Gannett is selling "pre-roll" advertisements on web videos for $40 to $50 per thousand viewers -- a strong incentive to push all its approximately 80 U.S. community newspapers to produce more local news videos, according to a Gannett Digital executive.
In another interview with Beet.tv, senior director Kate Walters says the challenge is in helping local advertisers, such as restaurants and law firms, produce the pre-rolls. These small businesses often don't have the pre-roll "creatives" on hand, so need production help. For that, Walters says, GCI's local sales force is turning to third party producers, including the company's ad services subsidiary, PointRoll.
Compared to national ad revenue, Walters says, "where we really make the money is when our local sales team sell,'' she says.
Walters did not say how much GCI typically earns for traditional online banner and text advertising, so I can't offer a comparison to the $40 to $50 CPM she cited for pre-rolls. Perhaps some of Gannett Blog's advertising sales readers can weigh in on that point.
In the Beet.tv interview, Walters appears in a panel discussion. Her remarks start about two minutes into the segment.
Walters' remarks on higher pre-roll revenue follow an earlier interview where she disclosed GCI will soon ask newspaper reporters to once more start producing local news videos as part of their traditional news-gathering work. GCI tried that once before, starting in 2007, before a series of layoffs depleted newsroom staffing. Her earlier disclosure drew a very strong, and not altogether positive, reaction from Gannett Bloggers.
Video training got 'muddled'
Wasim Ahmad recalls his first-hand experience getting Gannett video training in 2006-2007 -- and why the video-is-important message got "muddled." Now an assistant journalism professor at Stony Brook University, Ahmad previously worked at New York's Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin and Minnesota's St. Cloud Times.
 |
| Walters |
Walters did not say how much GCI typically earns for traditional online banner and text advertising, so I can't offer a comparison to the $40 to $50 CPM she cited for pre-rolls. Perhaps some of Gannett Blog's advertising sales readers can weigh in on that point.
In the Beet.tv interview, Walters appears in a panel discussion. Her remarks start about two minutes into the segment.
Walters' remarks on higher pre-roll revenue follow an earlier interview where she disclosed GCI will soon ask newspaper reporters to once more start producing local news videos as part of their traditional news-gathering work. GCI tried that once before, starting in 2007, before a series of layoffs depleted newsroom staffing. Her earlier disclosure drew a very strong, and not altogether positive, reaction from Gannett Bloggers.
Video training got 'muddled'
Wasim Ahmad recalls his first-hand experience getting Gannett video training in 2006-2007 -- and why the video-is-important message got "muddled." Now an assistant journalism professor at Stony Brook University, Ahmad previously worked at New York's Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin and Minnesota's St. Cloud Times.
If they can actually get $40 per 1,000 views, they're doing pretty damn well. Of course, since few videos get anywhere near 1,000 views, they're going to take a huge amount of manpower away from doing the work they know people come for and instead chase after something that might work -- even though it's failed in the past.
ReplyDelete2:47 PM is right on target. Most videos on the large site I work for get hundreds of views, not 1,000. And even if one video gets 1,000 views and earns $50, the cost for the newsroom to produce that video is much higher (the cost of an entry-level staffer spending hours shooting and editing the video). As a result, even at $50 CPMs, video remains a money loser for Gannett. And many pre-roll ads are sold for much, much less. Worse, as 2:47 PM points out, shooting and editing video takes valuable staff time away from other work. Gannett, for all of its supposed focus on the bottom line, continues to pursue initiatives like video that may boost revenues and meet Walters' MBO goals but just don't help the bottom line. Sometime down the line, one of the money-crunchers at corporate will finally figure this out.
ReplyDeleteYou beat me to the punch. It takes several hours to shoot a commercial, several hours to edit, and several more hours to re-edit a commercial when the advertiser sends back their notes. In addition, having professional news videographers (with no marketing experience) shoot 30 second commercials is a bad idea. They simply don't know what they are doing. And, if you happen to have someone that can spend a day or two on this project, the cost of production far outweighs the actual amount of money it with make per 1,000 views. This represents such a huge disconnect between the fantasy of corporate and the reality of the ICs it's not even funny.
ReplyDeleteThe pre-roll ads will most likely be sold run of site (ROS) and not targeted to an individual video. If your monthly average is 100,000 video plays you will realize $5000. This is easy incremental revenue.
ReplyDeleteLets say you double the video plays, even with 1 minute short videos, you are now at $10,000. Compared with a traditional ad pricing of $10 - $15 CPM this is easy money.
Yes, 5:21, but at what cost to the journalistic product which is what most readers or viewers hope to find when they turn to the product. Why put the news reporters into the hot seat of having to produce videos to wrap ads around? What they don't have enough to do after all the layoffs in their newsrooms?
ReplyDeleteIt's more BS like the mojo journalists Marymount tried when she wad in Fort Myers. That lasted about just long enough to get a little publicity for her before it quitely went away with no fanfare.
5:30 is correct. I do not believe Walters understands 1) How much time it takes a reporter to produce one of these videos and 2) the cost in time not spent doing basic, boots-on-the ground reporting on news readers want and need.
ReplyDeleteI've watched videos on newspaper websites over the years and few, if any, informed me an any meaningful ways. The exceptions tended to be those videos that were part of bigger news projects, and these were at the largest newspapers, where staff resources were greatest.
Even at USA Today, however -- a paper with more newsroom resources than most any Gannett paper -- the production quality is usually second rate. Did anyone watch the 9/11 anniversary coverage video interviews of Rudy Giuliani and other people? They were sadly amateurish.
5:30 PM.
ReplyDeleteNot to delve too far into basic newspaper business models, but content and advertisement are joined at the hip ... always have been and always will be. What pray tell do you think generates the cash to pay everyone's salary?
To believe reporters should not generate media-neutral content is very old school. Many of the video pieces produced today can be split into segments at the production stage to create multiple segments.
Few users want to watch a 5 minute news video and are more likely to watch a 1 minute video on a topic they enjoy.
Unfortunately it is not up to the newsroom to decide what they will create to support the revenue stream, it is up to them to create something that is informative, factual, and compelling for the local market. Which sadly few do on a daily basis.
May I suggest, we may all be thinking in terms of high quality reporting and photo journalism. We may be thinking of Gannett as a large, news gathering company. That's the old model and as terrible as it may sound, Gannett and the industry is shrinking. The explosion of V.P. level people is meant to give Wall Street reason to believe. On paper, it sounds great having reporters cover a story with video. Why don't they also have folks with cameras start carrying pads and pens? Fewer people doing more means readers get less. Less quality, less content, less insight. The math associated with all these great ideas looks extremely similar to all the other great ideas of the last few years that no longer exist- Anyone remember the Center For Excellence, Miss a Day Miss a Lot, how about the last time they tried the video thing, that Mom's thing. How about all the local specialty publications. How about someone having a comprehensive vision!
ReplyDeleteI guarantee they are getting nowhere near a $50 CPM (cost per thousand) on pre-roll. I've been in the online advertising industry for 10 years and not even Hulu can get that. Hulu is the absolute premium, most expensive video advertising on the internet and they sell at $30-35 CPM. Gannett is trying to hype up their business to make it seem like "everyone" is doing it. No one wants to watch a 30 second pre-roll on a 2 minute news video. Nice try.
ReplyDeleteNeed a new photo of Kate, it's such an old one you keep running.
ReplyDelete7:07 and 8:17 make great points, the math doesn't work and this is just the newest flavor of the week.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is one of the stupidest initiatives I've read. If they do a remake of "Clueless", Walters is a shoo-in for the lead.
ReplyDeleteBut she'd never star in a remake of "The A-Team."
Who the heck is Walters and where did she come from? First Ive heard about and from her.
ReplyDeleteCheck out her vast journalism background on linked in. Enough said. She has no clue on how long and how much effort this would take.
ReplyDeleteI see she is an "experienced product professional." let's hope she doesn't introduce herself that way in public appearances.
ReplyDeleteAnd where is the other Kate -- Kate Marymont -- the one who is supposed to be the vice president in charge of news for community newspapers? Shouldn't she be having some say about this assault on journalistic ethics?
ReplyDeleteIf NEWSPAPERS concentrated on what brung 'em to the dance instead of trying to be something they're not, we'd all be in better shape. The videos on my site are laughable, and don't convey anything to really say what's going on.
ReplyDelete6:16 p.m.
ReplyDelete"Not to delve too far into basic newspaper business models, but content and advertisement are joined at the hip ... always have been and always will be. What pray tell do you think generates the cash to pay everyone's salary?"
Joined at the hip? I think not. Historically, news and advertising have been separated and with good reason. Readers and viewers wanted reporting untainted by financial considerations.
Newsrooms provide stories that hopefully are compelling and informative. Advertising's job is to generate revenue. Newsrooms have never generated revenue with the possible exception of photographic reprints and commemorative books of special events. Get real.
This proposal is doomed to failure and will certainly dilute already much watered down newsrooms.
Another poster asked a good questions. Where is Kate Marymont? Cleaning out her desk?
Actually saw Mary punt and Silverman commiserating in cafeteria the other day. Both looked dour and uninspired. Why are they here? What do they accomplish on a daily or even weekly basis? How much are we paying them?
ReplyDeleteI'm hear to tell you all...they are NOT getting a $50 CPM. I've been in the online industry for 10 years and the highest CPM I've seen is in the $30's and is extremely targeted. This woman is delusional.
ReplyDeleteI really like this idea. BUT: I was managing during the first video training and effort. The training took a week. Afterward, the reporter took two days to produce an unusable video. She never did another one. The crime reporters did a few, shaggy haired folks who came from the nearby tabloid. My wife looked at one reporter and said, "I thought he was the criminal."
ReplyDeleteI did one with our videographer. It was good - and took a day of my time and at least one of his.
Again, another Big Idea from a high-priced VP without any realistic sense about what life is really like in the company. Another reason why a full top management shakeout is necessary.
At our paper our photo galleries outperform video by a huge margin. At a recent event the galleries had 70,000 plus page views, while the video of the same subject had just over 500. We still spend the time to do good quality video, but it just kills me to see a photographers well thought out, good video only grab less than 100 views.
ReplyDelete6:31,
ReplyDelete100 views! some of ours get less than 30. Begging the question - are most of these views coming from inside the building?
Another question, how does your site promote videos? Are they in the "Eyepiece"? or buried elsewhere.
If Gannett is selling pre-roll for $50 per thousand, how are they making any money?
Again, seems like the heads don't know what the rest of the body is doing. The last video project was a flop. Lots of money was spent on expensive equipment and editing software. Most newspaper readers want short informative videos, no more than 3 minutes. Those can be shot with a $ 120 point and shoot digital camera which has HD Video and anti-shake features. It can be loaded and edited on a MAC with I Movie and then uploaded with Brightcove, both programs are free. . Simple video, simple editing simple uploading. But a 3 minute video still needs over an hour and a half of work before it can be viewed on the Gannet site. In top of that it takes away the time which could be used to shoot photos or collect the information for the story. Let the TV stations do the advanced videos.
ReplyDeleteThis woman should play reporter for a week or two and try to shoot and edit a video. After she realizes how difficult it is to do both, shell stop giving bullshit interviews.
ReplyDeleteThese videos to well -- breaking news, weather videos, some sports, animals doing funny things and coeds drunk at bars. Also anything with the word "sex" in the title.
ReplyDeleteThe fact a video does not get 1000 hits is not in itself a real problem. Carrying videos makes a site fresh and relevant. It drives more viewers to other areas of the site and other revenue.
ReplyDeleteI dispute the idea it 'takes hours' to create a video. You can create a quick 30 second video on an iPhone in, well, 30 seconds!
6:31 PM: You're making a skewed comparison. A photo gallery with, say, 40 photos makes for 40 page views each time anybody clicks through them. One view of a video, by comparison, equals one view. At my place, the directive is to use every photo possible in a gallery -- the more clicks, the better, regardless of redundant and/or bad shots that should be edited out. The directive also is not to spend time actually editing the cutline info. More clicks! More clicks!
ReplyDeleteGannett should be focusing on profits, not just revenues. Video brings in revenues, but they are a money-losing proposition when you consider the costs.
ReplyDeleteThe video push also pulls reporters and photographers away from the stories and photos they usually would be producing. That just makes the website and the newspaper weaker. Add all of the time spent on video, and it's like losing FTEs from your newsroom.
Analysts may like the idea at first, but they'll catch on eventually. It's just another failed dream of finding an easy way for Gannett to make money. Instead, make the website and the newspaper better.
Videos produced for broadcast surrounded by high dollar ads justifies the time spent editing and preparing for a force-fed show. Low-end video surrounded by low cost ads that require active seeking and are not revealed through news searches on Google or forced time have an uphill battle.
ReplyDeleteBroadcast websites pale in comparison to the same-market newspaper sites. The advertising model for Internet-based video is unproven.
At first, we were given a quota of at least 3 videos a week apice. Needless to say we posted some real stinkers just to make the quota. That has since gone away since someone finally realized it was unworkable. This craze toward making our newspaper websites look like a cross between Facebook and Youtube is doing nothing to improve content or create real revenue. All it's done here is make both the still and video boring at best and downright amateurish at worst. Until someone with common sense understands the stupidity of this path, we are doomed to mediocrity.
ReplyDelete