That much content would have been considered excessive, costly, and unnecessary five years ago.

Today, we as advertisers must approach content in the same way developers approach landing pages. What I mean by this is we have to test and iterate upon the design in order to increase the likelihood a visitor takes the action we want them to take.

Also, consumers don’t really visit websites anymore.

Mobile has upended how we use the Internet – today 2 out of 3 digital media minutes are spent are on mobile. As a result, apps drive the majority of our Internet usage. For brands, this means that there are fewer opportunities to fully own the experiences they serve to consumers.

As a result, advertising content needs to work much harder than it ever did before.

Your content must live independent of supporting information and be bite sized.

You must bring brands to life without relying upon a website – ads are now a microcosm of the macro brand – telling the same story and playing the same role your brand’s site once did.

Much in the same way developers have taken to adjusting all aspects of a landing page – fiddling with font sizes, layout configurations, and colors advertisers must now take the same approach to video.

We can’t take for granted that a great ‘big idea’ alone will carry a campaign.

The idea of landing pages originated back in 2003 when Microsoft was looking to increase online sales of Office. Back then the process of optimizing landing pages was a labor-intensive process. Since then, countless products and apps have come on the scene allowing developers to automate testing of countless landing page iterations.

For social ads we as marketers are facing the same issues that developers faced with landing page optimization in 2003. We don’t have the tools to simply have an algorithm automatically churn out test pages and automate

We need to do dozens of edits A/B testing intros and outros, as well as the content of our ads in order to generate the best result for our clients.

Currently, its common practice to test countless audience segments, and countless ads (so long as they’re still images), but rarely are we applying the same methodology to video.

Data driven storytelling is a pithy phrase that’s been touted in the ad community and lead countless agencies to turn their nose up at the role technology can play in influencing creative. But, I think there’s a broad misunderstanding as to how technology can elevate creative, and ultimately, improve efficacy.

Instead of thinking of data driving an idea, its important to think of it as informing the executions.

A computer is not going to spit out a big campaign idea (not yet anyway). We’re years away from algorithms taking over the Creative Director’s job.

What tech can do is tell us who’s getting the message, comprehending that big idea, and what executions are resonating and/or where they need to be tweaked in order to generate the best returns.

Ultimately, if you aren’t optimizing social video, and having data inform the story you’re telling, you’re only playing with half a deck.

Ad formats are getting shorter and shorter (:06’s and :15’s) and countless studies are showing consumers don’t want to engage with ads.

However, it isn’t the result of people having short attention spans – its shitty ads.

There’s an overwhelming amount of hype and headlines communicating that the next generation of consumers has the attention span of a goldfish.

Millennials only have a 5-second attention span for ads (CNBC)

Decreasing Attention Spans and Your Social Media Strategy (AdWeek)

Engaging Consumers In The Era Of The Eight-Second Attention Span (MediaPost)

Young Consumers Switch Media 27 Times An Hour (AdAge)

Personally, I find these headlines, and the associated gripes from marketers to ring hollow. That marketers and advertisers are using this faux technological ADD as a scapegoat for why their advertising is consistently underperforming.

Just because advertisers gripe about consumers being difficult to reach or to spend more than a few seconds with ads doesn’t make it so. I think it’s a cop out.

I’d argue people are more willing than ever to engage with content for extended periods and time and that we’re even seeing a resurgence in long form content across mediums. There’s plenty of information to reinforce this perspective.

Ooyala recently reported that long form video content consumption is up 30 percent from last year and we’re seeing social platforms adapt to incorporate long form content. For example, Instagram just launched IGTV which allows for 60 minute video uploads. Contrast this with Vine, the 6 second only platform, which died after failing to adapt when all the other social platforms expanded to incorporate longer form content.

Also, the most popular influencers post long form content. For example the most subscribed YouTuber, PewDiePie, regularly posts videos 20-minute-long videos to a community of millions of fans.

The most downloaded podcasts are all long – each of the top 3 podcasts are usually over 45 minutes long. Joe Rogan, frequently the most downloaded podcast blends comedy, politics, and philosophy for two to three hours at a stretch. The #1 Twitch Streamer, Ninja, regularly streams for 6 hours at a time, generating as many as had 600,000+ concurrent viewers.

Despite consumers regularly opting into content for extended periods of time, brands are struggling – consumers are avoiding ads as much as possible.

Ad blockers have become mainstream and according to some studies 75% of North Americans use at least one form of regular ad blocking and about 10 percent block ads across four or more types media channels. Furthermore, 90 percent of people skip pre-roll ads appearing ahead of online video content and 82% of people report that they have closed a web page because of an autoplaying video ad. Meanwhile the vast majority of young people are scrolling past their Facebook feed fast they’re seeing less than two seconds of most ads. This trend has advertisers seriously worried and for good reason.

The marketing model has changed, but a lot of brands haven’t changed with it. Alison Lewis, chief marketing officer of J&J’s consumer business, said that for decades, the company would create two 30-second TV spots, two billboard ads and five print ads every year. That is “not how the world works today.”

Look no further than the shaving category to see how advertisers have been caught off guard – just ten years ago, Gillette dominated the razor blade market. Their ads were comfortable, predictable 30-second units that reminded everyone of something they already knew: you need razor blades on the regular, so you might as well buy Gillette.

The market had to reorganize itself with the appearance of Dollar Shave Club (along with Harry’s Razors). Dollar Shave Club’s distinctly off-the-wall messaging, heavy use of social media, and direct to consumer sales won major viral attention. The notorious startup used quirky 90-second ads to spread its word online, presenting itself as un-ignorable by comparison to the competition. Even though we live in a time when people can skip ads, block ads, and avoid ads.

While Dollar Shave Club hasn’t killed Gillette’s Goliath it sure made Goliath sweat.That’s the power of a brand that knows how to market to consumers.

According to one study 83% of people agree with the statement that “Not all ads are bad, but I want to filter out the really obnoxious ones.”177% agree with the statement “I wish there were a way to ad-filter instead of ad-block completely.”

I’ve seen in our own campaigns (at Epic Signal) that consumers are willing to engage if the content is relevant to them. We’ve seen 10-15 minute long pieces of branded content generate 75% completion rates.

In our most recent campaign with Boost Mobile, we integrated digital influencers into the above the line campaign and paid social and as a result were able to reduce their previous cost per acquisition by 50%.

With some of the work we did with Starbucks Doubleshot we saw thousands of consumers engage with positive sentiment saying things like ‘thanks’ for the content, that it was ‘inspiring’. We’ve generated hundreds of millions of earned media views, and generated engagement rates more than 10X that of most branded/advertising content.

So, while people don’t watch (most ads), its clear that it is not the case for everyone and it certainly is not because we’ve all got some goldfish sized attention spans or have ADD.

Shitty ads are keeping consumers away.

Most Fortune 500 brands haven’t had the same success as us, at Epic Signal, or Dollar Shave Club and haven’t adapted to the times. Marc Pritchard, CMO of P & G was quoted as saying:

“We stopped wasting money on 30-second ads, and we’re designing ads to work in 2 seconds,” and that, “this raises a deeper question. Looking at it through the lens of the consumer, how valuable are these ads? For example, people use social media to share things about their lives with each other. And let’s face it, ads are annoying in that context. Bottom line, it is time for marketers and tech companies to solve the problem of annoying ads and make the ad experience better for consumers.”

So what, does it take to be successful and get people to engage with your content for more than two seconds and solve the problem of annoying ads?

I see the solve as a three phased approach for each brand:

• Listening
• Relevancy
• Optimization

LISTENING
The consumers are already out there. They’re discussing what they love about the brand, they’re interests, who they follow – they’re likes, dislikes, etc. Marketers need to social listening tools and get granular with their consumers and understand them deeply. If you can’t develop a clear picture of who they are, you’re going to lose – because as the old marketing saying goes if you market to everyone you market to no one.

RELEVANCY
After listening to your audience, you can create custom content for them.

Produce something that speaks to specific audience verticals, interests, and passions –you want to be specific and targeted in your approach – the beauty of social media is how granular and targeted you can be. Creative does not need to be one size fits all anymore. For example If you’re Levi’s you can push your campaign to a rock and roll crowd, hipsters, fashionistas, men, women, parents… the list goes on. So why not create custom creative for each of these subverticals? When overlaying specific creative with targeted ads you’re message becomes exponentially more impactful.

Oftentimes, a great hack to know you’re creating relevant creative is to collaborate with digital influencers with built-in followings that overlap with your target.

OPTIMIZE AND ITERATE
Lastly – the great thing about digital advertising is you get feedback instantly. Take advantage of this.

You can launch a campaign then iterate to make it better over time. Simple tweaks of copy, or imagery, or alternative edits can make the difference between a mediocre campaign with wasted media spend and a truly great campaign.

None of this stuff is rocket science. However, most large brands have massive agencies working on their business that aren’t willing to adapt to the times and most brands aren’t able to work outside those relationships, and/or don’t know what to ask for to get the results they need.

Until brands and agencies can learn to be more efficient and adapt to the new landscape – and really embrace integration of media and creative, optimizing for performance, and influencer marketing they simply will not improve.

Some of the major points we covered were:

• Subscription video on demand (SVOD) and YouTube competitors
• YouTubers “making it” on television
• YouTuber revenue streams
• How much money his top creators are making in a year
• How creators can better work with brands, and vice versa

The Confessional is a series of anonymous interview with influencers, brands, marketers, agencies, and MCN executives to get honest, no-bullshit opinions on working in the space — the biggest gripes, the toughest lessons, the most valuable advice.

The following has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You’ve been on YouTube for a very long time. How did you first get started?

I got started back in 2009, and I got started because I actually went to high school with another YouTuber. He’s still got pretty large following to this day.

I saw what he was doing and how we was building a community around himself. It seemed like a huge opportunity. So I started working with him a bit, and I was introduced to other creators and collaborate with them. I was able to turn YouTube into a career in about three months.

How has the community evolved since those early days?

What was really interesting about the early days is that once you hit a certain number of subscribers you were immediately part of the community. People had a sense of respect for you and vice versa. Once you hit that level, you could really approach just about anyone and do collaborations, or just strike up conversations and friendships.

As this community of a few thousand people exploded into the millions of creators you now have today, a bunch of micro-communities developed. Now, it’s like everybody sticks to their own clique. It’s almost like high school. So if you’re a beauty guru, you collaborate with other beauty gurus and you don’t really step outside that.

There’s just not as much cross-pollination as there once was.

I think a lot of the playfulness has disappeared as well. Now, we jump onto each new platform – push our audiences to them (the platforms), and then immediately we ask, “How do we monetize this?”

Speaking of fans, you’ve got a sizable following. What’s it like having fans?

It’s actually really interesting. I rarely use the word “fans,” I’ve allowed myself to use it as of late. This is something that I and a lot of my other YouTube friends struggle with.

We want to be humble, but also want to be respected in the same way that Hollywood celebrities are respected and perceived.  

Do you want to be put on the same pedestal as “traditional” celebrities?

Being labeled as a “celebrity” pigeonholes YouTubers because you can be recognizable without being a “celebrity.” I think it goes beyond celebrity. I think it’s about being a public figure.

There’s a new generation of influence sprouting up as a result of social media. You have people that may be an entertainer-creator or maybe they’re a body-positive influencer. There’s people with influence across spheres — politics, entertainment — you can be an influencer around anything now.

Whatever name we end up giving this new type of public figure, I think they are definitely going to be held to a higher esteem and value than they are today.

How has the perception and attitude towards YouTubers changed among brands and agencies?

The marketers have done a lot to catch up these last few years and they value what we do a lot more.

They’re beginning to recognize that we influencers are not a simple plug-and-play, where they can just say “Let’s put our bag of chips in this,” or “Let’s give them a bottle of water.”

They’re starting to take a step back and invite us in as collaborators. They’re asking what excites us and what ideas we have. It’s becoming a bit more of a conversation than it used to be.

Also, it’s interesting — as demand has increased, you see influencers being represented by four or five different managers and talent agencies. You don’t quite see that in the traditional talent world.

The fact that an influencer can be so freely represented and not be limited to one representative shows me that in some ways the influencer has more negotiating power than traditional celebrities.

I hear from a lot of the creators that “brands don’t get it.” To your point, and in my own experience, it seems as though brands are “getting it” more and more. Do you feel like creators are doing more to adapt and empathize with the brand’s perspective?

Yes and no. You and I have known each other over the years, we’ve seen people come and go.

For the most part, the ones that we’ve seen go are the ones that didn’t develop much business etiquette, or, even just the willingness to put aside some of their stubbornness to be open to some of those brand conversations and feedback.

The ones that have stayed around have been able to have conversations. They don’t just say no to an idea, they offer up solutions.

You have to be able to adapt and work towards a solution where everyone is happy with what they’re getting. It’s only a success if the creator is happy, the audience is happy, AND the brand is happy.

Some creators not willing to put forth the effort, and aren’t open to ideas or build off of ideas that are not their own.

Are you still with an MCN or are you independent?

All my channels are within different MCNs.

The deals I’ve structured are different than what most creators get. They’re in my favor more so than most of the contracts that these MCNs have with the 40,000 other people who signed with them.

What advice would you give to an up and coming creator? What kind of things would you advise them to keep an eye out for?

The first thing to keep in mind is that you’ve got a lot more negotiating power and leverage than you think.

In some cases I get 100% of my revenue. Oftentimes the MCNs will try to offer a revenue split over a certain amount of views. They say, “Hey, look, we did our math and over the last 12 months you averaged out this amount of views. We’ll do a rev-share split of this amount of views over your average amount of views.”

I say no to that because the last 12 months doesn’t mean anything to me. The last three months are going to be the most important numbers to me. And when you go down that math, you’re not going to come to an agreement.

I would also say if you’re going in with an MCN or any other company, you should do it with the idea of getting them to invest in you and your content (whether with upfronts or production support). By having them support you in creating more content, they’ll be invested in your success.

Also, limit your deal to no more than a year in length. Lastly, make sure you’re not just joining

for brand deals. Brand deals are great but you can get multiple managers and agents to represent you to get you those deals.

Where do you see the future of YouTube going? How do you juggle all these different platforms, and does YouTube have staying power?

I feel that YouTube is going to have staying power because of its massive library of content.

Facebook doesn’t have that much content, and I’m not sure if they are ever going to have it.

I think Facebook is similar to what YouTube was back in 2005-2009 — there are a lot more amateur videos and far fewer professional creator videos. YouTube on the other hand has really matured, and is closer to Netflix in the sense that the content has really developed and become more professional.

I feel that YouTube Red is a step in the right direction. And honestly, I think video platforms are going to evolve across the board between Twitter and Snapchat and everything else. We’re going to see different platforms cater to different types of content. I may go to Facebook one day to find a new viral video, but I’ll got to YouTube Red to watch something from a premier independent creator.

How do you as a content creator juggle all of these new platforms? How do you decide where to invest your time and develop an audience?  

It’s actually really natural.

I produce my content with the idea of being able to repurpose it for different platforms. So if it goes up on YouTube, it’s going to go up on Facebook. If it’s going to go up on Instagram it can go up on Vine.

Getting that content distributed across each platform isn’t really hard. I play around with each for a bit and figure out what works.

I took a great deal of interest in Facebook over a year ago and I played around with my content there and it did pretty well. Now I’m playing around with Instagram and it’s doing well there too.

I think people are thinking of their audience as being on every platform. The reality is that if it’s on YouTube, put it up on Facebook too. Put it up on Instagram. Put it up on everything you can. Do a quick edit and cut it down a little bit. Do whatever it takes. The amount of time that you’re going to put into repurposing and customizing content for each platform is going to show a return.

What’s the formula for success on YouTube? What does it take to build a successful channel?

It’s a combination of having fun and being logical. Everything I’ve ever done had to excite me and that doesn’t necessarily mean I didn’t get frustrated with it or I wanted to not do it at some point. You’re going to have speed bumps. But I was very excited to start. Very inspired. And I was very logical. I asked myself, “Okay, how much time am I putting into this? How much money am I putting into this? If this was money, how much money is this of my time? And how quick of a return can I get off of this?”

So when you go from being a personality on camera to investing into content and putting a team behind it, the decisions you make are all about ROI.

So I would say, if you want to be successful, do what you love but put some logic behind it. Put some business sense behind it.

Anything else to add?

The one thing that I will say that I’ve noticed over the years within this industry is that publicly we all say, “Yeah, everything’s all great and dandy.” But, privately you turn to your friend and you’re like, “F this. This does not make sense. This is so stupid. This is terrible. This is horrible.”

We’re all having these private conversations with each other, but we’re afraid to have them openly because we think we’re going to make people feel bad or it’s going to turn into some sort of World War III.

Why didn’t you change with it?

In a recent interview with Business Insider Sir John Hegarty, the accomplished, celebrated founder of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, stated that people don’t remember compelling web content. “Can anybody tell me, in the last 10 years, a piece of content that people remember and can quote back?” he asks, before invoking Purina’s ”Puppyhood” video with BuzzFeed as a negative: “Nobody I’ve ever spoken to has ever said: ‘Have you seen the BuzzFeed puppy?'”

I asked my animal-loving sister and a few friends who are pet owners for their own favorites — they all named the puppy video, remembering it with a laugh. And why shouldn’t they? As people who are perpetually in the market for pet food, the video was made exactly for them. With 30 trillion Google AdWords impressions being served, 303 million tweets composed, and 351 million Facebook status updates being written every single day, we live in a world where niche, hyper-relevant content is shot at us from everywhere.

One statistic ought to excite brands more than any other. There are 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute.

John. People love the BuzzFeed puppy. You’re a British advertising veteran, having joined the industry in the 1960s to build brands such as Levi’s and Audi by way of ads on traditional media that are still instantly recognizable decades later. You’ve left your mark on our industry. But you seem to think we live in a time 20 to 30 years ago before social and digital upended the entire advertising model.

Those conversations about the BuzzFeed puppy, and countless other social campaigns are happening, but they’re eluding Sir John entirely. Just because he’s not seeing them doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are not impactful.

I am the founder of a social agency, Epic Signal, my bias is obvious: social media and influencer marketing are pillars of my business.  That said, I can’t help but feel John is out of touch with the realities of business today. According to him, he doesn’t “get out of bed for less than a million [impressions]”.

In today’s hyper-fragmented media landscape – a million impressions is nothing to scoff at – especially if you can drive real engagement. With digital and social, brand messages can to be tailored to smaller but more relevant niches more easily than ever before. It’s quite unlike a bygone era when three major TV networks forced dumb commercials down everyone’s throats. Nowadays, people can pay for ad-free subscription services, pirate content for free, or simply install AdBlock. We are never actually obligated to sit through an advertisement.

The democratization of media means almost anyone could do Hegarty’s job, and a lot of them already are. Independent YouTube creators are eight of the top 10 most recognizable celebrities among teens today, and there are a ton of creators who have built up consequential brands of their own, making a living by selling their own merch and content directly to their fans. Such YouTube stars create ads for brands and earn millions in the process; they are the producer and distributor rolled into one. When a brand can partner with the right creators, their message can make a huge impact.

So let it be known that Sir John Hegarty has announced his new status as dinosaur of our industry by turning his back on the significant opportunities waiting for brands on the digital front. After all, do you think people are going to watch more or less online video in the future?

If I was a client of John’s trying to reach younger consumers John’s comments would certainly give me pause.

You can read about my talk here. Overall, I’ll be sharing the tactics to create and promote shareable content. It should be a lot of fun, I’m currently working on pulling some data to help support the narrative of YouTube being the most powerful social network. Hoping to be sharing that on the blog some time soon.

Anyway, TNW always has amazing speakers and thought-leaders. Honestly, I never thought I’d be able to be one of them.

Here are a few of my favorite keynotes from previous years.

TIM FERRIS: How To Master Any Skill By Deconstructing It

Keynote Ryan Holiday at TNW Conference Europe 2013

Some recent examples – YouTube, a technology platform, got into the content business by investing over $150 million in new channels, and plans to invest even more in the future. Twitter has long been rumored to be getting into the original content space.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we’re seeing media companies adopting many of the features of popular tech platforms to help scale. Buzzfeed has their partner pages, which allow individuals AND brands to create content and build their own followings on the platform. These are not dissimilar from fan and profile pages on Facebook or any other social media platform.

Similarly, Gawker formally announced the launch of their Kinja platform. For the uninitiated Gawker is the independent blog network, which has over 36,000,000 monthly US readers per month from eight blogs across a number of content verticals (Gaming, Tech, Lifehacking, etc). Gawker is huge, and they’ve built their brand and business on the page views of their incredibly snarky and, at times, brazen reporting.

While Kinja is being positioned largely as a souped up commenting platform – when you scratch the surface there’s actually much more to it. They’re creating a social platform for brands and individuals to create content, interact with each other, and cultivate a following. As Gawker’s founder, Nick Denton put it, “The original idea of blog publishing was that writer and reader would be on the same level. That it would be a conversation – not a lecture. People lost sight of that. We didn’t.”

Sounds like another social network. You can create profile. Check. Interact with the community. Check. Post content. Check. Build a following and follow others. Check and check.

This is a smart play on Gawker’s part (if they can pull it off without diluting their brand). From an economic standpoint they have a lot to gain. They get brands paying to grow their Kinja followings, and you have individuals generating pageviews for free, which in turn opens up more ad inventory.

The Brands
Brands are buying into the ‘always on’ approach across multiple platforms. It’s great for the platforms, because you have brands both creating content, which generate page views and ad revenue, AND you have them spending ad dollars to grow their account. They invest in the platform over time, coming back again and again. I imagine the hope for the ad team at Gawker is that brands view their Kinja pages the same way they view their Facebook or Twitter communities – as one dick measuring contest. How many fans do you have? Oh, sheesh, well look at the size of my Kinja. With each brand dumping more and more money into the platform to generate more fans and followers than their closest competitors. A few brands have already jumped into the fray, there’s already Playboy and IBM dabbling in the space.

Individuals As Content Creators
With Kinja, users are doing far more than commenting. They’ve go profiles the same way paid editors are. You build a Kinja profile, can get featured placement the same way a paid Gawker editor can, as well as build followers. Naturally, the gamification and opportunity to build a following incentivizes people to continue to build content.

Furthermore, Gawker has recently been prompting readers to create content, with many posts being little more than a byline with the prompt to ‘discuss’. This is not too far off from Facebook’s ‘What’s on your mind?’

So is Gawker a media company or technology platform? Does it matter? If Kinja takes off and there are hundreds of thousands of amazing pieces of content being created each day, will a traditional editorial staff be needed? Can a media company ever build a platform that would compete with Twitter and Facebook in terms of scale?

Early data indicates that Kinja is generating some traction, currently generating nearly 2.2 million monthly views (accord to quantcast). However, if history is any indication it could be that technology will win out in the long run in taking control of media and entertainment.  Comcast bought NBC back in 2009, Netflix has been producing original content with a great deal of success. Google and its recent acquisition of Frommer’s, Mark Cuban’s AXS TV and their original programming initiatives, the list goes on. On the flipside you have companies like NewsCorp who crashed and burned with The Daily.

That said, I have a lot more faith in Denton’s ability to create and cultivate an ongoing online community than just about anyone else out there. He’s managed to reinvent Gawker time and time again – expanding it from the niche New York media/flameball site to one of the most influential media properties on the planet.

I admire the Denton and Gawker’s willingness to invent, tweak, and adapt to a changing media landscape. It’s that desire to take risks and innovate that most other media companies (traditional in particular) could learn something from before being left in the dust. Why did newspapers wait for print to be irrelevant before putting a focus on digital? Denton clearly sees things changing and is adapting with the times.

While we see how this whole thing shakes out you can follow me on my Kinja here. If you need any help reading my post on how to set up a Kinja profile, you can check out my blog post on the matter here.