Comments on: How connected devices will disrupt the TV ad market

By: jdoe

jdoe — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:11:04 +0000

I like the graph because I get to put my own numbers on it…it’s respecting each person’s freedom and individuality.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:02:04 +0000

A whole lot of BS. This story is pure speculation by people who appear to have very little insight into the TV business. Connected TV represents a drop in the ocean right now and it’s not clear how long it will take to become meaningful.

By that time linear TV will either adopt targeting via Visible World/Invidi or go all IP and then targeting will become much easier. The fact is that unless connected TV players start ponying up major cash to get current programming, it will never amount to enough viewing to live up to the graphic in this story. And if they do, their price will go up and impede their growth (see Netflix)

By: Trevor

Trevor — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:57:27 +0000

Any idea what the Booz & Co data is based on?

By: Jonathan Trenn

Jonathan Trenn — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:00:23 +0000

I’m not going to attack Ryan for putting up the graphic, but without an explanation of the X-axis, it is useless as an actual measurement tool. This is how hype happens.

By: Paul Moss

Paul Moss — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 04:23:20 +0000

“…all the interactivity, targeting and analytics people have come to expect from web video ads..”

Sorry, but this is one of those times that logic is seriously over-rated. Targeting in the living-room is, i believe, grossly misunderstood. IP techniques generally do well online when certain criteria apply. Criteria such as strong known intent, a single-user, and instant gratification requirement. However in the living-room, with TV, whats the intent of a user(s) watching America’s Got Talent? How to gracefully and successfully target a dynamic 2-5 person environment? How to handle varied gratification requirements in that multi-viewer environment? Not impossible, but not as simple as assumed.

Then there is the supposed wastage of current TV advertising – the 50% myth that says only half the advertising is hitting its target market. This doesn’t take into account that much of that ‘wasted’ effort is actually hitting secondary markets and influencers. I think we will find that old-school TV advertising actually has much hidden ‘organic’ value that digital methods may find hard to replicate.

There is also the advertising formats, standards and protocols question. Different video players with different capabilities, especially regarding in-video graphics make consistent, transparent delivery operations very tricky. VAST2.0/VPAID are still immature and require optimization per ad-serve partner.

The ad spot value difference. $8,000 for an average 30s spot on broadcast vs $40 per thousand on digital – on the same living room device! Perfect environment for disruption, yes. Perfect environment for war, also yes.

In summary, this is going to be an incredibly exciting and dynamic space in the next few years, so the story subject matter is spot on. But lets not dumb-down a rich and fascinating environment into that lame analog dinosaur vs digital disrupter theme.

By: Sorosh Tavakoli

Sorosh Tavakoli — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:55:03 +0000

Hi Dan,
the graph is rather visionary as you point out, rather than being scientific. As you can see it has no timeline nor any other clear elements except of a snap shot of where we are today.

The point is not the actual pace nor the exact share of each device – it’s rather the bigger picture of where the market is going.

Hope this helps.
Sorosh

By: Ryan Lawler

Ryan Lawler — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:23:36 +0000

I didn’t create it. As I said, the infographic was created by Videoplaza, based on Booz & Co. estimates.

By: Dan O

Dan O — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:07:02 +0000

Real garbage of a quantitative graphic.

It is designed to look contentful, yet w/o any meaning to the X-axis it really has no meaning. are those projections over the next week, or the next thousand years.

you intended this when you created it. You just hoped your readers would not catch it. Sad. Shame on us and on you.

By: Ashwin Navin

Ashwin Navin — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:13:55 +0000

Nice post, Ryan. Streaming and linear broadcast are currently different silos of distribution and I think your analysis implies that will always be the case. I think the bigger opportunity for Smart TV lies in building dynamic elements on top of, or contextualized by, the non-dynamic platform for broadcast.