In-stream video ads, yes. In-page video ads, no.

I’m usually a big fan of MediaPost and its various publications, but a guest commentary in today’s Online Media Daily has me a little perturbed. The column, written by EyeWonder CEO and co-founder John Vincent, makes the case that “in-page” video ads offer nothing but opportunities for advertisers. I have two problems with this piece: one, Vincent’s EyeWonder is a leading provider of in-page video ads, and, two, I think in-page video ads that play automatically are the greatest insult to users since pop-ups.

In-stream video ads are another animal altogether, and I appreciate what he writes about advertisers and ad agencies not being fully up to speed on their effectiveness. He quotes a DoubleClick study that indicates online video ads “roughly triple the increase for all key brand metrics [brand awareness, ad awareness, message association, brand favorability, and purchase intent] compared to GIF/JPG display ads.”

MediaPost needs to take a hard look at its policies relating to guest commentaries. Self-serving pitches ought not to be allowed, and if you are going to allow them, at least give your readers the courtesy of a disclaimer. John Vincent is merely identified as a co-founder of EyeWonder. There’s no mention of EyeWonder’s specialty.

Of course, I could be wrong…

Comments

  1. I’ve been saying this for a year now. The advertising has to be the same medium as the content. Video content -> video ads, magazine article -> a static ad next to it.

    If you flipped open a magazine and some holographic advertisement jumped out at you you’d throw that magazine across the room.

    I believe this is why Google has been successful with text ads, because they match the medium of most websites.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.