Fr Frank Pavone placed a dead baby on an altar in videos endorsing Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency

The Diocese of Amarillo, in the United States, says it’s investigating a priest who placed an aborted baby on his altar and posted a video of it on two social media sites.

The Amarillo Globe-News reports that Amarillo Diocese Bishop Patrick Zurek said that the “action and presentation of Fr (Frank) Pavone in this video is not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church.”

In the video posted to Facebook, Fr Pavone said Hillary Clinton and the Democratic platform would allow abortion to continue and that Donald Trump and the Republican platform want to protect unborn children. A shorter version was posted on Instagram.

In his Tuesday statement, Bishop Zurek said the diocese “deeply regrets the offence and outrage caused by the video for the faithful and the community at large.”

Subscribe at your app store:

« On TV And Video » is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in programmatic TV and video.

Today’s column is written by Ian Wheal, global strategy director at Adstream.

Advertisers are spending more money than ever on video. Last year, video ad spend grew by more than 85% [PDF].

Video ads consistently outperform standard banner units, and studies have shown engagement on mobile video to be five times higher than with standard banners.

Although video may be the most effective marketing asset today, there’s another fact about the video explosion that’s less worthy of celebration: Video is raising marketing costs.

Video Creative Is Expensive, Especially When It’s Wasted

As video becomes table stakes for brands and marketers, the cost has skyrocketed. Creating high-quality, engaging video content is inherently expensive. Prone to reshoots, rewrites and disagreements over post-production strategy, original video ads are notoriously challenging to produce. This is why setup costs for domestically produced video content could reach new highs by the end of the year.

Most marketers are fine with the cost, given the potential ROI and brand lift with consumers. But, remarkably, many video ads – despite the cost of production – are never run.

One-third of marketing assets – including video – go unused, according to IDC. This is a frustrating workflow problem that stems from the explosion in video content that may be lost, forgotten or abandoned.

Video Needs To Be Multichannel – And Each Channel Has A Cost

Today, there is no such thing as a single-channel strategy. In the US alone, adult consumers spend more than five hours across digital screens and more than four hours across traditional linear television.

With multichannel campaigns now necessary, video has become the most popular way to drive campaign engagement across channels. Programmatic has also played a role, making the buying and selling of multichannel video ads less complicated and fueling its adoption. This is why, in 2017, 65% of all US video ad spend will be transacted programmatically.

However, multichannel video advertising can be pricey for a simple reason tied again to production: Video spots and creative are not easily ported from one platform to another. Video files and effective video content differ by channel. What works as a video ad on Instagram doesn’t work as an ad for OTT or mobile web.

As consumer consumption fragments, creative must be built from the ground up for each channel, or meticulously adapted to the specifications required at its destination (the IAB, 4As and ANA recently teamed up to address these challenges).

Snapchat is one of the best examples. As an advertising platform, Snapchat has forced brands and marketers to reorient how they think about aspect ratios for video ads. Vertical video is now popular and forcing the industry to “rethink everything.”

This degree of new thinking, ideation and production per platform costs money. Having to do this across many channels – social, mobile, OTT, video on demand, web and more – only drives costs up for marketers. Meanwhile, new and popular channels pop up daily.

Copyright Costs Are Rising For Video Ad Creative

For all advertising creative, copyrights for content must be cleared at every stage. Video content is far more complex than other forms of marketing, and the rights and royalty management challenges are magnified simply due to its multiple creative elements, including audio and imagery.

With the overall proliferation of media channels, formats and delivery models available for advertising campaigns, millions of pieces of video content are developed and distributed each day. Every piece of creative carries specific terms of use and complicated contract variables.

Brands can be subject to legal liability for accidental licensing and usage violations, and they also have to pay for the legal costs of contract reviews, dispute resolution and litigation. As video has become the go-to media for advertisers, legal costs will only continue to grow. 

Although video will take a higher portion of marketing budgets than traditional advertisers are used to, its power and benefits typically outweigh the time, money and labor. But marketers need to optimize ROI, accounting for the challenges that accompany the rise in video ads that are driving up costs.

Follow Adstream (@_adstream) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

« On TV And Video » is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in programmatic TV and video.

Today’s column is written by Ian Wheal, global strategy director at Adstream.

Advertisers are spending more money than ever on video. Last year, video ad spend grew by more than 85% [PDF].

Video ads consistently outperform standard banner units, and studies have shown engagement on mobile video to be five times higher than with standard banners.

Although video may be the most effective marketing asset today, there’s another fact about the video explosion that’s less worthy of celebration: Video is raising marketing costs.

Video Creative Is Expensive, Especially When It’s Wasted

As video becomes table stakes for brands and marketers, the cost has skyrocketed. Creating high-quality, engaging video content is inherently expensive. Prone to reshoots, rewrites and disagreements over post-production strategy, original video ads are notoriously challenging to produce. This is why setup costs for domestically produced video content could reach new highs by the end of the year.

Most marketers are fine with the cost, given the potential ROI and brand lift with consumers. But, remarkably, many video ads – despite the cost of production – are never run.

One-third of marketing assets – including video – go unused, according to IDC. This is a frustrating workflow problem that stems from the explosion in video content that may be lost, forgotten or abandoned.

Video Needs To Be Multichannel – And Each Channel Has A Cost

Today, there is no such thing as a single-channel strategy. In the US alone, adult consumers spend more than five hours across digital screens and more than four hours across traditional linear television.

With multichannel campaigns now necessary, video has become the most popular way to drive campaign engagement across channels. Programmatic has also played a role, making the buying and selling of multichannel video ads less complicated and fueling its adoption. This is why, in 2017, 65% of all US video ad spend will be transacted programmatically.

However, multichannel video advertising can be pricey for a simple reason tied again to production: Video spots and creative are not easily ported from one platform to another. Video files and effective video content differ by channel. What works as a video ad on Instagram doesn’t work as an ad for OTT or mobile web.

As consumer consumption fragments, creative must be built from the ground up for each channel, or meticulously adapted to the specifications required at its destination (the IAB, 4As and ANA recently teamed up to address these challenges).

Snapchat is one of the best examples. As an advertising platform, Snapchat has forced brands and marketers to reorient how they think about aspect ratios for video ads. Vertical video is now popular and forcing the industry to “rethink everything.”

This degree of new thinking, ideation and production per platform costs money. Having to do this across many channels – social, mobile, OTT, video on demand, web and more – only drives costs up for marketers. Meanwhile, new and popular channels pop up daily.

Copyright Costs Are Rising For Video Ad Creative

For all advertising creative, copyrights for content must be cleared at every stage. Video content is far more complex than other forms of marketing, and the rights and royalty management challenges are magnified simply due to its multiple creative elements, including audio and imagery.

With the overall proliferation of media channels, formats and delivery models available for advertising campaigns, millions of pieces of video content are developed and distributed each day. Every piece of creative carries specific terms of use and complicated contract variables.

Brands can be subject to legal liability for accidental licensing and usage violations, and they also have to pay for the legal costs of contract reviews, dispute resolution and litigation. As video has become the go-to media for advertisers, legal costs will only continue to grow. 

Although video will take a higher portion of marketing budgets than traditional advertisers are used to, its power and benefits typically outweigh the time, money and labor. But marketers need to optimize ROI, accounting for the challenges that accompany the rise in video ads that are driving up costs.

Follow Adstream (@_adstream) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Asia-Pacific’s affluent consumers are becoming a key target for marketers, particularly as companies in the region look to boost awareness and spending on luxury goods and services. According to a new study of the media habits of the region’s affluent buyers, marketers would be wise to consider digital video advertising for their next campaign.

A June 2016 examination by Ipsos of the media habits of top-earning consumers in the region found widespread digital video consumption among that cohort. More than 62% of affluent men and women polled in 10 markets in the region said they had watched video clips on a video sharing site like YouTube, the second highest media-related activity after social networking.

An affinity for digital video in Asia-Pacific isn’t news per se. A November 2015 Nielsen study of internet users ages 16 and older in the region found 75% or more of respondents in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, India and Vietnam watched digital video on a weekly basis. Even though Nielsen’s study didn’t reveal anything about consumption habits based on income, it does point out the degree to which digital video has been embraced by consumers throughout the region.

One key takeaway for advertisers hoping to target Asia-Pacific’s affluent consumers via digital video advertising is that the format appears to be more effective when used in conjunction with other ad mediums like live television. In the Ipsos study, for instance, 42% of affluent consumers said they watched only live TV, while 63% said they viewed content from video-sharing sites. However, those who said they watched some combination of both was 71%, pointing to a potential boost in reach by adding digital video to the ad mix.

Asia-Pacific’s affluent consumers are becoming a key target for marketers, particularly as companies in the region look to boost awareness and spending on luxury goods and services. According to a new study of the media habits of the region’s affluent buyers, marketers would be wise to consider digital video advertising for their next campaign.

A June 2016 examination by Ipsos of the media habits of top-earning consumers in the region found widespread digital video consumption among that cohort. More than 62% of affluent men and women polled in 10 markets in the region said they had watched video clips on a video sharing site like YouTube, the second highest media-related activity after social networking.

An affinity for digital video in Asia-Pacific isn’t news per se. A November 2015 Nielsen study of internet users ages 16 and older in the region found 75% or more of respondents in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, India and Vietnam watched digital video on a weekly basis. Even though Nielsen’s study didn’t reveal anything about consumption habits based on income, it does point out the degree to which digital video has been embraced by consumers throughout the region.

One key takeaway for advertisers hoping to target Asia-Pacific’s affluent consumers via digital video advertising is that the format appears to be more effective when used in conjunction with other ad mediums like live television. In the Ipsos study, for instance, 42% of affluent consumers said they watched only live TV, while 63% said they viewed content from video-sharing sites. However, those who said they watched some combination of both was 71%, pointing to a potential boost in reach by adding digital video to the ad mix.

US brand marketers gauge how well, or otherwise, their digital video ads perform in a variety of different ways. Today, most measure digital video ad performance by looking at site traffic, June 2016 research indicates, but in the next year or two, more respondents want to be able to measure via cost per acquisition.

Brand and media consultancy Sequent Partners and Eyeview, a video marketing technology company, surveyed 202 US brand marketers who worked in the automotive, CPG, retail and travel industries. Respondents all worked for companies that currently buy digital video ads and are involved in their company’s media budget setting and allocation process.

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of brand marketers said they currently determine their digital video ad performance by watching site traffic. And more than half of respondents said they look at their return on investment (ROI). Brand metrics, as well as store traffic, are other ways they currently measure digital video advertising.

When asked how would they want to measure it in the next year or two, site traffic was still the top measurement mentioned. Indeed, 73% of respondents said they would want to measure it that way. Meanwhile, 38% of brand marketers said they would want to measure digital video ad performance by looking at the return on ad sales (ROAS). To compare, just 29% of respondents said they measure it that way today.

And one of the biggest differences was that nearly two-thirds of brand marketers said they would want to measure digital video ad performance by the cost per acquisition, order or sale. Only 40% of respondents said they do just that today.

Measuring effectiveness across devices and content platforms is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. June 2016 research from ad tech firm FreeWheel of ads on its network found that completion rates were better with larger screens and longer content. In Q1 2016, completion rates for US digital video ads on over-the-top (OTT) devices such as connected TVs were 93%, compared with 78% for smartphones and rates in between for tablets and desktops.

US brand marketers gauge how well, or otherwise, their digital video ads perform in a variety of different ways. Today, most measure digital video ad performance by looking at site traffic, June 2016 research indicates, but in the next year or two, more respondents want to be able to measure via cost per acquisition.

Brand and media consultancy Sequent Partners and Eyeview, a video marketing technology company, surveyed 202 US brand marketers who worked in the automotive, CPG, retail and travel industries. Respondents all worked for companies that currently buy digital video ads and are involved in their company’s media budget setting and allocation process.

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of brand marketers said they currently determine their digital video ad performance by watching site traffic. And more than half of respondents said they look at their return on investment (ROI). Brand metrics, as well as store traffic, are other ways they currently measure digital video advertising.

When asked how would they want to measure it in the next year or two, site traffic was still the top measurement mentioned. Indeed, 73% of respondents said they would want to measure it that way. Meanwhile, 38% of brand marketers said they would want to measure digital video ad performance by looking at the return on ad sales (ROAS). To compare, just 29% of respondents said they measure it that way today.

And one of the biggest differences was that nearly two-thirds of brand marketers said they would want to measure digital video ad performance by the cost per acquisition, order or sale. Only 40% of respondents said they do just that today.

Measuring effectiveness across devices and content platforms is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. June 2016 research from ad tech firm FreeWheel of ads on its network found that completion rates were better with larger screens and longer content. In Q1 2016, completion rates for US digital video ads on over-the-top (OTT) devices such as connected TVs were 93%, compared with 78% for smartphones and rates in between for tablets and desktops.