eMarketer’s is pegging online video revenues at $850M in 2009, but I think it is under-estimating the real contribution videos will make to the web advertising total.
eMarketer’s definition of video advertising includes:
- instream ads (suc as preroll and overlays)
- in-banner and in-text ads
By this very definition, all of the companion 300×250 that YouTube serves alongside the videos they host is excluded in eMarketer’s tally. YouTube sells two forms of ads: an overlay and a 300×250 ad alongside ad. While sometimes this 300×250 is a companion ad that is sold along with the pre-roll (something that Tremor Media does, for example), in YouTube’s case (which does not sell any pre-roll ads) the 300×250 would be categorized under display banners.
In other words: the less sold overlay would be included in eMarketer’s ad, but the 300×250 being a simple display ad would not.
Don’t you see a problem?
I think that content is content and if a site plays a video and sells ads around that, that revenue should be allocated to the estimate for video advertising. I don’t think video content’s value is capped to instream and in-banner/in-text ad as eMarketer measures it… by their definition, they are excluding the majority of the revenue on the world’s largest video site.
Something is off there.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo Newsletter
PLAY
