Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Matt Sanchez
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 months ago
in VideoEgg beating bad ad market with better engagement on VentureBeat
Thanks for weighing in Jonas. We think performance is critical for all involved: advertisers, publishers, and users. Has to work for everyone. Turns out not all ad placements or impressions are equal. All too often brands aren’t getting the attention they think they are paying for. Tons of issues: out of frame placement, clutter on the page, time the user on the page, multi-tabbed browsing, ad blindness, etc. Advertisers are taking a lot of risk. That’s why we switched to CPE (Cost per Engagement), and it's far more accountable for the advertiser.
Our approach is working for many publishers. High engagement generally means a great ad placement with high branding value, high awareness and interest from users. Of course, because it’s a brand performance model we see a huge range in performance, and as a result eCPM, across our publishers. There are publishers earning $0.30 - 0.50, but we have plenty of publishers doing very well, with the high end of our range north of $8.00 eCPMs.
It’s working for users too. They’re in control and opting into ads at very healthy rates, spending meaningful time in the experience (often more than 20 seconds on average).
Moves like the OPAs today are an indictment of the effectiveness of traditional display banners. We think there are better ways to create value for everyone involved and we’ve been delighted by the response from our partners, advertisers and publisher alike.
Matt Sanchez
CEO, VideoEgg
Our approach is working for many publishers. High engagement generally means a great ad placement with high branding value, high awareness and interest from users. Of course, because it’s a brand performance model we see a huge range in performance, and as a result eCPM, across our publishers. There are publishers earning $0.30 - 0.50, but we have plenty of publishers doing very well, with the high end of our range north of $8.00 eCPMs.
It’s working for users too. They’re in control and opting into ads at very healthy rates, spending meaningful time in the experience (often more than 20 seconds on average).
Moves like the OPAs today are an indictment of the effectiveness of traditional display banners. We think there are better ways to create value for everyone involved and we’ve been delighted by the response from our partners, advertisers and publisher alike.
Matt Sanchez
CEO, VideoEgg
- 2 points
- Jump to »
1 year ago
in VideoEgg Dying a Slow Death? on Social Times
Nick,
Thank you for starting the conversation about brand advertising and supply/demand issues, but your post is so factually inaccurate and inflammatory it’s irresponsible. Please know that I am more than happy to have a conversation with you at any time about what we are doing as a company and our perspective on the industry (matt at videoegg.com). It's too bad you didn't do your homework before writing a piece as inflammatory as this one. Here’s our perspective...
What you got right:
- We do have around 100 employees
- Our ad approach is incredibly well received in the market
- “the demand is practically limitless”
What you got wrong:
- We’ve actually raised $35mm to date
- We have a large sales force selling in 8 markets in 4 countries and have offices in all of the cities you mentioned.
- Because of significant variance in the media value of various pages/apps/etc. we offer a performance model for brand advertising. As a result, there is a wide range of eCPMs that our publishers see from as little as $.20-.30 to as high as several dollars ($4+). Publishers with engaging applications are doing very well with ads from VideoEgg. An email from one of our publishers this morning to illustrate: “The US FB numbers are fine, we’re quite happy with them – but we’re already giving you all the inventory we can. The only way to get more inventory is to have more traffic, which sadly we can’t control. ”
What we think is important about the issue you are exploring:
- Social media is a great place for brands to connect with their target audience...their usage is consistent with spending time with a brand message.
- We have a long way to go as an entire industry in creating more demand from brands for this channel. It’s a challenge that we must all work on through better product, more efficient pricing, standardization, and scale.
- Brand advertising is lumpy. It’s driven by media plans and fixed advertising budgets and as a result creates very different fill patterns for publishers. You can’t just turn on the spigot like you can with direct response.
- That being said, brand advertising will create more value for a publisher than DR because it has more value for a user in these media environments (they’ll actually engage with it). When ads like ours are available, they’ll always perform better for the publisher. The problem that needs to be addressed is better inventory efficiency. This can be solved through yield management, exchanges, etc., but the reality is that there will always be more supply than demand in social media.
As we continue to innovate on the ad experience front and build out our sales force, we will provide more and more value for publishers. The dynamic you are describing isn’t a problem, it’s an opportunity. It is incredibly exciting to reflect on just how much attention and activity is being directed at social media today, but it will take time (read years) for brand advertising to evolve in social media and publishers shouldn’t expect consistently high fill rates in the short run. Again, it’s going to be lumpy. They need to mix high value brand ads with low value DR ads to maximize their revenue.
We are incredibly excited about advertisers’ response to our approach, and the success of our sales force in all of our markets, but this will take time and we’re all in it together. I look forward to continuing a conversation about how to address all of the challenges and opportunities that brand advertising presents in social media.
Matt Sanchez
CEO, VideoEgg
Thank you for starting the conversation about brand advertising and supply/demand issues, but your post is so factually inaccurate and inflammatory it’s irresponsible. Please know that I am more than happy to have a conversation with you at any time about what we are doing as a company and our perspective on the industry (matt at videoegg.com). It's too bad you didn't do your homework before writing a piece as inflammatory as this one. Here’s our perspective...
What you got right:
- We do have around 100 employees
- Our ad approach is incredibly well received in the market
- “the demand is practically limitless”
What you got wrong:
- We’ve actually raised $35mm to date
- We have a large sales force selling in 8 markets in 4 countries and have offices in all of the cities you mentioned.
- Because of significant variance in the media value of various pages/apps/etc. we offer a performance model for brand advertising. As a result, there is a wide range of eCPMs that our publishers see from as little as $.20-.30 to as high as several dollars ($4+). Publishers with engaging applications are doing very well with ads from VideoEgg. An email from one of our publishers this morning to illustrate: “The US FB numbers are fine, we’re quite happy with them – but we’re already giving you all the inventory we can. The only way to get more inventory is to have more traffic, which sadly we can’t control. ”
What we think is important about the issue you are exploring:
- Social media is a great place for brands to connect with their target audience...their usage is consistent with spending time with a brand message.
- We have a long way to go as an entire industry in creating more demand from brands for this channel. It’s a challenge that we must all work on through better product, more efficient pricing, standardization, and scale.
- Brand advertising is lumpy. It’s driven by media plans and fixed advertising budgets and as a result creates very different fill patterns for publishers. You can’t just turn on the spigot like you can with direct response.
- That being said, brand advertising will create more value for a publisher than DR because it has more value for a user in these media environments (they’ll actually engage with it). When ads like ours are available, they’ll always perform better for the publisher. The problem that needs to be addressed is better inventory efficiency. This can be solved through yield management, exchanges, etc., but the reality is that there will always be more supply than demand in social media.
As we continue to innovate on the ad experience front and build out our sales force, we will provide more and more value for publishers. The dynamic you are describing isn’t a problem, it’s an opportunity. It is incredibly exciting to reflect on just how much attention and activity is being directed at social media today, but it will take time (read years) for brand advertising to evolve in social media and publishers shouldn’t expect consistently high fill rates in the short run. Again, it’s going to be lumpy. They need to mix high value brand ads with low value DR ads to maximize their revenue.
We are incredibly excited about advertisers’ response to our approach, and the success of our sales force in all of our markets, but this will take time and we’re all in it together. I look forward to continuing a conversation about how to address all of the challenges and opportunities that brand advertising presents in social media.
Matt Sanchez
CEO, VideoEgg
