I think the technology is nifty but the market for it is dead out of the gate.
I think the technology is nifty but the market for it is dead out of the gate.
I'm not so sure about that.
DoubleClick delivers a LOT of rich media ads. Billions per day. I'm sure Google bought them for more than one reason but just looking at the rich media reach the buy sure is a good way to hedge a bet that video ads may just take the lead in the future.
JAG
But ads for The Tire Rack in ROAD & TRACK or CAR AND DRIVER are likely to be more targeted than AdSense ads for the keywords "tires" or "snow tires" are, because they're reaching an audience of car enthusiasts
Can't really agree with that. Experience shows that a decent percentage of people doing Internet searches are actually shopping - somewhere in the high single digits would be my guess. People subscribe to magazines for their reading pleasure, but their tires only wear out every few years. There may well be plenty of people hanging out in car discussion forums who aren't shopping for anything, but I was thinking more about Google search and organic traffic as opposed to those websites that function more like traditional media in forming static audiences.
Well, i think they're better qualified than you or I to report on the mechanics of the financial world for one thing
For another, they put their reputation on the line constantly
They are a proper company, not beholden to a single supplier
They are as entitled as anyone to go crystal ball gazing
That is , who knows, but at least their opinion , theoretically , should have more standing than the largely self interest driven commentary here
mind you, it is in your interest to investigate the possibility that they might be correct, then again , if you already know the answer, an the answer is that my 1 an only supplier will take care off me, well thats a choice too
cheers
Well, i think they're better qualified ...
Really?
One of my product marketing guys went to work for one of these firms and trust me, he wasn't trained to be a future product analyst. He just knew one segment of the market and we happened to work next door to the analyst company.
Yup, the marketing guy working next door, now there's qualifications!
Add one crystal ball, a box of tarot cards, and a Ouija board and he was ready for work.
Well, i think they're better qualified than you or I to report on the mechanics of the financial world for one thing
You can think that. You'd be wrong, but you can think that. Their record speaks for itself.
For another, they put their reputation on the line constantly
And that's why people that pay attention to their record don't take their mid or long-term predictions seriously. Their reputation for long-term is pretty dismal.
They are a proper company, not beholden to a single supplier
They are a company that makes their money selling their opinion at $3k a pop so management can CYA.
I seem to recall one of their big predictions back around 98 was how windows was going to take a larger and larger share of the high-end server market. They just bought in to MicroSoft's hype. Windows still doesn't run on high end servers. Oops.
They are as entitled as anyone to go crystal ball gazing
That was my point, they are entitled to their opinion, but their record shows that their opinion isn't any better, and often worse than the opinion of any person active in the industry.
They are in the business of selling reports that tend to be forgotten by the call date. The way they sell their reports is to make them interesting and controversial. Sort of like the New York Post or the National Enquirer.
Of course, that is just my opinion, which you don't have to accept, because it doesn't have the standing of a company that sells their opinion.
I really have not seen one extensive study to prove these are either working very effectively now or in the future. Google, for goodness sake, is still Beta testing video ads. From everything I've read on WW by Adsensers trying them, the fish aren't biting.
A week or two ago, I Googled online video advertising case study. Found almost nothing. See if you can do better.
I see no basis even for predicting video ads will become hot. Animated ads suck, and video is animation. Granted most .gif ads are designed by talentless geeks without a creative bone in their bodies, but I've seen no huge response on this board from Adsensers saying they do better or particularly well with graphic ads instead of text ads. My own experience is that almost nobody pays attention to graphic ads.
So why would video ads do any better? Websites are absolutely the wrong medium for video ads, IMO. They're like flies that you have to keep swatting. Annoying interruptions.
p/g
but I've seen no huge response on this board from Adsensers saying they do better or particularly well with graphic ads instead of text ads.
This is because 'AdSensers' have been conditioned to think 'contextual' text ads only. And the way Google implemented the video ads doesn't allow publishers to make as much money since no one wants to click an ad just to watch a commercial.
But, video is geared more towards branding and not direct response so for Google to try to mix the two together is just dumb. I think they've since realized that and made the DoubleClick deal happen. They know, as well as a lot of us, that the Internet does not have to be a pure direct response play.
Video will never compete with text ads in the direct response world (unless you can create an interesting infommercial maybe) so it has to be viewed as a different critter. Brand advertisers have never really had the success that direct response has had on the Internet but they keep trying which is what I think the article is trying to say. Branding efforts will not subside but will continue to grow as it is hashed out.
Those search ads and contextual ads assume someone is in a buying mode but honestly...I think the majority of people who go online don't do it just to buy something every time they go to a web page...maybe I'm wrong?
JAG
Those search ads and contextual ads assume someone is in a buying mode but honestly...I think the majority of people who go online don't do it just to buy something every time they go to a web page...maybe I'm wrong?
OTOH, there are lots of sites (YouTube, say) where people don't have any intention of buying anything. In those cases, the alternatives are branding ads or simply upselling users with one-off perks or a recurring membership status. I personally think that upselling is the smarter choice and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
You don't need to be buying something every time in order for the system to work.
That is true and I wasn't trying to say it wasn't. But there are a LOT of pageviews without a click. So in an ideal world those pageviews could/would be filled with branding ads. Since we don't know who will buy and when it can't ever be an ideal world but we do know the percentage of clicks that convert is very low. High enough for the 'system to work' maybe but still very low.
Branding doesn't require a click so it has a very good chance to take the lead over direct response contextual text ads...if it can be done right. Google required a click with video ads. That won't ever work.
JAG
Except in some rare circumstances (people like to be able to see a trailer on a movie they are thinking about seeing) people won't want to be bothered with video ads. It takes time to watch one and surfers are not that patient.
