Just An Obvious Thought: Advertising In The Age Of Streaming!

Streaming is proliferating nowadays, and so people are slowly switching from watching traditional TV contents to streaming contents.  In fact, whatever that is streaming can also be duplicated on TV and vice versa.  The big difference is that TV is scheduled and streaming is an on-demand kind of things.

For advertisers, streaming is something radically different than traditional TV because streamers may not accept forced advertising contents.  TV viewers may not care how long or how many advertisements get push through during a viewing experience.  The big words here are may not since TV viewing experience is about potato couching.  On the other hand, the streamers want contents quickly and sometimes prefer the shorter the content the better.  When advertisers push through advertisements in streaming contents, the streamers often get turned off.

The puzzle here is all about how to get viewers who stream to watch advertisements!  We’ve seen clever advertisements been done in movies such as marrying a brand into the content of the movie itself.  For an example, let’s create a fictitious brand of soft drink known as Blahboulous and we marry this Blahboulous can of soft drink with a character in the movie who often loves to carry the can of Blahboulous soft drink around.  This tactic could also make a brand viral since a famous actor or actress is being associated with such a brand!

The question is how to marry multiple brands into streaming contents!  Doing this too obvious would also be a turnoff.  Perhaps, there would be a better method?  I think forced advertising contents can still be done in streaming contents, but this gotta be super concise and short and the fewer the better!  Meanwhile, advertisers should marry their sponsors’ brands into the streaming contents more often.  The combination of both could elevate the advertising streams while irritating the streamers less.

HitBliss Is So Familiar But Yet So Strange, Because You Can Watch Ads To Earn Cash To Pay For Digital Contents

Digital contents are cheap, because everywhere you look there are some more.  This is why some people are cutting their traditional TV cord and opting for Netflix, Hulu Plus, and the likes.  Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that everyone can afford any digital content whenever.  Let say, subscribing to too many cheap services such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, or other similar type of services can push up the monthly spending by a lot.  Perhaps, this is why HitBliss is here to alleviate some of us from spending too much on digital contents.

What?  According to Forbes “Watch Ads, Get Paid: Is This The Future Of Ad-Supported Content?” article, you and I can easily watch a new movie — that is available for online rental — for free if you and I are willing to watch few ads here and there.  Perhaps, you insist that this is nothing new, because you can just do the same thing on Hulu.  Nonetheless, I think HitBliss is onto something new.  Basically, if I’m not wrong you can earn HitBliss cash by watching video ads, and the cash you earned can be accrued to pay for digital contents.  I’m not sure if this is HitBliss virtual currency or real cash.  Nonetheless, since HitBliss allows you to earn cash to pay for digital contents, it’s different from Hulu in many ways.  Let see, if I’m not wrong, with HitBliss cash you might be able to pay for digital contents other than just movies.

How would HitBliss operate?  A guess work on my part, I think HitBliss shakes hand with digital content partners to license those hot digital contents, streams or distributes digital contents to end users, collects the digital content costs from advertisers who got their commercials aired to the end users, and eventually separates the digital content license fees from profits to make sure there would be money to pay up to digital content partners.  In a way, it feels like HitBliss just modernizes the traditional TV/ads model and more.  And more in a sense that HitBliss allows the end users to pay for whatever digital contents with the money they earn from HitBliss.  And more in a sense that advertisers now will know that they will always have the right audiences for their advertisements.  How?  According to Forbes, HitBliss will annoy end users with frequent interruptions to make sure that the end users are actually watching the advertisements and not just turning on the display and walk away.  Furthermore, HitBliss might personalize the advertisements to tailor the advertisements that fit the taste of each end user.  How might HitBliss going about to do that?  I guess HitBliss can collect end user data such as digital content purchasing behavior, digital surveys, and so on.  If HitBliss is able to tailor such ads for different groups, I can see that the advertisers will love to see how their ads perform specifically for specific audiences to maximize their advertising effectiveness and minimize the advertising budget (i.e., save costs).

Will HitBliss business model work?  I think it’s a guess work since nobody has yet seen how this business model performs ever before.  Nonetheless, I’ve a feeling that HitBliss is onto something quite interesting.  Let say, if HitBliss is able to license enough digital contents to distribute to end users and executing superbly in delivering core services, I can see that HitBliss might be making it big.  Then there is also a question about will today, online end users want to expose themselves to online ads so they can get free digital contents such as free movies?  So far, Hulu Plus is doing OK with forcefully showing ads even though end users are already paid up for the service.  Maybe, HitBliss will find its business model will be OK too.  Anyhow, I think HitBliss might be something big and people like us will have another choice to go to for consuming awesome digital contents, affordably.  So let see folks, because time will tell.


Traditional Advertising Over The Traditional Airwaves Is Broken! The Internet Broke It!


Advertising (Photo credit: Wrote)

Writing in a haste, because I got place to go.  Nonetheless, hopefully this post won’t end up as a mess of incoherency and full of grammar errors.  Anyhow, I like to think that the traditional, on air advertising model is broken.  Traditional, on air advertising model?  You know, those advertisements that you’re being bombarded with while listening to car radio or watching TV at home and so on.  So, why is it broken?  It is broken because of only one word, and this word is Internet.

Yep, the Internet has been gradually training people to be impatient and inclined toward on demand.  People’s attention span have gotten shorter than before for the culture of the Internet is all about getting to the information fast even though the information might be inaccurate or unpleasant or expensive or all of the above.  So, it’s not hard for me to see that people rather have a more benign, concise, and quiet form of advertising nowadays.  The ads on the right or left hand side of a webpage, if done with moderation, are certainly more benign and quiet than the typical in your face or ear, loud commercials that you often hear or see on the airwaves of radio and TV.  This is why I think as time goes on, the Internet dictates advertising to be creative and less intrusive, and people will continue to have none of the traditional form of advertising model.  If the traditional form of advertising model cannot be changed, people will not have any of it.  Furthermore, people are willing to cut the cord for more of on demand type of experience.  Just this sort of behavior alone can foretell that people do not appreciate to be force feeding with those loud and in your ear or face type of commercials.

What I had written above is my personal opinion on how modern people, the information age generation kind of people, might react to the traditional advertising model.  This traditional advertising model is the model that is still being used on TV and radio of today.  For an example, after watching few minutes of a show or news, commercials then be aired forcefully and loudly.  Even some Internet video services are still deploying this traditional advertising model, but with more clever methods (e.g., allowing people to skip the commercials randomly, keeping commercials short and exciting, etc…).  Obviously, there are enough people who might like to watch good commercials, but as the traditional advertising messages being traditional, these messages won’t have the options of staying benign, concise, and quiet… people might rather have the more boring but benign, concise, and quiet advertising messages that proliferate across the Web.  In a sense, this is what I feel toward today advertising form factors, but I can be wrong about this since I have zero experience in advertising business.  Still, I think my personal opinion has merit since I’m too a consumer who is being bombarded with traditional advertising messages over car radio and home TV.  What do you think?  (Not having time to proofread this, but I’m going to publish this anyway.  Will revisit this post in a day or two to proofread it.)

Advertising On The Internet Might Not Be A Good Thing?

Internet technology has made it very easy for people to advertise their businesses, but I have to wonder is it a good idea to do so?  Of course, we all know the Internet is never going to sleep, because too many machines are willing to take the places of the ones that will go to sleep — tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, but the data keep on churning through the Internet pipes.  Since the Internet is always up and wide awake, it has always been the general understanding that it’s a good idea to advertise to the folks who are behind the machines that keep the Internet wide awake since its inception.  The idea is golden, but can the machines and the algorithms that are behind the things that make advertising on the Internet possible be smart enough to discern fake clicks and malware ads and phishing ads — so everyone can be safe and not sorry for using the Internet as the medium of advertising?

Here are the scary examples of why advertising on the Internet can be dangerous!  This one is specifically targeting the small business owners who advertise their businesses on the Internet.  Imagining someone hates a company or the owner of such company so bad, therefore he or she decides to use proxies of machines that have been programmed to generate fake clicks to bankrupt the company or the owner of such company — meanwhile he or she might also make some advertising commissions in the process as the Internet advertising company might not know those clicks are fake and so the payment of advertising commissions will be posted.  The second scenario is specifically targeting everyone who uses computer.  Imagining bad guys will submit innocent looking ads to the Internet advertising companies, but after a certain time the ads might point to either dangerous websites or the same websites but now are with dangerous contents; even worse such web destinations the ads point to might contain malware and computer viruses and phishing scams.

There might be more insidious scenarios that bad guys can exploit through the Internet advertising machines (i.e., advertising companies) that I might not have on the top of my mind, therefore such scenarios will not be mentioned here.  Nonetheless, the two examples I’d mentioned of (dangerous scenarios that are involved with the Internet advertising machines) are good enough to raise suspicion about the naiveties of advertising on the Internet.  The two examples also show that all parties might be suffering when bad guys are scheming.  This means the advertising agencies might see their reputations ruin if they can’t stop the bad guys from spreading malware and computer viruses and trojans and phishing scams through their ads.  This means the normal Internet users might get infect with computer viruses and trojans and malware and being scammed with phishing schemes.  This means the regular business owners might find their companies spend stupendous amount of money and yet not many real clicks are being generated, leading to much costly advertising budgets and losing focus of their core businesses.

I’m sure some best Internet advertising companies on the web might have ways to combat problems that I allured to in this article/post, but the effectiveness of weeding out all relative problems might be doubtful.  This is why I think offline advertising strategies might still be better than online advertising (i.e., advertising on the Internet) in some circumstances.  I guess it’s all depending on your advertising budget to start out with, and if you can afford fake clicks and other unaccounted Internet problems that are the baggages for advertising on the Internet, then I guess you might not lose the focus of generating attractions for your business.  Otherwise, I guess you might want to start with offline advertising first before venturing onto online advertising.  Of course, there are offline advertising machines (i.e., magazines, newspapers, local newspapers) that might be charging unreasonable fees, therefore you should not succumb right away to such leeches.  You can always spend good amount of time (i.e., if you have time to spare) to investigate and find the right offline advertising mediums/firms that can give you the right kind of advertising deals.

In the end, when come to advertising online and offline for small businesses, you might have to experiment or plan out carefully so you will be able to know the right advertising recipe for your small business.  Sometimes, Internet avid users but are the small business owners themselves might know how to use social networks to generate enough buzzes and attractions, therefore they move their businesses to great profits without spending much time and money on advertising.  In my opinion, word of mouth advertising sometimes can still be the best thing that has ever existed in regarding to how generating buzzes and profits for a business.  This is why some people think social networks might provide somewhat a similar medium to word of mouth advertising.  I think they might be right, but why the might be?

I think social networks tend to promote unreliable friending (i.e., friends who know each other only online but not in real life), and so my train of thoughts is that this sort of online only bonding might not generate enough force/will to convince people to see things in certain ways (i.e., how the Internet ads want the Internet users to feel).  Of course, I neglect to mention the positive effect of social networks, because I think it’s quite obvious.  Social networks allow many more real friends to expedite their daily contacts through online chat and text and discussion when they are not having time to meet up personally (i.e., face to face), and this might just generate the kind of force/will to move ideas, products, and businesses.

In conclusion, I guess it might be wise to end this article/post with just one line.  To advertise or not to advertise on the Internet, that’s the question!

(Yes, I know, twisting Shakespeare’s famous quote from Hamlet for the conclusion of the post above might not be a creative thing to do, but tis only quote I can think up to make my post even more flashy, so cheer!)