Ever since I wrote this post, I’ve been trying to think of ways the Post could capitalize on the mobile video “boom,” if you will. I’m well aware that the iPod/iTunes experience is not the first method of providing mobile video to the masses (and frankly, I think iTunes is absolutely horrendous as a video player), but it is likely to be a substantial entry point for many, so I think it makes sense for the paper to concentrate on moving there first. Which they did, with the new video podcast. (Still doesn’t show up in site search, though.)

Here’s the thing: video news production is not cheap. It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of cheap. Upstairs, where all of washingtonpost.com’s video professionals live, there are thousands and thousands of dollars of video production equipment in use every day. Cameras, lenses, field equipment, computers, monitors, editing decks, and so on all have a fixed cost, but the real expense is in the people. In the past few years, WPNI has won several awards for its photo and video work, and CameraWorks is generally held as a superb example of how to blend photos, video, and audio into journalism; it’s the people at WPNI (and the paper) who ultimately make that possible. Compared to the equipment, they’re priceless.

So, video is expensive to produce. “Wow, you really nailed that one,” I hear you saying. “Hey, why don’t you tell me about how chocolate tastes pretty good, or how it hurts when you accidentally ram the side of your head full-speed into a supermarket shelf?[1] Could I maybe get the last three minutes of my life back?”

I know, I know, stay with me here. The point is that funding this stuff is hard, and like almost everything else the paper and website produce, has to be supported by advertising sooner or later.

Now, we come to the interesting part. How do you effectively advertise during a video podcast?

Well, let’s take a look at some current solutions in other media. Over at Slate, their podcasts (audio-only, for now) are currently sponsored by a small number of advertisers whose ads play in between the introductory material and the actual content (generally one ad per podcast). Of course, you could skip over them on your iPod, an advantage not to be found in radio ads, but the ones I’ve listened to are generally short and inoffensive (i.e., there aren’t any “Crazy Eddie’s Furniture Explosion”-type spots) and for most people probably aren’t worth the effort to bypass — especially if it means repeatedly backing up after you overshoot the end of the ad. Sounds like a win-win, doesn’t it? The advertiser probably gets a higher-than-average listener rating, and Slate can presumably market the opportunity to get in on a new media platform and hopefully make some bread in the process.

On television, it’s a little different. Advertisers and broadcasters are caught in a bit of a death-spiral in terms of content; each has to try to outdo the other in order to get noticed. For what it’s worth, it’s my opinion that the advertiser will always win in the end, since the whole point of much televised content is to sell ads, but whatever. Commercials can be skipped more easily than they can in a podcast, since there are visual cues as to when they start or stop. Still, for the majority who don’t have some kind of TiVo-esque setup to let them rapidly skip through ads, it’s again less work to just let them wash over you.

Now, when it comes to video podcasts, we have an interesting dilemma. Although the environment of a news broadcast is decidedly different from that of the average TV show and although the purpose of news is not to sell ads[2], once again ads need to compete with content for eyeball space. Unlike regular TV, though, these ads are more easily skippable, owing to the nature of the medium and the iPod’s handy-dandy scroll wheel (feel free to substitute your favorite portable-video device and its control mechanism here). Moreover, unlike the audio podcast example, there are (hopefully) clear indications as to the ad’s start and stop times. Now you’re looking at a much less attractive proposition, even assuming the majority of viewers once again don’t fast-forward through the ads. Not great.

I really hate to have gone through all that and not have a brilliant solution ready to go, but come on; if I had one I wouldn’t be in support. That said, here are what I see as some likely options, not just for WPNI, but for other organizations looking to move online with video (like, say, NBC News):

• Do nothing. Continue to provide the content gratis, and hope to make it up with ad revenue from other areas. In the case of news organizations, this means ad revenue from traditional sources; in the case of companies like ABC, it means existing shows get to subsidize online ones.
• Embed ads. Breaks up the flow of news video, but works better with broadcast shows. The problem with doing this in a newscast is that it inevitably leads to accusations of bias, so ads would probably end up running at the beginning of content, the way they do on the Post’s site at present (and on places like Yahoo’s Launch service and so on).
• Product placement. Ah, the old subliminal approach. Probably not much of a solution for news, but I’m fairly confident this is the direction of advertising in the future of broadcast TV (and motion pictures), as people become more and more skip-savvy.
• Target ads. Maybe not Minority Report-level, but heck, Google AdSense is already there in many cases. I’d like to see more effort put into this area myself, as I’m always annoyed by ads that are irrelevant to my wants, needs, or abilities (buy a Mercedes! eat ham! get season four of “Felicity” on DVD!). The same bias issues would need to be addressed, and possibly even more so than with regular embedded ads, but I think they’d find a more receptive audience.

Okay, so what’s the point of all this blather? Eventually, the Post is going to want to squeeze a few bucks out of its video material, and that means ads. Brighter minds than mine both upstairs and across the river should start looking at this problem now, so that they can get a jump on it the way they jumped on iTunes video in the first place. And hopefully, others can find a way to make it work as well. In order for the paper and the website to continue to generate thought-provoking media content, there needs to be a way to pay for it, without alienating its target audience. Choosing the right ad strategy will end up being an important part of the future strategy for online news video.

Finally, let me get my Jarvis on for a moment and suggest that the principles of citizen journalism can apply to video as well. If people can file reports from their cellphones, why not start showcasing independently-produced video from individuals on the site (and through the podcast)? It’s a small market for now, but don’t expect it to stay that way — that is, assuming ridiculous legislation like this doesn’t pass.

[1] Believe it or not I did this very thing three days ago, as part of an elaborate but ultimately unfunny joke. Please don’t ask why. (At least my right ear isn’t bright red anymore.)

[2] Yes, I still believe this. Call me naïve if you want.

No Comments »