The conventional wisdom out there on Web video advertising is that most advertisers don’t want to risk being associated with user-generated videos (i.e., the vast bulk of videos on YouTube). It is only the professionally-produced stuff on portions of YouTube and Hulu and Blip.tv where the advertising dollars are going. This is the conventional wisdom because it is mostly true.
But YouTube wants to change advertiser’s minds (because the vast bulk of its videos are audience-produced, did we mention that?). So in a blog post
today, YouTube trots out a told-ya-so case study about the “JK Wedding Entrance Video” (embedded below) that has been spreading around like crazy. Since it was posted on July 19, it has been watched more than 12 million times. It’s even spawned its own (professionally-produced) faux sequel, the “JK Divorce Entrance Dance” (also embedded below).
In case you haven’t seen it, the original video shows an entire wedding party boogieing down the aisle in Minnesota. Instead of a traditional wedding march, the couple picked Chris Brown’s “Forever.” YouTube’s content fingerprinting system picked that up and the copyright holders were able to place click-to-buy ads on the video which linked to downloads of the song on iTunes and Amazon.
YouTube reports that the click-through rate on those ads was two times higher than the overall click-through rate for those types of ads on the site, and that there was even a spillover effect on official “Forever” music video, which also saw the click-through rate son the same ads go up 2.5 times the average. (It makes sense that would be higher since people going to the official video presumably are more interested in the song itself).
Not only that, but “Forever” climbed the music charts, reaching the No. 4 spot on iTunes (it is now No. 15) and No. 3 spot on Amazon’s MP3 top seller’s list (it is currently No. 4). Not bad for a song that was released a year ago.
YouTube presents this as proof that advertising works on viral videos even if they are audience produced. I’m not sure it proves anything other than that breakout videos are good advertising vehicles no matter where they come from. But YouTube needs to sell more of its video inventory to get to profitability, and the bulk of it is . . .
| Website: | youtube.com |
| Location: | San Bruno, California, United States |
| Founded: | September 11, 2005 |
| Acquired: | October 9, 2006 by Google for $1.65B in Cash |
YouTube was founded in 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, who were all early employees of PayPal. YouTube is the leader in online video, sharing original videos worldwide through a Web experience. YouTube allows people to easily upload… Learn More
See all
Post
Why do advertisers care how people find their products? Do they actually think people associate ads with the videos they are watching? Most times users just get annoyed and click the x to remove the ads, although the itunes links are cool. Just the odd part is the links will go away halfway through the vids which is odd because isn’t the time you are most likely to buy a song at the end? Just a thought, maybe they changed this…
classic
I’m still not convinced the video is authentic.
I could see it being another lonelygirl type occurrence.
Bro… take off your tin foil hat!
I actually wear a tinfoil hat in some of my videos..lol
+1
Does it really make a difference? It is a catchy and great video to watch. Do you watch Reality Shows? Do you really think that they are reality? Beyond the first season, every reality show has drama built into it and the contestants know and agree to it. It still does not make them less entertaining.
The great thing is the potential innovation of figuring out that it is copyrighted material to begin with and then allow the holders to advertise. It provides for greater interaction and an overall good thing.
Question: If Jill and Kevin bought that song (Forever) and have a license to use it, which they most likely did, how the heck can the copyright holder of the song be able to change again because they used it in a home video? How can this be?
Something is terribly amiss here. If YouTubes business model is to let copyright holders double charge on licensing then that’s a failed model and most likely illegal.
If Jill and Kevin bought that song they have every right to use it in a home movie and I don’t think the copyright holder can do a thing about it. It’s a home video of their wedding.
Thoughts anyone?
I’ve seen this video and didn’t relate it with any advertising. I didn’t even know the song that was in it.
And I agree about the ads, every single time a box comes up in front of the video I want to watch I click the X without even glancing at it. It’s the most annoying thing to happen to Youtube since Jawsus.
A really interesting analysis of this video and its popularity was done by a company called visible measures on its blog: http://bit.ly/FWDID
hey, i don’t like it when i hit the “Share IT” button and am transported here. I just want to share it on facebook like i usually do. Can you ask your programmers to give us an option.