Newsletter Subject

For OTT Giants Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Roku And Apple, It’s A Jump Ball For Brand Budgets

From

adexchanger.com

Email Address

email@adexchanger.com

Sent On

Fri, May 25, 2018 05:02 PM

Email Preheader Text

"On TV And Video" is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in programmatic TV and video. "

"On TV And Video" is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in programmatic TV and video. [AdExchanger | The Sell Sider] "[On TV And Video](" is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video. Today’s column is written by Lance Neuhauser, CEO at [4C Insights](. The new reality of consumer channel choice has thrown a wrench into the decades-old media model that funnels millions of brand advertising dollars to linear television. Competition for these dollars comes from all corners of the media ecosystem, especially as digital increasingly turns into a video platform and TV goes digital through OTT and other touch points. Google and Facebook, the already-crowned champions of previous battles for search and social dollars, are throwing their hats into the ring for these budgets via YouTube and Facebook Watch. But the duopoly’s success is far from assured as other players nip at their heels. Not only do the next three years represent an incredible opportunity for [smaller walled gardens such as Snap, Pinterest, Twitter and LinkedIn](, let’s not consider TV – or, rather, the world of monetized video content – down for the count. While traditional media companies and telcos are finding their own ways to compete in this new reality – a topic that deserves a column of its own – a very new sort of competitor is emerging in the form of over-the-top (OTT) titans: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Roku and Apple. The power of OTT In a battle for ad budgets, the OTT giants have a lot going for them. Most importantly, they have eyeballs. Lots of them. For example, Netflix now [has nearly 118 million streaming subscribers globally](, and it has the content to keep those eyeballs fixated. Hulu's 17 million US subscribers might seem small by comparison, but its library of 75,000 TV episodes is [reportedly more than double those of Netflix and Amazon](. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and Apple are all betting heavily on original content to attract audiences to their streaming services. No doubt, these companies are in the midst of a content arms race to win consumer attention and viewing time. However, that activity has had minimal overlap with the battle for TV’s ad dollars to date. That’s chiefly because the billions that Netflix, Amazon and Apple spend on content are monetized with different incentives: subscriptions for Netflix, loyalty programs for Amazon, devices for Apple. OTT is yet to offer an advertising product that truly competes for big TV ad budgets. That won’t be the case for long. Seeking ad dollars in an ad-averse world The source of the OTT giants’ strength in the current media landscape also represents their weakness in their play for brand advertising dollars. In short, these are the players responsible for retraining and enabling an increasingly advertising-averse consumer audience. Why do people pay for subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu’s commercial-free option and Amazon Prime Video? Because, in part, there are no ads. Such an aversion also helps fuel consumer motivations when purchasing OTT devices like Rokus and Apple TVs, which enable seamless viewing of ad-free streaming services on TV screens. But are subscription-based content models and reliance on hardware sales sustainable? Rapidly introducing linear TV’s interruptive ad experience is hardly a feasible option for OTT players. How can these companies reasonably make a major bid for ad dollars when many of their core consumers actively avoid ads? That’s the $200 billion question. This much we do know: The ad model that will ultimately claim tomorrow’s brand awareness dollars will revolve around video. But in all likelihood, it will be vastly different from the current interruptive models that are heavily employed today. Fox made headlines with [a six-second ad format](, and [NBCU is vowing to cut its ad load](. Shorter and fewer units could be the key to monetizing breaks that last for exactly as long as an OTT consumer finds appropriate. We may also see a resurgence in brands underwriting entire shows, a return to the original ad-supported media model dating from the days when Pepsodent sponsored the first syndicated national radio programs. This was a sentiment that lasted through the first generation of TV, where the titans of content at CBS and NBC assumed that the consumer wouldn’t tolerate a break in the programming. It wasn’t until later in the 1950s that the commercial break – originally developed for live programs such as sports ­– took hold as a monetization model for video media in general. Perhaps in the age of ad blocking and free digital content there’s value in returning to the wisdom of that approach. Deeper along these lines is the promise of dynamic product placement ads, which allow brand dollars to saturate and support new content without threat of interruption. Imagine every billboard in a car chase scene, every airline in an airport scene, every computer at the company being a dynamic unit available for purchase by different buyers along different targeting parameters. The technology is still a few years from its tipping point, but has the potential to fundamentally restructure video advertising. The development of these units – and the corresponding standardizations and disclosure requirements – is something to watch closely over the next few years as OTT positions for brand budgets. The bottom line is that for a player like Netflix, any ad model would need to represent a significant deviation from known models and be hyperprotective of the consumer experience. But if the OTT titans, with their massive scale and unrivaled data assets, stake a claim on brand advertising budgets for the long term, they could very well redefine the media landscape for decades to come. Alternatively, if these companies fail to innovate ad models, they will lose their shot at this lucrative revenue stream for the foreseeable future. And while they might remain vital components of the media landscape even without those dollars, they will no doubt be increasingly overshadowed and absorbed by the players that ultimately deliver the hybrid ad model that meets the needs of modern consumers and advertisers. Follow Lance Neuhauser ([@LanceNeuhauser](), 4C ([@4Cinsights]() and AdExchanger ([@adexchanger]() on Twitter. © 2018 AdExchanger.com | 41 E. 11th Street, Floor 11 | NYC | 10003 AdExchanger and AdExchanger.com are trademarks or registered trademarks. All rights reserved. [Update your email preferences](

Marketing emails from adexchanger.com

View More
Sent On

13/12/2019

Sent On

20/09/2019

Sent On

03/09/2019

Sent On

26/07/2019

Sent On

26/07/2019

Sent On

23/07/2019

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.