Can Magazines Solve Online Video Distribution Woes?

You might call it expensive, archaic, or lame, but the TV development process does deliver something that online video does not: a semi-accurate prediction of viewership. Sponsors are still tepid about dipped big money into online video, for fear of netting thousands of views, rather than millions. It has to do with TV’s firm foothold in worldwide culture, and the lack of successful (provable and predictable) models in online video.

But here’s something that might bridge the gap:

WSJ reports that Vogue is lending its brand and audience to a reality web series that follows around three young up-and-coming models. Model.Live is set to launch in August.

Highlights from the article:

• 12 weekly 8-minute episodes (96 total minutes)
• The 3 models will blog in addition to their videos, and will connect with viewers on Bebo
• $3 million to produce ($31,000 per minute!)
• Streamed on-demand at Vogue.tv (also distributed at Veoh and Hulu)
• Lead sponsor Express paid “in the low seven figures”
  (Product placement is key. viewers can direct-link to buy the clothing the models are wearing. See: Video Clix writeup)
• Vogue promised Express 83.4 million ad impressions

If you estimate Express’ ad buy at $1.25 million, they’re paying about a $15 CPM. That seems right on target, and perhaps even low. Daisy Whitney reported last month that advertisers pay the networks a $25 CPM for TV-run spots and upwards of $40-$75 for an online run of the same show (though the views are less, there are fewer ad impressions).

If that’s the case, then it seems like Vogue is getting a steal, but WSJ forgot to mention one thing: if Express paid just over a million and the series cost three million, that’s a difference of almost two million dollars that needs to be made in second-tier sponsorships, second-run distribution, and other creative methods (DVD sales? Merch? A percentage of the three models’ career earnings in perpetuity?).

Almost $2 million seems like a big number to overcome after the launch and completion of the show.

But let’s not let the money get us off topic. While newspapers flounder and many popular magazines see subscription rates fall, perhaps a clever online video strategy could keep their enterprises afloat, and in a circular consumption strategy, both satisfy current readers and bring in new ones with fresh, interesting video content.

I think this really works for a couple of reasons:

Skim. Read. Watch. I think a large percentage of the public are now ready to integrate different formats of media. It’s now very commonplace to read about something in a print document, look it up online, read more, and watch a short clip… all connected to the same brand experience. I do this all the time at CNN, for example.

Niche Rules. Content is made for niche audiences. Inside jokes. Specific interests. While much of TV needs to be broad to bring in a big enough audience, most independent online video producers (ahem), would be happy with a smaller, more active and passionate audience that can justify a smaller, more effective production budget.

Audience and Marketing. Magazines have two things that online video really needs, that TV already has down. A core audience and a mechanism to influence them. Part of the reason TV shows get so many viewers is the millions in advertising spent to promote them. Magazines already have a print publication ready to deliver related content, ads, and teasers.

Man, the more I think of it, this seems like a win-win-win. Video producers get paid, audiences get good content, and magazines get additional ad inventory.

Vogue Models a New Reality Series

View Related Posts:

• All of a Sudden, YouTube is Interesting Again
• Re-Distribution
• Sponsorship Woes