4 ms·

That's why I said "should be". Individual targeting should be really powerful--just look at google. But Hulu so far hasn't been able to do a good job of indiv

That's why I said "should be". Individual targeting should be really powerful--just look at google. But Hulu so far hasn't been able to do a good job of individual targeting. I'm sure there are reasons why; it'd be interesting to hear what they are rather than just "there are reasons".

001sky 14y ago
Its not really clear though, based on what you are writing, if you are saying the should be the same or they should be worth the same. TV is very powerful for ads that require or leverage immersive, experiential pre-visualization. These are expensive to produce, so not fit for micro-targeting. they are also large data-payloads, so not fit for distrubution in N-bundles.[1] At some stage, in the Steve Jobs world (no pun intended), the mediums will converge, technologically. And then things will change, a bit. But the above forces are somewhat fundamental, and just need to be considered (at least). Its generally not the TV people, they are more caught up on exclusivity around content. Its the advertisers, who sense the ability to communicate online is (has not been) up to the standards they need for the black arts in which they are well versed. Other people can probably add more to this, but this is at least a roadmap for analysis. ______ [1] Questions also remain outstanding on the environment of online: is it too distracting/evasive, will it just be skipped, etc. But this is a grey area, moreso than the others. For example, humour or design applied to add interest might be a strategy (if it were economical to run online-spefic ads, which is generally is not yet for TV-replays). The other evidence (as noted in another comment) is the reduced payload. Hulu would be putting more on if they could, but we can infer they don't think its a good idea. Most likely, the internet consumer is not willing to tolerate the additional adds before leaving or being so distracted, the existing ones lose their value. Etc.
jimbobob 14y ago
Hulu does target users already based on a lot of demographic information they have. This can be based on info found in your user profile (gender, age, zip code, etc). Additionally Hulu builds profiles based on past viewing history and is able to fit a viewer to a demographic with remarkable accuracy. Ads on Hulu are and have been more effective for advertisers than its television counterpart (http://socialtimes.com/hulu-ads-are-twice-as-effective-as-television-ads_b75852 http://socialtimes.com/hulu-ads-are-twice-as-effective-as-te...). The issue for Hulu is that because there are less of them in every stream there is less to go around. This especially bothers the content providers.
- camus 14y ago
  Except ad revenue on the internet is nothing compared to ad revenu on tv , unless you are google and you sell personal data along with ad spots.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    How does Google sell data? You mean the demographic breakdown of exposures?
  - jimbobob 14y ago
    Hulu pulls in $30 - $40 CPMs. That is comparable with TV, no?
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Only on reduced loads per unit of content time. At least to date. It's a nuance, but it's non-trivial.

001sky 14y ago

Its not really clear though, based on what you are writing, if you are saying the should be the same or they should be worth the same. TV is very powerful for ads that require or leverage immersive, experiential pre-visualization. These are expensive to produce, so not fit for micro-targeting. they are also large data-payloads, so not fit for distrubution in N-bundles.[1] At some stage, in the Steve Jobs world (no pun intended), the mediums will converge, technologically. And then things will change, a bit. But the above forces are somewhat fundamental, and just need to be considered (at least). Its generally not the TV people, they are more caught up on exclusivity around content. Its the advertisers, who sense the ability to communicate online is (has not been) up to the standards they need for the black arts in which they are well versed. Other people can probably add more to this, but this is at least a roadmap for analysis. ______ [1] Questions also remain outstanding on the environment of online: is it too distracting/evasive, will it just be skipped, etc. But this is a grey area, moreso than the others. For example, humour or design applied to add interest might be a strategy (if it were economical to run online-spefic ads, which is generally is not yet for TV-replays). The other evidence (as noted in another comment) is the reduced payload. Hulu would be putting more on if they could, but we can infer they don't think its a good idea. Most likely, the internet consumer is not willing to tolerate the additional adds before leaving or being so distracted, the existing ones lose their value. Etc.

jimbobob 14y ago

Hulu does target users already based on a lot of demographic information they have. This can be based on info found in your user profile (gender, age, zip code, etc). Additionally Hulu builds profiles based on past viewing history and is able to fit a viewer to a demographic with remarkable accuracy. Ads on Hulu are and have been more effective for advertisers than its television counterpart (http://socialtimes.com/hulu-ads-are-twice-as-effective-as-television-ads_b75852 http://socialtimes.com/hulu-ads-are-twice-as-effective-as-te...). The issue for Hulu is that because there are less of them in every stream there is less to go around. This especially bothers the content providers.

camus 14y ago
Except ad revenue on the internet is nothing compared to ad revenu on tv , unless you are google and you sell personal data along with ad spots.
- Evbn 14y ago
  How does Google sell data? You mean the demographic breakdown of exposures?
- jimbobob 14y ago
  Hulu pulls in $30 - $40 CPMs. That is comparable with TV, no?
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Only on reduced loads per unit of content time. At least to date. It's a nuance, but it's non-trivial.