I agree with Tim here. With the rise of on-demand content people have become accustomed to getting the content they want immediately and without interruption. The reality is that advertising has always acted in one way or another as an intermediary between us and the content / goal that we have. When you’re reading a magazine you have to flip through ads in order to reach the article you want – same with a newspaper and we all remember how TV used to work! As passive as those interactions may be, the ad still sits between us and our goal (reading, watching, etc). Even amidst a shift to a much more digital-based advertising ecosystem, people see pre-roll and banner ads in return for getting content for free.

While this is clearly a much more explicit transaction and exchange of value, the fundamentals remain the same. In the same way content strategy has been forced to adapt to a new world, advertising must do the same.

In a way, people were originally incentivized to watch ads: they couldn't get to the content they actually wanted to see without waiting until the ads were finished. It's only been since the advent of the DVR, the rise of digital streaming and the end of appointment viewing that people can (mostly) choose to watch what they want, when they want without (much) interruptive marketing getting in the way.

Well it depends on the context. Outside of fringe examples (Hulu's ad selector), people aren't currently opting in to watch pre-roll ads across the vast majority of content sites. I suppose if you're incentivizing views of a brand's Youtube content without stating this upfront, that's a major no-no.

I think the Facebook context that you mention above is different because in this case it's people playing a social game that relies on credits. In a way incentivization is contextually relevant here because the entire focus on these types of games is obtaining additional resources to build out your farm or whatever. I think people are so accustomed to acquiring credits through various means in these games that having them watch pre-roll for free credits actually could be additive rather than dilutive to the brand. After all, the brand is helping to bankroll their farm for free, right?

As long as incentivization is placed within the right context, I'm not sure I have a problem with it.

All advertising is incentivized X. Whether viewership or trial or purchase or demo etc…

I think its important to put this newly named form in the right category. It has a new name so it can be scrutinized but its basically the same old thing.

Here's an example: Incentivized Ad Network A comes to you and offers 6,000 views of a video thru incentivized watching. Are these just as valuable to you as 6,000 non-incentivized?

They are inherently less valuable.

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

You have to look beyond the initial impression / view to see what purchase intent or action that ad drove. Just because someone was initially incentivized to watch an ad doesn't mean that it won't ultimately encourage them to make a purchase or take action. Likewise, just because someone clicks on an ad to watch it by their own volition doesn't mean they're necessarily more likely to make a purchase decision. Are they interested in the brand as evidenced by their click, yes – but it's the job of the advertisement to hook them further.

Incentivization has come and gone over the years. Think 1999-2000 with internet lotto/game sites that were built around the notion of incentivizing users to build an email database. That did not turn out well.

Post-apocalypse it was still around in the form of first: co-reg and then, second: those “win a free ipod” banner advertisers. A user HAD to sign up for an offer/trial in order to get your “free” product. It worked for a few marketers. Think Netflix, Colombia House, Blockbuster:
those whose offerings were theoretically so universal that they didn’t mind the low quality users and could just plug the bounty in a LTV calculator. It was just a numbers game. But overall, there was very
little value for all but the hardest-core DR marketer.

Coincidentally, Facebook was called out as the distribution platform a year and a half ago by Arrington with his “Scamville” posts http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/.

So overall I think it is a negative based on history in the space. The word incentivized gives me the willies.

However you raise an interesting point since this is about video (presumably one that is viewed, sound on, etc). Not database building, etc. Is there more inherent value in a user who is incentivized to watch a video than an email submit? Maybe/maybe not. Which is why the suggestion you made (show us or execute the studies) is the only way we can tell for sure.

Incentivization has come and gone over the years. Think 1999-2000 with internet lotto/game sites that were built around the notion of incentivizing users to build an email database. That did not turn out well.

Post-apocalypse it was still around in the form of first: co-reg and then, second: those “win a free ipod” banner advertisers. A user HAD to sign up for an offer/trial in order to get your “free” product. It worked for a few marketers. Think Netflix, Colombia House, Blockbuster:
those whose offerings were theoretically so universal that they didn't mind the low quality users and could just plug the bounty in a LTV calculator. It was just a numbers game. But overall, there was very
little value for all but the hardest-core DR marketer.

Coincidentally, Facebook was called out as the distribution platform a year and a half ago by Arrington with his “Scamville” posts http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/…

So overall I think it is a negative based on history in the space. The word incentivized gives me the willies.

However you raise an interesting point since this is about video (presumably one that is viewed, sound on, etc). Not database building, etc. Is there more inherent value in a user who is incentivized to watch a video than an email submit? Maybe/maybe not. Which is why the suggestion you made (show us or execute the studies) is the only way we can tell for sure.

I have always thought that incentivized views were a little suspect given their relatively high cpv/cpm compared to traditional pre-roll commercials.

However, I have seen models that include a little trivia question after a video play (to add at least a little reassurance that true engagement/learning occurred). Not a bad approach if you are approaching a targeted audience to spread a new brand attribute/hammer a point home.

I am hoping the Farmvilles of the world don’t go down the cheesy “incentivized everything” route than many tool bars and “offer clubs” have gone… lining up affiliate deals on a page with unwitting (and mainly unsavvy) users checking boxes and creating lists and lists full of useless CRM data, junk mail and
spam.

I have always thought that incentivized views were a little suspect given their relatively high cpv/cpm compared to traditional pre-roll commercials.

However, I have seen models that include a little trivia question after a video play (to add at least a little reassurance that true engagement/learning occurred). Not a bad approach if you are approaching a targeted audience to spread a new brand attribute/hammer a point home.

I am hoping the Farmvilles of the world don't go down the cheesy “incentivized everything” route than many tool bars and “offer clubs” have gone… lining up affiliate deals on a page with unwitting (and mainly unsavvy) users checking boxes and creating lists and lists full of useless CRM data, junk mail and
spam.

Social media incentivized views provide another format that can be used as part of a brand’s video mix when a tactical objective is to reach users on the Facebook platform while they are in a social sharing mode. When looking at the performance, you will see longer viewing time and higher post view interaction such as sharing than video viewed on content sites. These formats run as “stand alone video”, meaning the brand video is the content and does not run before other content. Therefore the video can be any length, which gives marketers the ability to scale distribution of long form video beyond :15s and :30s. ”Forced to watch” is mentioned below but the social media incentivized video I have seen has been 100% opt in. The audience does choose to watch the video. They have several other options to earn credits and do not have to watch the video. Other forms of video advertising are incentivized, including preroll, where the user is ”forced” to watch the ad. Facebook credits and virtual rewards offer a new value exchange. In addition to enhancing game play, users will be able to use Facebook credits to make ecommerce purchases which should increase the growth and value of incentivized video for the user even further. The brand is actually providing direct value to the users for choosing to watch their video. Once again, transparency for the user and brand is key. While the value of credit incentivized view may be less than a user initiated (in-banner or organic) view without credits, incentivized views should still be considered, especially when a brands video assets are longer than :30s. When priced accordingly, incentivized views can be a successful part within the video mix, however, as with any media investment there are tradeoffs.

Darren- great premise to the post and the subsequent discussion that follows… I personally tend to agree that engagement via incentivized viewership is both 1) less valuable, and 2) probably a short-lived phenomenon (you can incent user certain behavior to a point, but unless the incentives are very high, the behavior will wane once the novelty has worn off)…

That being said, and food for thought: the paradigm in advertising has always been about users trading their attention to ads for access to free content… TV commercials are the ultimate incentivized interstitial– until only recently, you were forced to watch them if you wanted to watch the program…

Great discussion and let me add my own opinion after serving up similar digital incentives for over 5 years.

My company Music Interactive offers sponsored music download incentives on sites like Pandora, MTV, Facebook, etc. for people who engage with a brand. Often the person has to watch a video to get the download of band X.

Example: Venus ad on Pandora offering a free J. Lo mp3
http://www.musicinteractive.co…

I'm sure it would be no surprise to tell you that our ads have a higher engagement rate than most banner ads in a similar placement. So as many here have pointed out, we are using valuable content to get people in front of a brand message. No different than me taking taking a client to dinner so they can hear my sales pitch. What that brand chooses to do with the audience we present them with is up to them. Hopefully, they have a worthwhile message.

But, here's the interesting part I will share to answer @twitter-19597222:disqus Fain's comment. We see over 10% of the people who have completed their download clicking to find out more about the brand. I would argue that those people who click to the brand site after watching the video ad and getting their free music are an extremely well qualified customer.