According to the research, released Tuesday morning, news publishers are running three times more ads than a year ago while also relying increasingly on automated real-time exchanges to sell the ads. Here’s some other highlights from the figures (which are drawn from DoubleClick, not YouTube or other networks):

• 40 percent of the video ads that ran between January and March this year were from first-time video advertisers.

• 68 percent of all the ads came from four categories: automotive, tech, retail and consumer packaged goods.

• Entertainment sites are attracting more than two thirds of the ads, but categories like sites devoted to news, sports and electronics are quickly increasing their share

• Video ads that let viewers skip ahead after 5 seconds are more popular (d’uh!) but these type of ads also yield a much higher return for publishers

The survey did not, unfortunately, offer any insight into how video CPM’s (which are much higher than those for display) will hold up as more and more publishers try to get into the video game. The findings come at a time when media companies like AOL and Yahoo are creating original series and video ad network Tremor Video has filed for an $86 million IPO.

Finally, despite the enthusiasm of Google (and many others) for online ads, take note that the bigger picture suggets that the vast majority of video ad money is going to stay tied up in TV for a good many years to come.

DoubleClick also set out its survey in an infographic if that’s your cup of tea:

Doubleclick Slide on Online Video Ads

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure

Why would AT&T, a mobile and wireline phone company, be interested in an online video portal? Through its U-Verse service, AT&T is a video-programming provider selling the equivalent of cable TV to 4.8 million households. It could be interested in Hulu for the same reasons as Time Warner Cable and DirecTV are, to bulk up their TV everywhere services.

But AT&T’s interest in Hulu might stem from much more unexpected place: its mobile division. Video is proving to a very tricky proposition for mobile operators. On the one hand, they’ve built these big fat wireless pipes to carry video, but on the other, they’re still charging per-megabyte rates that makes large-scale video usage prohibitive. Video usage is booming on mobile devices, but for the large part it occurs at home on Wi-Fi not on 3G and 4G networks.

We’re seeing some content provider-carrier deals harking back to the old days of walled garden, for instance Verizon’s exclusive agreement with the NFL to stream all of its games. But I don’t think AT&T is angling to become the exclusive mobile carrier for Hulu – no one would agree to such terms no matter how big AT&T’s investment.

AT&T, however, is keen on testing out the toll-free mobile data business model its been touting for a year, and Hulu would be the perfect guinea pig. The idea is simple: consumers are unwilling to pay the massive mobile data fees required to view lots of mobile video, so carriers would charge the content providers instead. AT&T and Verizon have been promoting this idea of subsidized mobile internet vocally, and entertainment companies like ESPN are reportedly amenable to the idea. But so far there haven’t been any takers.

By investing in Hulu, AT&T could get one of the world’s most popular online video providers to at least test out its two-sided revenue model. Hulu would pay AT&T for every megabyte of its video traffic traversing Ma Bell’s mobile networks, and AT&T would exempt all Hulu programming from its customers’ data caps.

Financially that seems like robbing Peter to Paul – Any revenue AT&T collects means fewer returns on it Hulu investment. But the deal could have enormous strategic value to both companies. AT&T customers, suddenly finding themselves free to watch CSI:Miami with no restrictions, would start gravitating toward the Hulu service and its subscription fees. AT&T rakes in the data revenue no matter what, and given Hulu’s prominent position in online video, AT&T might see some big subscriber gains as well.

If the project proved successful, then other content providers would be more likely to follow Hulu down this dark path. After all, if consumers are spending all of their mobile time on Hulu, they’re not watching Netflix or YouTube.

This might sound like a great deal for consumers, and to a certain extent it is. Such a model could spur the online video revolution on mobile devices without decimating consumers’ wallets. But as I’ve pointed out before, there could be some big unintended consequences to such a model. It would upset the delicate balance of the mobile internet by favoring the video providers who can afford to pay over those who can’t.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG

In a complaint filed Thursday, the broadcasters — ABC, Fox, NBC, Allbritton Communications and Telemundo — asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to issue an injunction to stop the service known as Aereokiller from streaming their shows.

Aereokiller, which is available from the website FilmOn, is operated by Alki David, a billionaire who chose the name to tweak Aereo, thehigh profile streaming service backed by media mogul Barry Diller. Here’s a closer look at Aereokiller streaming a live show on NBC:

“It’s nonsense,” David said by phone of the lawsuit. “Since 2010, we’ve been arguing that FilmOn is a virtual cable platform and that we want to pay retransmission fees.”

The new lawsuit is important because it’s part of a great game between the broadcast TV industry and Diller over how and when consumers can watch TV. Aereo won a major victory in April when an appeals court in New York ruled that the service did not infringe copyright because its tiny antenna technology delivers a private stream — rather than a public broadcast — to each subscriber.

Aereo’s victory, however, only carries force in New York, Connecticut and Vermont. And its prospects for expansion have been seriously undercut as a result of a California judge’s decision to shut down Aereokiller on the entire west coast.

The latest lawsuit, then, is part of the TV industry’s effort to gain more ammunition ahead of a likely Supreme Court challenge. The Hollywood Reporter, which first reported the story, suggests that the broadcasters likely chose to go after Aereokiller because it is an easier target than Aereo.

Aereo, meanwhile, is going live in Boston this month. CBS has threatened to sue it there too but has yet to make good on the promise. You can read the DC complaint for yourself here:

DC complaint against Aereokiller

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Will Aereo be the next Slingbox?
• What’s so bad about being a dumb pipe?

In the case of the Wall Street Journal and Conde Nast, the companies are borrowing the language of the TV industry and inviting advertisers to sponsor “documentaries,” “shows” and “original programming slates.” The actual content, however, is typically a collection of 2-4 minute web clips and the marketing pitch often invites a single brand to slap their name on the entire package.

Will it work? Both the Journal and Conde Nast are relying on their historic brand power to attract video sponsors and, like everyone in media, are serving up their wares on all screens. But the two companies are also taking different approaches to scale and strategy. Here’s a look at their offerings, and how the companies are framing their new video identities.

A video start-up inside 100-year-old magazines

Conde Nast wields considerable cultural and political power through titles like Vogue and Vanity Fair and GQ — but that doesn’t mean the company and its famous editors Anna Wintour and Graydon Carter, who were on an hand at Conde’s ad event, know much about making video. Many readers, meanwhile, may not even know the videos exist.

Appearing to recognize that print prowess doesn’t automatically transfer to video, Conde Nast went on a hiring spree, bringing in “video natives” from companies like the Huffington Post and CW Networks, and giving them rein to create content in a hands-off environment. The “start-up” (that’s Conde Nast’s word for the venture) is known as CN Entertainment and is also working with TV veterans who produced fare like Mad Men and Project Runway.

CN Entertainment’s output has been trickling out for a while, and includes video series like GQ‘s “10 Essentials” and Glamour’s “Elevator Runway.” On Wednesday, the company announced over 30 new “original programming slates” that include Wired’s “Angry Nerd” and programs tied to titles like Teen Vogue, Epicurious and Vanity Fair.

The new offerings represent a big expansion for Conde Nast’s video efforts. But they but also come at a time that other companies are rushing to offer original programming too — AOL, Yahoo and the Weather Company were just some of sites who made similar announcements this week.

To avoid being over looked in this flood of content, Conde Nast is relying on syndication deals with sites like Twitter and YouTube. The company is also promising to spend heavily on marketing in order to assure advertisers that someone will actually watch the videos.

“It’s on us to make people know the brands are in the business to create video. A lot of people fall down with the philosophy of ‘build it and they will come’” Fred Santarpia, Chief Digital of CN Entertainment, told me at the event. He said the company might, for instance target GQ magazine readers with Facebook ads to make sure they’re aware of the brand’s videos.

Santarpia said he could not disclose revenue figures, only saying they were “healthy.”

Not your father’s Wall Street Journal

For the last year, the Wall Street Journal has been pursuing its “WSJ Everywhere” strategy that involves producing a lot of content and putting it in as many places as possible — from the iPhone to the X-box and more.

Unlike Conde Nast, the Journal has been relying heavily on its existing print teams to crank out the content. This typically means pulling reporters before a makeshift studio in the Journal offices or even recording them via Skype from their homes and hotel rooms. The result has been plenty of video but a mixed bag in terms of quality.

Now, the Journal appears to be increasing its efforts to pluck out the best stuff and package it as discrete channels. At a splashy event on Monday morning, executives touted the Journal’s proximity to power brokers and invited advertisers to become exclusive sponsors of fare like “Seib & Wessel,” a senior journalist chat fest.

“This isn’t your father’s Wall Street Journal,” war reporter Michael Phillips told the crowd. Perhaps to drive home the point, the event also featured appearances by rapper MC Hammer and a Bloody Mary stand to help ad and media executives start the week off right.

The Journal also announced a new documentary series “WSJ Startup of the Year,” sponsored by the NYSE, that will feature famous entrepreneurs like Richard Branson kicking the tires of upcoming companies. The paper is also betting on lifestyle video content like “WSJ Cafe” and clips from popular sports writer Jason Gay.

According to Chief Revenue Officer, Michael Rooney, people are watching the videos because they are attached not just to the paper but to the Journal name.

“They want to follow this brand anywhere and anyhow they can get the content,” Rooney told me at the event, adding that advertisers understand the viewers are high income people and will pay top dollar to reach them. WSJ is now streaming 20-25 million videos a month with premium cost-per-thousand view rates coming in at $40-$60 a month.

Early innings for old brands and new video tricks

This week’s ad outreach by Conde Nast and the Journal comes at a time when digital display dollars are proving insufficient to offset the inexorable decline of their legacy print products. The turn to video promises higher ad income as online viewing takes off, and big brands contemplate moving more of their TV budgets to the web.

The video strategy seems obvious but that doesn’t mean it will be easy. To actually pull this off, the print companies will have to persuade advertisers that their videos can reach a wide enough audience to be worth their time (this is likely the reason the New York Times pulled down its paywall for online video last week).

At the same time, they will have to compete with a host of other media outlets suddenly jostling for video dollars too, as well as newer outfits like PopSugar and Break Media who have already figured out how to produce compelling videos on the cheap.

This flood of content from all corners could also depress the high rates that are attracting brands like Conde and the Journal to video in the first place. And while a tilt of ad dollars from cable to online video seems inevitable, no one knows when this will actually occur.

“The market is growing. Everything points to more money moving into space,” said CN Entertainment’s Santarpia. ”It’s early —  only time will tell.”

Asked to frame it in baseball terms, Santarpia said it’s only the second inning for the online video industry — and the first for companies like Conde Nast.

(Image by Yuri Arcurs via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• Managing infinite choice: the new era of TV user interfaces
• Report: The Live-Stream Video Market

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

A new study by Forrester Research claims that so-called “programmatic” buying or “real time bidding” will account for nearly 25 percent of online video ad purchases by next year. This mirrors what is going on in the world of display advertising where more big advertisers are using ad tech tools to serve ads to diverse audiences in real time.

The report, which was commissioned by SpotXchange (an online video exchange that has skin in the ad game), also says that premium publishers have been slower to adopt programmatic bidding, in part because they fear it will undercut the value of their inventory. The report predicts, however, that many of these hold-out publishers will change their position as brands get accustomed to programmatic buying and begin to demand it.

The impact of programmatic on video ad prices is debatable. People in the ad tech industry point out that automated ad buying is simply a tool — not a reflection of ad quality. By this reasoning, publishers can hold their pricing line if they wish while also ensuring that their space is available in real time when there is a surge in demand. Conversely, as the report points out, publishers remain wary that brands will use the tools (as they did for display advertising) to drive down prices.

Overall, the future of video prices in the short term may be determined less by ad tech tools than by more basic principles of supply and demand. On this front, the good news for publishers can be seen in this chart which shows online ad spending rising quickly:

Another recent report is even more optimistic — pegging the 2013 number at $4.1 billion.

The bad news, though, is that the word is out about video’s promise and more and more people are showing up to grab a slice of the pie. Ad industry sources told the Wall Street Journal last month that there is ”not enough to feed everybody.” The Journal reported that, despite brands beginning to reallocate their TV budgets, prices are already under pressure; $15 to $20 per thousand views (CPM’s) last year versus a CPM of $17 to $25 in 2011.

The Forrester report also predicts that video ad inventory will be become increasingly divided between private and public exchanges.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer 2012: A year of consolidation and integration
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Managing infinite choice: the new era of TV user interfaces

…we estimate 3.74 million (3.7%) US TV subscribers cut their TV subscriptions 2008-12 to rely solely on Netflix, Over the Air, Online, etc, 1.08 million (1.1%) in 2012 alone. We forecast US TV cord cutter households will reach 4.7 million (4.7%) by year-end 2013….

Cord Cutters are a growing tribe, according to research from The Convergence Consulting Group. I cut the cord in 2008 and five years later have relied solely on non-linear video for my video fix.

PS:  Here is a link to our coverage of cord cutting trend. We also host a video podcast that focuses on cord-cutting trends, technologies and gizmos.

Featured photo courtesy Shutterstock user Mikhail Melnikov.

The move into paid video distribution is a “natural next step” for Vimeo, CEO Kerry Trainor told me, following the launch of a “tip jar” feature last September. The new feature is called “Vimeo on Demand” and is available to creators with Vimeo Pro memberships (which are aimed at professionals, cost $199 a year and offer options like more video storage and HD playback).

Creators control price for their videos but have to charge at least $0.99. There’s a 90-10 revenue split after Paypal or credit card transaction fees, with creators taking 90 percent.

Creators also control geographic distribution and whether their content is streaming-only or downloadable. They can put it up for sale on Vimeo.com, on their own website, or both. If they choose to enable downloading, the format is DRM-free MP4.

YouTube is reportedly planning to start offering subscriptions as an additional monetization vehicle for creators. For now, Trainor said, Vimeo isn’t looking at any type of subscription offering: “The feature is targeted toward the creator, and there are no plans for a viewer package.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Managing infinite choice: the new era of TV user interfaces
• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010
• Connected consumer first-quarter 2013: Analysis and outlook

While Break is not the only one feeding the demand for bro fare, the L.A. company has done more than most to move these videos into the professional realm. In doing so, Break is also tapping into a deep pool of research to reshape perceptions about how brands should market to men — portraying them as “good guys” rather than doofuses or metrosexuals.

The result, on the surface, is thousands of clips about beer, boobs and bravery. More deeply, the bro video phenomenon is part of an emerging low-cost studio system that is changing men’s entertainment and advertising.

From college capers to consumer content

Break’s office, located in LA’s Miracle Mile, contains a small studio and employs 30 full-time content creators as well as numerous freelancers to feed its video content machine. The place has a few dude touches — a mustache wall and action figures scattered about — but otherwise is a serious business that, according to CEO Keith Richman, brought in $45 million in revenue last year.

The company is also attracting top level talent such as actor Christopher Walken, who recently riffed on trailer park toddler Honey Boo Boo. Last year, Break created a five-part series involving San Francisco Giants pitcher Brian Wilson and a Sasquatch; the show was a content marketing play by Beef Jerky, but the videos went viral all the same.

This star presence on Break is a considerable leap up the value chain for the company that, in its early days, relied almost entirely on homemade videos. ”We started with user-provided, lower quality content. As our audience and sales expanded, we started producing our own,” said Richman.

Now, Break is at the point where it’s producing its own weekly shows like “Man at Arms” in which a blacksmith shows how he makes famous weapons like Jamie Lannister’s sword on Game of Thrones or the lethal hat worn by James Bond villain Odd Job.

The shows, which are usually between five and 10 minutes, are cheap to make – Richman says the average price is $700/minute or $3,000-$5,000 per episode – and Break is able to make lots of them because of demands for the company’s male-based ad offerings.

Binders of Men

Marketing to women is a huge and sophisticated industry but, when it comes to men, brands frequently treat them as caricatures – one-dimensional clowns or louts. Break is trying to pitch a more subtle approach based on reams of survey data it collects on the site.

According to its research, men are more receptive to positive messages that show them as good guys, friends and fathers. Break has even published a “definitive guide to men” that cites an evolution from Bruce Willis type “guy’s guys” to self-aware types like Tim Allen to, last decade, metro-sexuals. And now?

“Today’s man is striving to be a “mensch” – a Yiddish word for “good guy,” or someone to admire and emulate,” says the report, which was produced by Break’s SVP Marketing, Andy Tu. He explained that many of the findings come from panels of men that Break consults on a regular basis.

Do all men really want to be mensches? Who knows. But Tu says marketers love using the surveys and data Break provides in designing their campaigns. Sony, FootLocker, Pepsi and Burger King are among their bigger brand partners.

For its campaigns, Break often produces original content for its clients and, on some occasions, as well. It also places display ads alongside videos across its networks (many of the videos are still user-generated or plucked from other sites).

A new studio economy

Research is one explanation for Break Media’s ability to make higher-quality bro videos. Another is the low cost of failure. Compared to traditional TV or movie studios, sunk production costs are tiny for Break and its competitors like College Humor. ”Video is a shots-on-goal business,” says Richman. “If you’re good, you’re going to score. We’re going to have big loser bombs at some point but it won’t kill us.”

In this sense, Break and its bro videos are part of an emerging online ecosystem in which smaller video companies are ramping up their production cycles and, like traditional movies and TV, even adding on-location shoots. The ecosystem is also rapidly expanding as distribution options proliferate (Break shows its videos on its own sites and on YouTube channels) and as consumers become connected to more devices with better broadband.

According to Richman, a tipping point occurred that means brands are now treating online video as a serious alternative to traditional TV. Richman credits the shift with Google’s decision in 2011 to invest $100 million in original YouTube content.

If you want to see an example, here’s a “Man at Arms” piece replete with blacksmith and power chords:

(Image by Anton Todorov via Shutterstock)

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer 2012: A year of consolidation and integration
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?
• Managing infinite choice: the new era of TV user interfaces

Fanhattan is something like a TV Guide for online video: Users enter the movie or TV show they want to view, and the app hooks them up with a list of online providers (Netflix, Amazon, HBO Go, and so on) where they can watch it. The company’s expansion to the web allows it to offer more content recommendations from more providers — 29 providers on the web, compared to 16 on iOS — as well as more free shows, for a total database of a million shows and videos. Web viewers, for instance, can watch shows on broadcasters’ websites, and they can access Hulu as well as Hulu Plus. “Depending on what device you’re using the service on, it will clearly show you your options for watching,” Fanhattan CEO Gilles BianRosa told me.

BianRosa says that Fanhattan launched on iPad first because the difficulty of finding content to watch was more pronounced there — “all those apps that don’t talk to each other.” The web is a little different: “Many people actually discover movies and shows on the web, so we wanted to make sure that the discovery aspect was really front and center, especially the social aspects.”

The company is launching a new blog, Fanhattan Voice, that provides video recommendations and other entertainment news and features. And the company’s WatchLists feature, which has been available on iOS since last summer, is being expanded on both iOS and web: Users can now curate their own lists around different themes and can share them with others, rather than just marking which TV shows and movies they want to watch.

BianRosa told GigaOM’s Janko Roettgers last summer that the company will expand to connected devices in the future, but he isn’t ready to announce anything yet. “We’re going it one screen at a time,” he told me. “But we think that launching on the web in the way we have will help consumers in the living room discover what’s available.”

GigaOM readers who want to try Fanhattan on the web in beta can sign up with code “GigaOm.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG
• Connected Consumer Q3: Netflix fumbles; Kindle Fire shines
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1