Archives par mot-clé : video prmotions

So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?

Video Marketing, , , ,

The slogan « For The Planet » is projected on the Eiffel Tower as part of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015.

Francois Mori/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Francois Mori/AP

The slogan « For The Planet » is projected on the Eiffel Tower as part of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015.

Francois Mori/AP

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published in December 2015 and is being republished with minor updates ahead of President Trump’s decision on whether to recommit to the Paris climate agreement. Some of the information on approval by individual governments has been changed to reflect changes in status.

Representatives from 196 nations made a historic pact on Dec. 12, 2015, in Paris to adopt green energy sources, cut down on climate change emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures — while also cooperating to cope with the impact of unavoidable climate change.

The agreement acknowledges that the threat of climate change is « urgent and potentially irreversible, » and can only be addressed through « the widest possible cooperation by all countries » and « deep reductions in global emissions. »

Trump Poised To Announce Decision On Paris Climate Agreement

But how deep will those reductions be — and how soon, and who’s paying for it?

Here are some key figures from the final agreement.

2 Degrees

The central goal of the agreement is laid out in one phrase:

« Holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels … »

Energy Companies Urge Trump To Remain In Paris Climate Agreement

Limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked.

The global average temperature has already risen about 1 degree Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels.

And even if every signatory country meets its current pledge for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the world is still expected to pass 2 degrees of warming, as the agreement itself notes with concern. (That section is literally labeled « Notes with concern. »)

The current emission targets are just a first step, in short, and the Paris signatories hope the world can figure out how to get closer to the 2-degree goal as time goes on.

… Or 1.5 Degrees

But wait! There’s more!

That same sentence in the deal continues: « … and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. »

That’s right. The big, ambitious goal is immediately followed … by a bigger, more ambitious goal.

Small island nations, in particular, fought hard to have this number appear in the agreement, noting that even if the temperature increase was held at 2 degrees, the resulting rise in sea levels would be devastating for them.

Island representatives adopted the oft-repeated motto, « 1.5 to stay alive, » as NPR’s Ari Shapiro has reported.

And while those vulnerable nations didn’t manage to establish 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) as the legally binding target, it is worked in as an aspiration. But it’s a goal that would be even harder to achieve than 2 degrees — which, again, is a target the world hasn’t yet figured out how to meet.

$100 Billion

« To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year, » NPR’s Christopher Joyce reports.

But that amount is identified as a « floor, » not a ceiling.

« Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years, » he explains, « so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time. »

‘As Soon As Possible’

This one isn’t exactly a number … but it’s the target time for « global peaking » of climate change emissions.

It’s an acknowledgement that in the near future, total emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases won’t fall — in fact, they’ll rise, as developing economies consume more energy.

But the plan assumes that greener technology, conservation efforts and processes to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will eventually allow emissions to decline instead of rise — and at that point, the « peak » will be achieved.

2020

Nations aren’t expected to ratchet their emissions back immediately.

« Each country came to Paris with a voluntary pledge to reduce emissions, » Christopher says. « The agreement now codifies that and sets a framework for those reductions to begin in 2020. »

That year is also the deadline for countries to submit a more long-term plan — not an immediate pledge, like their current goals, but one looking decades into the future.

5 Years

After the 2020 reductions kick in, it’s not over: The deal is designed to evolve as the years pass. Every five years, specifically, each nation’s targets will be reevaluated to move the world closer to the 2-degree target.

This element of the deal was one strongly supported by then-President Barack Obama, and it’s highlighted in a White House fact sheet:

« Targets must be submitted 9-12 months before they are finalized, creating time for other countries and civil society to seek clarity about the targets submitted, » the Obama administration wrote.

« Each target should reflect progress from the prior one, reflecting the highest possible ambition that each country can achieve. This durable, long term framework will drive greater climate ambition as technologies improve and circumstances change. »

2050(ish)

This target date isn’t actually precise: The deal describes it as « mid-century. »

But that’s when the world is supposed to meet another goal, which is much more concrete:

0

Zero, as in net zero emissions of greenhouse gases.

No one expects that over the next 40 years, the world would entirely stop using every form of technology that releases greenhouse gases. Instead, as Christopher Joyce explains, the mid-century target would be met by balancing inputs and outputs:

« Any greenhouse gases emitted would be balanced or zeroed out by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. In the case of carbon dioxide, that would presumably be accomplished by growing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide. »

???

Diplomacy isn’t always quantifiable. Many sections of the deal, of course, don’t nail down any numbers at all.

For instance, nations around the world « should strengthen their cooperation on enhancing action on adaptation » to the effects of climate change, the agreement states.

« All Parties should cooperate to enhance the capacity of develop country Parties to implement this agreement, » it says elsewhere. And « Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information. »

55 Countries, 55 Percent

A total of 196 nations committed to the climate deal in 2015 and had a deadline of April 21, 2017, to officially sign on to the agreement.

At least 55 nations — between them accounting for at least 55 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions — needed to formally approve the pact before it went into effect. That threshold was reached on Oct. 5, 2016, and the accord kicked in 30 days later.

How 3 High-End Companies Used Humor to Create Viral Marketing Videos

Video Marketing, , , ,

Now that Facebook and other social media platforms are locking down on free exposure for businesses, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for brands to create viral video content.

In the past, all you needed was a cat, or some clever editing, and the nature of the web was such that your video would be shared and re-shared. While this is no longer the case, it doesn’t mean that viral video content is dead – in fact, many brands are seeing more benefits than ever from well-made social videos.

The trick is to keep your content fresh and relevant. The companies seeing the most success all use similar elements: humor, narrative, self-awareness and charismatic spokespeople. While there’s no guaranteed way to create a viral video, you can learn a lot from watching how others have succeeded.

Here are three recent branded videos which have gone viral, along with some quick analysis on what made each successful.

1) Voila Mattress

Fast-talking, self-aware videos like this became popular after Dollar Shave Club went viral with a video of their owner acting as a spokesman. They work as well now as they did then. Here, the folks at Voila Mattress put their own spin on the genre with a zany history lesson led by a faux-French product spokesman.

The charismatic actress takes the audience back in time, inventing humorous and sometimes farfetched explanations for how mattresses developed over time, and in doing so, creates a narrative for the brand. Studies have shown that storytelling results in greater audience engagement and ultimately makes ads more effective.

The millennia-spanning story told in the video cleverly integrates product features and benefits, all while gently poking fun at competitors. You may have noticed that the video goes on for awhile – it’s 4:30 long! While unusual for a social media video, this long-form approach is proven to improve conversion rates.

2) Visit Dubai

This fun video was one of the top five most-watched ads on Youtube coming into 2017. Like Voila Mattress, Visit Dubai relies on a spokesperson, but this time he doesn’t have much to say – he’s going to show us instead. Shah Rukh Khan, the King of Bollywood, appears in a crowded Dubai market and offers to lead us on a personal tour of “his Dubai.”

Khan’s star power is the glue that holds the ensuing series of vignettes together. He runs on a white-sand beach. He bumps and sets a volleyball with awestruck vacationers. He dons a tuxedo to deliver gourmet dishes to restaurant-goers. Every scene highlights a feature of visiting Dubai, but they play out more like a Ferris Bueller romp than a promotional video.

The production quality is very high, which results in an interesting hybrid effect for the video. The budget and camera work lend an air of Arabian Nights intrigue and beauty to a classic Youtube premise: “watch a famous actor surprise unsuspecting tourists.” It’s a volatile mixture – one that’s very hard to scroll by in your timeline or ignore in your suggested videos.

3) PMD Beauty

This example of self-aware humor has been garnering a lot of views recently. PMD Beauty piggybacks off cultural touchstones like the Dove “Real Beauty” campaign and 2012’s viral Sweet Brown video.

There’s never a dull moment as the video walks us through a little bit of sales psychology – beginning with audience pain points and explaining how the products can solve them before shifting gears into a memorable sales jingle, the chorus of which is a meta call-to-action.

The video feels fresh because it’s so down-to-earth. PMD Beauty chooses to address the motivations that drive women to buy beauty products head-on with a wholesome attitude. Everyone wants to be beautiful, but nobody wants to undergo the crazy, body-altering measures that some influencers suggest.

The video is funny, but it’s also empowering. By connecting tastefully with a relevant social issue, PMD beauty increased their potential exposure.

The age of viral videos is not over, but the barriers to entry are changing. To succeed like these videos, brands need to do more than just shoot and upload – they need to have something fresh and clever to say.

 

 

 

Read next:

Dear Google, it’s time Android lets me choose my own darn emoji

Clinton: I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win

Video Marketing, , , ,

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday broadly spread around the blame for her loss in last year’s presidential election, pointing to suspected Russian cyberattacks, the Democratic National Committee’s data operation and a “very broad assumption that I was going to win.”

Clinton, interviewed onstage in California at a tech conference by Recode’s Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, made a point to say that she took responsibility for her campaign and “every choice” she made, as she has in other public appearances this year. “But,” she said, “that’s not why I lost.”

Story Continued Below

Clinton again argued that the letter former FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress about her private email server just more than a week before the election was what prompted her to lose critical ground at the end.

Comey wasn’t the only target of Clinton’s ire on Wednesday, though, as she assailed the news media for their coverage of the Comey controversy (reporters covered it like it was “Pearl Harbor,” she charged) and the campaign more broadly, citing a lack of substantive policy reporting on television.

The attitude toward her campaign, she posited, was a result of the assumption that she would defeat Donald Trump, and she said it hurt her.

“I was the victim of a very broad assumption that I was going to win,” she said.

Clinton hit at the Democratic National Committee, too: The DNC, she claimed, handed her an inferior data operation when she won the party’s nomination last summer, while the Republicans had invested heavily in data infrastructure between 2012 and 2016.

On the topic of Russian interference in the election, Clinton described the hacks into the DNC and her campaign chairman’s private email account and various “fake news” websites as the country “weaponizing” technology in an unprecedented misinformation campaign against her.

And while she did not explicitly accuse Trump’s campaign of colluding with the Russians on the cyberattacks — a topic of ongoing federal investigation and something the White House has repeatedly denied — Clinton said she believes that the Kremlin had help from Americans in some form.

“The Russians, in my opinion … could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they have been guided … by Americans,” Clinton said.

“I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver?” she said. “Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, and colluding with?”

She made a joke about Trump’s much-scrutinized relationship with Russia later on during the interview, when the topic of the president’s highly publicized tweet of the non-word “covfefe” came up. She thought it was a “message to the Russians,” she said to laughs.

She took other hits at Trump, too, calling him a “very impulsive, reactive personality” in response to an audience question and describing his reported plan to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement as “totally incomprehensible” because of the economic opportunity she said it presents.

Clinton also commented on the state of the Democratic Party, declining to name possible 2020 presidential candidates but calling on people to focus on coming gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as the 2018 midterms. Flipping the House is “certainly realistic” and should be a goal for Democrats, she said, but acknowledged the need to get organized enough to do it.

When asked directly by Swisher, Clinton said she is not running for office again. But she also said she has no intention of vacating the public stage, as some of her critics, and some Democrats, want her to do.

“I’m not going anywhere,” Clinton said. “I have a big stake in what happened in this country. I am very unbowed and unbroken about what happened because I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.”

Clinton spoke at the annual Code Conference in Ranchos Palos Verdes, California.

Trump nearing a decision on whether to pull US from Paris climate deal, breaking ranks with more than 190 countries

Video Marketing, , , ,

This story has been updated.

President Trump is nearing a final decision on whether to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, with one White House official saying Wednesday that the president is leaning toward an exit but three others cautioning that he has not reached a verdict.

The matter has deeply divided the administration for months. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have urged the president to remain in the deal, and White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have been pushing for a withdrawal.

[Whatever Trump decides on Paris, he has already taken the U.S. out of the climate game]

A withdrawal would put the United States in the same camp as Nicaragua and Syria: a tiny group of countries refusing to participate in the almost universally supported Paris climate change agreement.

Trump added to the intense speculation about the future of the agreement Wednesday morning, tweeting that his decision will be announced “over the next few days.”

Later in the day, he again stoked the uncertainty during a brief appearance with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc at the White House. He told members of the White House press pool that he would have a decision about the Paris agreement “very soon.”

“I’m hearing from a lot of people, both ways,” he said.

More than 190 nations agreed to the accord in December 2015 in Paris, and 147 have since formally ratified or otherwise joined it, including the United States — representing more than 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A U.S. withdrawal would remove the world’s second-largest emitter and nearly 18 percent of the globe’s present-day emissions from the agreement, presenting a severe challenge to its structure and raising questions about whether it would weaken the commitments of other nations.

[These experts say it may actually be best if the U.S. left the Paris climate agreement]

Trump has already, through executive orders, moved to roll back key Obama administration policies, notably the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, that comprised a key part of the U.S.’s Paris promise to reduce its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below their 2005 levels by 2025.

As of 2015, emissions were 12 percent lower, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The Paris decision has deeply divided the administration, with internationalists, such as Tillerson, arguing that it would be beneficial to the United States to remain part of negotiations and international meetings surrounding the agreement, as a matter of leverage and influence.


 All but two countries are in the Paris climate agreement. The United States could be the third. View Graphic

Conservatives, such as Pruitt, have argued that the agreement is not fair to the United States and that staying in it would be used as a legal tool by environmental groups seeking to fight Trump environmental policies.

Trump has long been lobbied by people on both sides of the issue, inside and outside the White House. A broad range of advocates, from former vice president Al Gore to Pope Francis to scores of companies — including Exxon, Chevron and BP — have urged Trump to allow the United States to remain part of the global accord.

But other forces have leaned on him to exit the agreement.

Experts at the influential Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, have argued that the Paris agreement should be viewed as a treaty and submitted to the Senate for approval. Trump also has cited the organization’s research concluding that remaining in the Paris accord would inflict economic harm on the United States in return for little environmental benefit — a conclusion environmental groups insist is flawed.

[Just don’t call it ‘climate change’: How the government is rebranding in the age of Trump]

In addition, a group of 22 Republican senators — a group that included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — wrote to Trump, urging him to exit the Paris accord.

“Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” the group wrote. “Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Reactions to the prospect of Trump withdrawing from international accord came quickly on Wednesday, even as the president himself declined to official announce his decision.

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, tweeted that if Trump does leave the accord, he would have “no choice but to depart councils” on which he has advised the president in the past. (Musk has been part of Trump’s White House manufacturing jobs initiative.)

[Elon Musk threatens to quit Trump’s advisory council over the Paris climate deal]

“Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement would be a grave mistake,” Harold P. Wimmer, president of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Everyone deserves to breathe air that will not make them sick or cause them to die prematurely. We need to cooperate globally to address climate change if we want to continue to reduce air pollution and protect public health.”

Even on Capitol Hill, some Democrats began to condemn the move, before it had formally happened. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), said leaving the Paris agreement would amount to an “abdication” of American values.

“This would be yet another example of President Trump’s ‘Putting America Last’ agenda—last in innovation, last in science, and last in international leadership,” Bennet said in a statement. “The Paris agreement has wide support—from global oil and gas companies to coal generators in our Western states. We should not be moving backwards as the rest of the world races forward to compete in the clean energy industry.”

[Financial firms lead shareholder rebellion against ExxonMobil climate change policies]

Others cheered the notion that Trump might soon kill the climate agreement that had been such a key initiative of President Obama.

“For far too long the Obama Administration allowed foreign governments and alarmist environmentalists to dictate, not only climate change policy, but worse our nation’s economic policy,” David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative political action group, said in a statement. “President Trump’s decision sends a strong message to the environmentalist movement: no longer will the United States be strong armed by their scare tactics intended to harm our economy and inhibit economic growth.”

Trump’s environmental policies, aimed largely at rolling back regulations on the fossil fuel industry, have made it highly unlikely that the country could honor the Obama administration’s Paris pledge to sharply cut carbon dioxide emissions.

That leaves Trump with two clear choices: withdraw from Paris or revise the U.S. pledge downward to something more realistic in light of domestic policies, but nonetheless stay in the accord.

A downward revision would certainly prompt criticism from the international community, but not nearly so much as an abandonment. The Paris agreement is, after all, the first global accord on climate change action that has managed to unify both developed and developing nations behind a single framework to cut emissions.

Moreover, the accord is flexible in the sense that it does not mandate that any nation achieve any particular level of emissions cuts. Rather, every nation under the agreement pledges to do the best it can, and to participate in a process in which nations will regularly increase their ambitions over time.

The ultimate goal of the Paris agreement is to hold the warming of the planet to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above the temperatures found in the pre-industrial times of the late 1800s. The Earth is already about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was in that era, scientists have determined, and current and near future emissions seem quite likely to take the planet past 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) in the coming decades.

Recent research has highlighted that above 2 degrees, major threats could ensue for Earth systems ranging from coral reefs to the planet’s vast ice sheets.

According to the agreement, a party that has fully joined the accord, as the United States has, cannot formally withdraw for three years after the agreement has entered into force — and that is then capped by an extra year-long waiting period. Under those rules, Trump could not completely force a U.S. exit from the agreement until the waning days of his term.

Trump also could opt to withdraw more quickly from the more foundational U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which laid the groundwork for the Paris deal and was signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the Senate in the early 1990s.

But that is a more radical move, which would further withdraw the United States from all international climate change negotiations.

The back-and-forth in the Trump administration over whether to stay part of the Paris agreement has triggered an outpouring of opinion and lobbying, perhaps most of all from corporate America, which has strongly supported the accord. Companies ranging from Apple to ExxonMobil have endorsed advertisements or statements supporting the accord, saying it won’t harm the competitiveness of U.S. business.

In light of this, it will be difficult for the president to argue that the Paris agreement hurts the U.S. economy. The agreement’s flexibility also means that it does not impose any specific requirement to cut emissions by a particular amount.

Because the United States is the second-largest emitter, removing the country from Paris could also remove 21 percent of the emissions reductions that would have been achieved by 2030, according to an analysis by the think tank Climate Interactive. Other countries would have to make up the difference, with the likeliest candidates being China — the world’s top emitter — or India, a nation expected to experience some of the fastest emissions growth in coming decades.

Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

Read more:

Secretary Rex Tillerson signed a statement supporting Arctic science. Trump’s budget would cut it.

These fossil-fuel groups joined a historic climate lawsuit. Now, they want out

So much water pulsed through a melting glacier it warped the Earth’s crust

EPA remains top target with administration proposing 31 percent budget cut

Scientists say the pace of sea level rise has nearly tripled since 1990

Leverage Your Marketing With A Snappy Video | BusinessZone

Video Marketing, , , ,

Looking to connect with your customers over Instagram? Heed the expert advice and say sayonara to the casual Snapchat: quick-thinking videos are the marketing tool of the future.

Videos are absorbed by the brain 60,000 faster than static images, which leads to an increase in email clicks by sometimes as much as 300%. The data from Hubspot, which breaks down the video marketing statistics into five categories, uncovered the following facts: Video on a landing page can increase conversion rates by 80%, and after watching a compelling video, 64% of users are more likely to purchase an item online.

No longer is print media the preferred advertising choice. Brands are increasingly looking to digital media platforms that tailor views to users that are more likely to interact. Instagram recently changed their algorithm, throwing users up in arms, but it turns out it’s been a boon for brands. While no one’s entirely sure how it works, the algorithm appears to help marketers by focusing on engagement and relevancy, among five other key factors.

This means that if you’re a graphic designer, your video may be shown to users that follow other graphic designers and interact with those accounts. In short, your ad gets shown to very specific, very targeted audiences. The endgame? Deeper relationships with your intended viewers.

All you have to do is scroll through your Instagram feed to see this evidence in action: brands have realised that static images are no longer catching the attention of users and also are aware that enjoyment of an ad increases purchase intent by 97% and brand association by 139%.

As a result, even the smallest companies are jumping on the bandwagon. You don’t have to be a big business to take a quick video of the latest product in action. Researchers suggest that to create a compelling video, brands have to be able to film, edit, and release within a few days. This doesn’t mean skimp on production, but it does mean you need to be working with a dedicated team.

Videos that take a long time to produce are more expensive, and in that time other brands are releasing two or three Snapchat, Facebook, or Instagram video advertisements. Brands need to focus on releasing well-produced videos in a fraction of the time they used to take. It’s not enough anymore to release one major “Super Bowl” advertisement; every ad needs to be as funny, as witty, or as emotional.

Another factor to consider is that if Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat are the intended platform, your videos need to capture audience’s attention within the first few seconds. While 75% of online video viewers have interacted with a video, you only have seconds to snag them. 5% will stop watching after a minute and 60% will stop watching after two minutes.

What does this mean for you, a small business? You have the power to up your engagement tenfold, and you’re not alone: 87% of online marketers use video content, 86% of colleges and universities also utilise video, and 22% of small businesses will be posting a video within the next year. Lights, camera, action!

Interactive video ads: Strategies, struggles and soaring potential

Video Marketing, , , ,

Lectures can be good, but dialogues are almost always better. That’s the truism underpinning a surge in interactive video ads that allow brands to connect with audiences in ways impossible for static spots.

In a survey of marketing professionals, video production and content marketing agency Wyzowl found nearly a quarter previously employed interactive video for marketing purposes and 43% plan to use it this year, an upward trend expected to continue as interactive video ads reach beyond the most adventuresome advertisers.  

Interactive video is attractive to marketers because of the potential for deeper engagements and, as the enabling technologies improve, the strategy is being embraced for a growing array of actions, including completing a transaction and stepping into the shoes of a character. There are challenges — like the need to pinpoint the right KPIs — and interactive video isn’t likely to replace static video entirely. However, there is a good chance interactive video will eventually account for a big chunk of budgets. 

“Interactive video ads are an opportunity for viewers to not just watch, but to engage, click and swipe via a call to action,” said Gregg Rogers, global product marketing manager at creative optimization and data activation platform Sizmek. “It’s not about being passive anymore. It’s about active participation with the video ad, and consumers get to learn more about a product before making a commitment to buying something like an automobile or clothing.”

Engaging experiences

Through participation, interactive video ads can be tailored to individual tastes and desires, a boon for both consumers on the hunt for content right for them, and brands seeking consumer information.

“Brands will personalize placements with interactive features in order to create a deeper user engagement with more relevant messaging, and it can be cost effective for brands, maximizing impact with inexpensive, quick and dynamic updates,” said Monica Down, senior video delivery strategist at global marketing technology company Amobee.

Consumers apparently are deeply engaged. According to data supplied by the video marketing platform Innovid in its 2017 Global Video Benchmarks report, consumers spend an average of 41.3 seconds watching so-called custom interactive ads that contain a variety of interactive elements on top of the time they spend watching 15- or 30-second standard pre-roll ads. Innovid also discovered custom interactive video campaigns generate a 561% lift in total user activity compared to standard pre-roll campaigns.

“You can more than double the engagement time with the consumer by running interactive video,” proclaimed Ronnie Lavi, senior vice president of product at Innovid. “Once you understand that — and you start calculating your cost per second and engagement — your ROI looks totally different.”

The ingredients of interactivity

Explaining the capabilities of interactive video ads, Lavi underscored Innovid’s platform essentially turns video players into web pages and web page functionality can thus be translated to ads to make them compelling. For instance, brands can integrate social media feeds, store locators, additional videos or images and product try-ons into interactive video ads. Real-time discount information, behind-the-scenes footage from movie shoots and maps of local establishments can also be components of interactive video ads.

In a recent rundown of intriguing interactive ads, Econsultancy spotlighted an ad from the charity Mended Little Hearts prompting donation pledges, one from Warner Bros. letting viewers step into the shoes of a con artist movie character through a series of deceitful decisions, a Deloitte spot eliciting reactions to potential work scenarios, and a Maybelline ad triggering consumers to choose between several beauty tutorials.

As capabilities evolve, playable interactive video ads are emerging, noted Dan Greenberg, chief design officer at mobile marketing and monetization platform ironSource. 

“A user can play with an ad, win or lose points, and play again if they wish. This goes far beyond any kind of ad experience out there today, and packs a much more powerful punch in the same amount of time as a standard video ad,” said Greenberg.  

Burgeoning technologies such as 360-degree video or virtual reality are possibilities for interactive video ads as well. 

Last year, Lexus teamed up with Amobee and the agency Team One on a mobile campaign that invited customers to explore 360-degree vehicle models. Amboee disclosed it achieved 3X more smartphone engagement and increased tablet engagement by 43% over Celtra automotive benchmarks. Users spent at least 16 seconds in tablet units, another measurement that exceeded the automotive benchmarks.

“We are seeing more VR and 360 video,” said Innovid’s Lavi. “There is definitely interest around these things. There is not so much interest in live feeds yet.”  

 

Tactical thinking  

While results are promising for interactive video, brands should avoid diving in without a clear strategy, cautioned Matt Byrom, managing director of Wyzowl.

“If you are trying to achieve leads, that should be the focus point. You might get people to fill out a form at a particular point in the video, » Byrom said. 

« If it is to improve knowledge transfer, creating a video that directs people to the information they need as quickly as possible would be the right strategy to employ,” he said. “For an interactive video more than most videos, it’s a good idea to plan out what you want to achieve and how to get there.”

Identifying KPIs at the inception of an interactive video ad effort is critical, Amobee’s Down stressed.

“It’s important to start with your KPIs and select the formats that are going to support and boost these goals,” Down said. “If time spent and brand recall is what matters, think about 360 video. Or, if creative analysis and engagement are a priority, introduce Multiple Video Select ads to have an A/B creative test in each and every video ad delivered.”

By virtue of the immediate responses they compel, interactive video ads aren’t typical ads — and shouldn’t be evaluated similarly to them, advised Lavi. He noted completion rates may not be as crucial for interactive video ads that drive action as standard ads driving awareness, although Innovid revealed the custom interactive completion rate to be 79.3% versus 77.3% for standard pre-roll.

“We see a big trend starting to utilize video more from a bottom funnel [perspective] and, when you do that, then you should definitely think mobile video first to generate higher click-through rates than desktop,” said Lavi.  

Data capture can be a central interactive video ad imperative as the amount and type of data that can be gathered from an interactive video ad is much greater than the amount from a standard ad, per Greenberg.  

“In a campaign for a leading audiobook brand, the ad asked users where they prefer listening to audiobooks and which genre they loved best, » Greenberg said. « Just from looking at the in-ad behavioral data the brand was able to identify that the majority of users prefer to listen to fiction in the car on the way to work. That insight then contributed to a follow-up campaign leveraging this data point.”

Interactive video obstacles  

Interactive video ads are rising as the technological infrastructure that supports them is transitioning. Flash is being abandoned in favor of HTML5. However, it’s not been a completely smooth road to HTML5 adoption. Currently, Sizmek estimates about 85% of its interactive video executions are HTML5-based, a dramatic swing from Q1 of last year, when around 98% were Flash-based.

“During the shift from Flash to HTML5 and in parallel with the increased demand of more engaging video ad opportunities outside of your traditional 30-second spots, publishers and players now need to get up to speed supporting this new tech environment, if they are not there yet,” said Rogers. “Not all players can accept HTML5 VPAID tags. These are some technical challenges that we are seeing.”

In another interactive video dilemma, Byrom mentioned interactivity can be lost in mobile devices as viewers enlarge videos to full screens. “Mobile manufacturers will realize this and will obviously want to offer the best technologies to customers, and there will be workarounds and new technology to retain interactivity in mobile devices,” he said. “The market is still quite early, so the software for creating interactive video is relatively new. There are big advances to come over the next few years. For the viewer, the experience will improve.”

Besides the technical difficulties, cost can be an issue for brands considering interactive video ads. Byrom said the expense of producing them isn’t strikingly higher than standard video, but acknowledged it can be slightly higher due to “work to add interactivity.” CPMs, on the other hand, are substantially higher for interactive video ads. Rogers estimated they can be 5X to 7X higher than CPMs for non-interactive spots. “It’s a competitive industry,” he reasoned. “I’m sure that mark will hold for some time.”

An interactive future

Asked to peer into advertising crystal balls, interactive video experts predicted over-the-top video and social media will play increasingly larger roles. Already, OTT ads are swelling. Innovid reported a 27% jump in the number of advertisers running spots on OTT from the first half to the second half of last year.

“It’s all about reaching your consumer at the end of the day, and content in the OTT world is very powerful. Once consumers are in that environment, it’s easier than desktop or mobile to pull in that engagement for more click-throughs and video plays to learn more about a product,” said Rogers. “The consumer really walks away with a better understanding about the brand or the product to move them forward in the purchase funnel.”

Social media presents enormous promise for interactive video ads, too.  

“On Snapchat, they are encouraging interactivity. Brands are going to try to figure out how can I make interaction with their ads part of the message in a way that the consumer feels they have access to something that other people don’t know about it, » said Mark Douglas, president and chief executive officer of advertising software company SteelHouse.

Despite the vast potential for interactive video ads on OTT, mobile and more, it isn’t overtaking static video, at least not for the foreseeable future.

“Interactive video ads are a very good way of telling a story that engages the viewer, » said Greenberg. « It’s unlikely to replace static video because some stories simply don’t need that layer, but it will likely eventually take a big chunk of video budgets.”