I was recently asked if running an ad before a Martha Stewart clip on Martha Stewart.com has any more value than running an ad before that same clip on YouTube?
Its an easy answer for the buyer in me, but for the marketer its not as clear.
As a buyer, since syndicated content is a new way for content creators to increase their supply of ad space, I would pay less. Supply and demand, you create more supply through syndication, I pay less, simple. I'm sure the sellers would accept that, but what if they didn't?
As a marketer is there really less value? I don't know. Some people argue that it doesn't matter what content is next to ad, much less the subtle difference of what website hosts it. All that matters to them is who the individual is that see's the ad. What's their age, what are they in the market to buy, are they the right target. The context in which the ad is viewed means little, and they sacrifice that to get more exposure per dollar. If its cheaper to advertise to me during a Battlestar Gallactica rerun, why pay more to advertise to me during the Grey's Anatomy finale?
I think there are times to follow that logic and times not to. Your state of mind changes depending on what content your consuming, and seed planting is art that requires harmony of message, target, context, and timing. There is alot to that special sauce.
But I'm hard pressed to think there more's marketing value to the shell that holds the same content. YouTube or Martha Stewart, NBC.com vs Hulu.
What are your thoughts?