Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Projected ad spend for online video

Expand Messages
  • Steve Watkins
    Im no expert on these things, but I tend to see a lot of different numbers when I look at this stuff, plenty of optimism, assumption and contradiction. Im not
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Im no expert on these things, but I tend to see a lot of different numbers when I look at
      this stuff, plenty of optimism, assumption and contradiction. Im not saying taht about
      your numbers in particular, just these sorts of stats in general.

      Here's an article which has a bunch of numbers in it, most relating to TV networks and
      their ad spend. Im not at all sure it aligns with the numbers you've got?

      http://newteevee.com/2007/11/29/break-it-down-120m-for-streamed-tv/

      It does reawaken a persistent issue in my mind, not often addressed by number
      breakdowns, about how much online ad spending is with existing mainstream media, as
      opposed to indie creators and the hosts/networks that they use.

      So theres a lot of emphasis on how much is spent on ads connected to mainstream media
      content, and about how much could be spent on user generated content, if the companies
      that want to advertise overcome fears about the unpredictable nature of UGC. The indie
      stuff is missing from this picture, and I seldom see numbers that would really give the
      indie show creator a good prediction of how much money there is really going to
      potentially be for them in future.

      Meanwhile heres some UK online ad spend figures for comparison:

      http://www.iabuk.net/en/1/iabadspend2006.mxs

      Cheers

      Steve Elbows

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Herz" <e_herz@...> wrote:
      >
      > Irina,
      >
      > Thank you!
      >
      > I think that the WSJ $90 CPM might be a good comparable for
      > http://fora.tv ... but these flat fee sponsorships are the best route
      > to compare. Traffic is not that high but the relevance is very high
      > and the content is a tight fit. Fora landed a couple of high value
      > sponsorships but investors are just not happy with their traffic and
      > are beating them up a bit. The Economist pulls in $400M with less than
      > 2M subs ... these premium brands are the key to high CPMs.
      >
      > The article mentions sponsored "google channels" ... are these just
      > the youtube channels or does google have other sponsored channels?
      >
      > I forgot to add some projections for US TV ad spend ... what I have
      > heard is:
      > 2007: $76.5B
      > 2008: $76B
      > 2009: $76.5B
      > 2010: $76.9B
      > 2011: $77B
      > 2012: $78B ... do these look right? This reflects the shift from TV
      > spending to online spending which I predict will be significant as a
      > result of PRVs alone: http://podslug.com/blog/?p=113
      >
      > I would love to discuss this more openly here or via email.
      >
      > Thanks!
      >
      > Erik
      >
      >
      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina <irinaski@> wrote:
      > >
      > > hmm
      > > i'll take a look at this
      > > meantime i also saw this
      > >
      > http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-thinking-of-online-video-ads-heres-a-price-
      list/
      > >
      > > On Dec 31, 2007 12:03 PM, Erik Herz <e_herz@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > I am helping a buddy with an investor pitch and
      > > > gathering some revenue projections (mostly from Ash's
      > > > blog, HipMojo.com) ... Here is what I have so far:
      > > >
      > > > Ad spend in billions
      > > >
      > > > 2007
      > > > Global: $448.40
      > > > US Only: $289.85
      > > > US Online: $19.72
      > > > US Online Video: $1.62
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $0.40
      > > >
      > > > 2008
      > > > Global: $477.86
      > > > US Only: $294.77
      > > > US Online: $22.68
      > > > US Online Video: $2.15
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $0.54
      > > >
      > > > 2009
      > > > Global: $504.55
      > > > US Only: $299.78
      > > > US Online: $25.85
      > > > US Online Video: $2.84
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $0.71
      > > >
      > > > 2010
      > > > Global: $530
      > > > US Only: $304.88
      > > > US Online: $29.21
      > > > US Online Video: $3.48
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $0.87
      > > >
      > > > 2011
      > > > Global: $560
      > > > US Only: $310.66
      > > > US Online: $32.72
      > > > US Online Video: $4.29
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $1.07
      > > >
      > > > 2012
      > > > Global: $600
      > > > US Only: $315.66
      > > > US Online: $36.32
      > > > US Online Video: $5.08
      > > > USOV-News and Current Events: $1.27
      > > >
      > > > I would love feedback on these numbers.
      > > >
      > > > I talk about my method and sources here:
      > > > http://podslug.com
      > > >
      > > > Erik
      > > >
      > > > __________________________________________________________
      > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and
      > > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
      > > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > > http://geekentertainment.tv
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
    • bordercollieaustralianshepherd
      A wealth of information: Don t hate the players, but pay close attention to the relationships!
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        A wealth of information:
        <http://adage.com/images/random/digitalfactpack2007.pdf>
        Don't hate the players, but pay close attention to the relationships!
        <http://adage.com/images/random/mediafamilytree07.pdf>

        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
        >
        > Im no expert on these things, but I tend to see a lot of different
        numbers when I look at
        > this stuff, plenty of optimism, assumption and contradiction.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.