So, here’s a premise I’ve been working on this for a while now. The 3 second ad is the new 30. Don’t laugh, I did say three seconds. This is a micro-messaging world and 5, 15, 30 and (god forbid) 60 second spots are too long when paired with nearly instant-on content. Three seconds is about as much advertising as I will take and not have an adverse reaction to the message.
Yesterday on my blog I wrote about marketers who know the price for interruption and pay it anyway. Another problem that dovetails with interruption based advertising (and is equally frustrating to web users) is ads that get moved over from TV to the web. You’ve all seen this happen. You go to a site, click to the content you’re interested in and viola! A 30 second spot stands between you and your content.
At this point, according to the study I referenced in my post, most people jump out of the content. A small, but very passionate, percentage of those people actually abandon the entire site at this point. Tell me how this is effective.
I don’t know about you, but waiting for content while using the web is an extremely frustrating experience. The days of dialup are not far behind us when insufferable wait times were par for the course. Today, however, fiber optic connections and other broadband options make waiting a thing of the past. Unless, that is, you’re looking to watch a video online. If you’re looking for video, you are at the mercy of the content provider. Some “get” this and either exclude pre- and mid-roll ads altogether or they surround the video with a promotional “skin”.
30 seconds is just TOO LONG! Please let it die. It seems like an eternity to have to wait for what I want to see. 15 seconds isn’t much better. These formats were designed long ago and purpose-built to fill gaps in TV programming to make 20 minutes of content add up to an even 30 minute show. The web is different now. Imagine if Tivo and the television had arrived at the same time. Do you think our viewing experience would be the same as it is today? Would ads run through nearly 10 minutes of programming time?
I accept that some interruption is still going to happen. I’m a realist though I am cautiously optimistic that marketers will begin to see the light of day here. Site publishers are going to offer the format because marketers will pay for it. Marketers will buy it because it’s offered. But, given the numbers, don’t be a lazy marketer.
Challenge your team to develop your core message in three seconds. This is your equivalent of the elevator pitch. If you can’t convey your message in three seconds, you should probably not be advertising in web video as you’re probably doing more harm than good. There is plenty of TV inventory available to tell your story at length (that’s not very effective either though).
So what do you think of my premise? Will marketers listen? Can you say what you need to say in three seconds?
Related posts:
- The Sopranos: A Poignant Message for Marketers
- Let’s Go Viral, Baby!
- Market to Change Customer Behavior, Not Attitudes
- Land Rover Launches Video Adventure Branding Site
- The Myth of Brand Engagement
Tags: Advertising, effectiveness, Marketing, matt dickman
I’ve seen some online videos that provide value in the form of an interactive site wrapped around the content instead of a running 30 second TV spot. There’s links to more information about the product (fun facts), links to user groups, and related content.
Matt -
THANK YOU!!!! I was wondering when someone would notice. If I see one more 30 second spot for Netflix while watching a new video you can bet I’ll go someplace else and for sure never purchase Netflix movies.
Paul — You’re dead on the money. The ad should support the content. There is a lot of value that marketers can add around content if it’s targeted and honest.
Courtney — I think more and more people are having the same reaction you feel. This is something that goes beyond a minor glitch, it goes to the brand identity of the advertiser. Why do something that hurts your reputation among your existing and potential customers? Seems silly to me.
I hate having to wait for the 15 second ads. If it’s 30 seconds, I usually abandon the idea. 3 seconds works for me. I prefer the sites that just have a wrap-around ad because I don’t pay attention to it.
I’m really good about not paying attention to things that don’t interest me and I block most banner ads in my browser. Plus, I usually have so many tabs open I can check my email or refresh the weather radar while I wait.
Until of course they go Truman Show on us and run an hour-long program but instead of saying, “hey let’s get some coffee,” they’ll say, “hey, the rich, bold flavor of 100% pure columbian beans ground fresh and served at just the right temperature would really hit the spot. Let’s stop off at Dunkin’ Donuts, because as you know ‘America Runs on Dunkin’!’ “
Michael — I think it’s only a matter of time before paid placements like that invade every aspect of content online and offline. Heck, some of them do it now with varying degrees of success. I’m the same way you are with ignoring things. If I see an ad, I’ll switch tabs and wait until I hear what sounds like content.
Supplemental advertising around content is the ideal, I just don’t see the trend stopping. At least with a three you get what you want and don’t get too angry.
Isn’t it all about context? I hate preroll/interruptive ads as much as the next guy and everyone indeed needs to start thinking about a new format. However, to be honest I usually have 14 browser tabs open and just click to read another article as the preroll clears. In addition, I’ve gotten used to the 30 spots on TV sites like Hulu.com, because of the context. Hulu is real, high quality, on demand content from producers, and not a 3 min clip of some guys kicking eachother in the genitals. 4 x 30 secs for 30 min of entertainment on the other hand isn’t such a bad deal. It’s also much faster than waiting for the torrent download. I think there was a research study on the ratio of content to advertising, and user satisfaction. Anyone remember?
Matt, the problem is actually simple: people in the companies want to expose too many messages (we are the best, we are the cheapest, we are the thinnest, we are the…). For making 3seconds ads you need just one thing: a strong marketing manager that wants it and gets it.
Anyway, I think there’s a very very good way to have 30s or even 60s spots watched: have the first 3 seconds directed by Spielberg.
OK, him or whoever – the main point is that actually these 3 seconds are really all you have to bring attention. So you better make them perfect. Get the attention. Hey, are we gettin back to AIDA?
Nice concept, M
(Sorry, my 3 seconds were up!)
Seni — I think there is a balance here, but less is more in this case. Context is vital no matter what the format or medium. Hulu has a good model, but I still find myself drifting away.
Dusan — I know message bombardment is a goal of a lot of companies, but why waste money when we know what doesn’t work? It will take a person who gets it to make this push and like you said, the first three seconds is crucial and it’s got to hook you.
Mark — You get my vote for best comment of the year. I’m still laughing.
I agree with Seni: Context is everything. If it’s a 30 minute show, I don’t mind a 30 second commercial. But a 30 second spot to see a 2 minute video– no way. The advertiser gets the better deal there.
Matt– your history of the :30 TV spot is a bit off. TV commercials used to be 60, even 120 seconds. But there were fewer of them and they were generally for mass market products and they were the only way consumers could learn about products in the pre-internet days, before The Real Digital Revolution.
Today we have far more commercials on TV– promos for network shows, movie trailers and (in particular) DTC pharma ads– and those add up to a major annoyance.
30 second spots were designed to fill network coffers. They could charge more for them than for a 60, so the networks made more money under the guise of meeting pent-up demand. 15 second spots were also a money-making idea.
3 seconds is tough. When you do TV, the rule of thumb is that you leave a one-line super up for 3 seconds, with one second added for each additional line of copy.
Toad — I agree on the point of context, though I still think that less is more. There are better options online than making me sit for 30 seconds. 60/30/15s are built for TV where there is no surround. Product placement is getting closer to the web model, but TV is very limited. Why shift that limited thinking to an unlimited medium?
Thanks for the background on ad formats. It’s always about the money isn’t it. I do appreciate that.
Three seconds is tough, I don’t disagree. This format is less a video ad and more a quick call to action/brand reinforcement message. We need to shift our thinking too. I like your one line thought, that seems like just enough to convey a message eh?
Well, what you and others are saying points out the need for marketers to be “involved” in the lifestyles of their best customers and prospects. If you cannot get them to watch a 15-second spot, it is because it has nothing to do with what they are interested in.
They will watch a 30-minute program that includes product mentions and perhaps even overlays if the subject interests them. The same is true with the Internet. Engage them with messages in the content and provide what they are most interests them.
Matt, I don’t think you’re wrong given the current (read actively decaying bloated programmatic broadcast model) structure. I do think Seni is right about context and relevance. What broke is when we consumers started getting double charged (of sorts). Ad-supported content is fine, but then in order to get reliable service, you started paying for a glut of cable stations too. There still are too few options in this equation to allow for much innovation; and still the interruptions. Along comes the webs and we have a chance to do it better. I feel that by explaining the units of commerce in the exchange is the key. You want to watch things on HULU, video anywhere online,et al? Every time you initiate a session and every hour after, you need to watch 4 spots( :03, :12 or :800 seconds long) of your choosing and then answer a question about each.
As for the death of the :30, I’ll watch 1:20 everyday when it’s really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-uz4JkXz2s
And even with really good advertising, I doubt I’ll ever drive a Honda.
Is 3 (second) online better than 30 (second) on TV?
Sure, a 30 on TV is easily skipped while a 3 online is far less likely to be skipped.
But a 30 features enough time to tell a story. A 3 delivers a sound bite at best.
We’re talking apples and oranges. A 3 second spot is about awareness. A 30 second spot is about engagement. A 3 second spot features 3 seconds of information. A 30 second spot is exponentially more meaningful/powerful and potentially engaging.
One could argue that the online 3 (second) is best used to drive to an expandable ticker and/or post-roll that directs the user to a true 3, a 3 minute experience of interaction; hopefully leading to a 7, a 10 or longer engagement.
It’s not about determining the length of interruption, but the quality of the messaging and engagement.
I agree, Jon. It’s a quality and not quantity issue. If “Eat at Joe’s” is your message and you’re simply shooting for the A in AIDA, then 3 seconds works. If you’re trying to engage people and be memorable, 3 seconds won’t work–but neither will any length of time if you offer nothing worth remembering.
I presume everyone in this thread has read “Made to Stick”? If not, this discussion is moot…
A teleseminar today with Deb Dib, the CEO coach, turned me on to your website. Extending your premise to the executive career industry in which she and I work, your challenge is an effective one.
Substituting hiring authorities (and consumers) for marketers is spot-on. Give the message, tell the story as succinctly as possible. No more 3-page resumes, never mind 4- and 5-page versions.
Boil it down. Make it resonate with true value delivered. Show the distinctive brand. Get it done in less time. It’s a compelling sell for job seekers! Thanks for your insights.