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…


  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.