Problem is: I’m not sure if we’re going to get it, at least not anytime soon.

After all, much the same way that the Web is radically changing the way things are done, I am not sure it’s reasonable to expect the “equivalent” or something from print, outdoors, radio or TV online.

You don’t see anyone looking for the Web’s answer to the CD, do you?

In fact, even more troubling is the fact that every time we think we’ve seen the second coming of the 30-second ad spot, it has fizzled. Let’s count the heir apparents that were not:

- The pre-roll? Nope. Let’s face it, this is the equivalent of the web’s pop-up and on the decline. Sure, traditional media firms are printing money thanks to pre-roll ads, but the danger is that they push away users and eventually shrink their audiences.

- The post-roll? That’s the pop-under… in other words, users are not as annoyed but marketers don’t think it’s worth a warm bucket of spit.

- The Picture-in-Picture? I suggested that… but not everyone digs that either?

- The Overlay? Video Egg made a clown of itself for boosting that… only to say that it represented tiny upside. I like this, but realize it’s not the equivalent of the 30-second ad… at all.

- The Companion ad is something I like and find valuable… after all, display banner ads in text content are worth jack because users scroll down and miss the ad quickly… but companion ads alongside video players are worth much more because they remain at eye-level… but try selling that to advertisers.

What else? I have a few ideas… but more and more, I think the big bet of ad-supported free video won’t be as interesting to content owners who distribute their content as licensing deals. The problem is only1% of content owners will be able to command licensing fees.

Yes, I know what you’re thinking, licensing fees limit your revenue upside… but I got news for you: 50% of $0 is pretty limiting, too. I am not saying most video distributors generate $0, but you get the idea.

I have explained why we’re all smitten by the ad share dream (think Google) and why media owners were burned enough (think MTV) to consider asking for a slice of the ad pie online… but given where online video advertising is ($1B in 2008 to grow to $7B by 2012), it’s way too premature to expect online video advertising to underwrite content production. Where this gets dicey is that UGC fails totally to deliver what marketers want… so one way or another, you need professionally-produced video content.

What does this mean? Otherwise really smart people like Jon Miller and Fred Wilson might be wrong in their vision, or at least, the timing thereof.

Here’s what Mr. Wilson said a couple of years ago in his 4 Rules of Media post:

1 - Microchunk it - Reduce the content to its simplest form.
2 - Free it - Put it out there without walls around it or strings on it.
3 - Syndicate it - Let anyone take it and run with it.
4 - Monetize it - Put the monetization and tracking systems into the microchunk.

I am of course referring to #4. That is true in theory but in practice, if anything, it’s premature…

Over time, there will be advertising-share kickers, too… but trust me when I say this, the paradox of video business models is quite ironic:

- traditional media companies that actually generate revenue don’t want to split any with third-party content owners, they will consider licensing video, whereby cutting a check and getting all of the upside.

- new media companies that tout the ad-share mantra don’t have two nickels to rub together so the revenue share terms are moot. It’s like trying to negotiate a carat size for a wedding ring for your favorite prostitute… the conversation is useless.

This is why media companies will eventually just buy content libraries… because content is not a net-zero game, unlike technology. Think about it: if I license software A, chances are I won’t need software B from A’s competitor. But if I watch one video, chances are I will watch more and more over time. When you start listening to music, generally speaking you don’t turn off your MP3 player after one song, do you?

Anyway… for this reason - and I say this very respectfully - I think Mr. Miller is wrong when he says:

“For Miller, video generalists are NOT winning propositions: Velocity Interactive considers targeted, “specialist” plays to be more certain investment opportunities.“

I won’t get into all of the ways… but on the front lines, the opposite is happening in countless ways and for numerous reasons… and Mr. Miller probably knows that too, all too well. But that’s for a separate post on a separate day.