ZunaVision last week announced it had raised an undisclosed amount of angel funding from Stanford professor David Cheriton, the billionaire who is credited with introducing Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page to the VCs at Kleiner Perkins – the rest, as they say, is history.
I’m going to go out on an enormous limb here and claim he just made a very poor investment decision by placing a reportedly “upper five figures” bet on this startup.
ZunaVision was born out of the artificial intelligence lab at Stanford University by three researchers and an Assistant Professor, and what they’ve come up with is technology that enables video publishers – from amateurs who produce content for fun to professionals – to insert image and video advertising units into clips. It is product placment for online video.
This is how it works: an algorithm first analyzes the video, subsequently alters different aspects of embedded images or videos (such as the lighting, color and texture), and then attempts to fit the advertising into the physical space of their videos without appearing like a blatant overlay. Watch the video below for some example results.
If all this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s not an entirely new idea; I’ve covered a similar initiative called SmartAd from a company called Keystream in the past, and we’ve recently reviewed an Israeli company called Innovid doing similar things with in-video advertising.
My biggest gripe with these companies is not related to the technology, which is actually quite impressive, but the fact that these startups keep throwing words like ‘non-intrusive’, ‘uninterrupted’ and ‘natural’ at us while at the same time promoting the embedding technology to advertisers as ‘unmissable’ and ‘unskippable’. I find it unbelievable that they’re pretending to create a beneficial situation for publishers, advertisers and viewers while it’s painfully clear the latter are not gaining anything from this but a poorer viewing experience.
Online video is still notoriously hard to monetize, but I think ZunaVision is taking a step backwards by essentially giving everyone a way to clutter videos with product placement that is the video equivalent of pop-up ads
You know, I don’t think it’s that bad. Allstate is too big, but the Adidas and Home Depot logos are actually pretty slick and I don’t think I’d mind looking at it if the video were high-enough quality.
I agree. This is much better than overlays or prerolls. It is actually more effective from a marketing perspective as well.
Leena Rao
I am not sure what happened. Leena Rao did not write the comment above, I did.
Anjali Sen
To be clear, I think the embedding part is really cool, and I don’t mind the ads all that much in the demo video either. But these were produced by ZunaVision.
I fear what amateurs, who produce their own user-generated videos, will do with the technology (it won’t look as subtle). And professional video publishers should just keep their hands off of it and make every aspect of the video … about the video. Just my opinion.
That was not bad.,
Not sure why it is unwatchable? I thought it was pretty cool. The product placements were pretty subtle, on most cases.
I mean, it is definitely a lot better than Innovid. That’s for sure.
I like it…. if the marketers can stop themselves from overusing it.
I disagree. I think this is a much better solution than breaking up online video with commercials. Maybe you’re altering the “artists” creations, but you’re also allowing the freedom to show an uninterrupted video.
Robin,
Usually I agree with your opinions on these business models. This one I have to disagree with you, I really like both the idea and their implementation of it.
Jamie
Even with the glitches on the pepsi and adidas ones?
Well it’s not really their idea, although I agree the implementation of it is awesome and much better than Keystream. But I still think it will ruin most video watching experiences.
I am not sure I buy your argument.
This is like arguing against HTML because some people will make ugly websites, or against the pen and paper because some people will write awful poetry.
Yes, but when it people use HTML well, and when people put pen to paper well, and when people use this tool well, I think it will be a great advance.
Anjali Sen
You’ve got it right Robin. This will be heavily abused to produce the most spammy vids possible.
I disagree too.
As far as I’m concerned, this is about as far from “unwatchable” as I’ve ever seen in online video advertising.
Most of the video ads I see are translucent overlays that take up nearly half the video and *require* me to take action (either to close it or follow the link) to make the video watchable.
I see your point, but as I said in a comment above, these embeds were done by ZunaVision, it will be interesting to see what the average Joe will do to the videos with the technology.
Like it or not, this is the way advertising is going.
Think about it… DVRs are killing the traditional 30 second ad spot. If content is going to continue to be ad-supported, producers are increasingly going to have to rely on product placement as DVR penetration increases.
I don’t see the downside either… Less intrusive than all other video ad options. Overlays & titlecards are much more like a pop-up than these, and interrupting for commercial breaks is the worst option yet.
Perhaps it’s too complicated to be worthwhile, but you could even localize the static stadium poster advertisements in sporting events when there is international coverage. It’s already ad space, so there is no additional intrusion at all.
Another swing and a miss analysis by Robin…
I say if ZunaVision sticks to simplicity it could be a good investment.
http://www.twibeo.com
Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? Clearly, watching the YouTube video with all those logos would make anyone ill. However, done correctly (meaning not used very often), these product placements will be a big boon to advertisers.
Viewers already gripe about real product placement on TV, so what’s the difference when it comes to digitally enhanced product placement? But it works!
lets all acknowledge the elephant in the room. How does this affect my porn watching? Betty Crockers frosting? Kleenx? Jergens? Valtrex? What would be the biggest mood killer for you?
I’m going to respectfully disagree. In the (somewhat) usual fashion for TechCrunch anymore they have shot down a perfectly good idea.
Frankly, I like this idea a lot. If I were not looking for the ads many times I’d barely notice them. However, I’d like to see this technology applied to “real video” and not a video specifically designed to showcase the technology.
The technology is impressive but I think the big divide will be over whether or not you want your video to be altered with insertion advertising for lack of a better term.
Personally, I would rather watch commercials between video segments or have an advertising bar below the screen… I really don’t like the idea of having ads inserted directly into content…. it just doesn’t sit well for me. I would also be concerned about the overall conversion ability of such ads… sure they help exposure from a branding point of view, but are people going to be clicking on a Fosters ad on the side of a speeding boat? I think that over time there is great potential for the ads to simply blend into the videos and greatly decrease conversion…. then the goal will be to set the ads apart again, which would likely require them to be more disruptive….
Great execution, bad idea.
Exactly.
I think this is slick as well, it can be tastefully used.
i`m going to get in line with almost everyone else here and say this is actually pretty cool.
Thanks for the link, Robin.
When I first met with Zunavision in November, I wrote that I wasn’t sure whether to heap praise on the company or be terrified of it. I see your point, but to be honest, I think I’d rather look at a Zunavision-like placement over a standard overlay. But like anything, if it’s overdone, it will become annoying.
Zunavision works more like a banner ad than a popup ad. The content creator decides where and when the ads will be placed much like in a webpage template
I was able to read through this post despite the 12+ banner advertisements on it. As long as the Zunavision ads don’t cover the main content, I could see this as an interesting revenue stream for content owners.
Great idea. You can have annotations and lower thirds randomly popping up over your content, or you can have a logo seamlessly placed into the content as if it was there the whole time. Hmmm. Unwatchable? TC missed the potential of this big time.
Well, I for one think it is non-intrusive. The first time I watched the clip, I was expectantly watching the bottom for some little banner with similar colors to pop up. When the video finished, I was confused and I figured the video had been edited with the ads removed or something (?). I thought the allstate banner was actually hung up in the room that the video was shot it, not added by a computer. Looking back and realizing that the different logos I saw were not naturally part of the scene and were digitally added in, I think ZunaVision has a good idea.
demos look good. the reality for typical videos is going to be unwatchable.
>> the rest, as they say, is history
This cliche is fun for telling stories, but isn’t true for any company. Companies must execute well on many things. It’s not one singular moment that gives a company success. It’s 1,000s or millions of ideas, tasks, products, meetings, deals, and other things that make a company successful.
This is definitly a big market. I would like to know if the technology really works on almost every kind of video. I can’t imagine.
The demo video looks great, question is how well does it work in the real, virtual world of other people’s videos – not scrubbed by ZunaVision’s marketing dept. If it works like the demo then this is a brilliant model. Definitely going to share this with the Emerson social media and web marketing class.
there is also a big issue with brand safety. how does a brand know that a particular point in a video is safe for association? if the brand is immersed in the content is it endorsing the content?
This is the most depressing thing I’ve seen in ages.
I think it’s quite telling that the majority of posters here disagree with the sentiment of the article.
Just for the record, Robin, can you point us to your disclosure statement?
Stop looking for ghosts, it’s just my opinion.
I’m a big fan of TC, and agree that ZunaVision could go either way in terms of actual implementation.
I also agree with many of the comments that the headline is bordering on irresponsible coming such an influential publication.
I dislike the tech blog commentators who object to you expressing your opinion as much as the next person. However this headline (in my opinion) reflects neither the content of the post or the reality of the situation. I feel like I try to convince someone every day that blogs are absolutely as legitimate as traditional media. Sensational headlines don’t particularly help the cause.
So you’re implying traditional media doesn’t do sensationalism in its articles and titles?
honestly they seem to do a better job of making the ad blend in then the other company
very true
In theory if the ads are really subtle and well done, it’s possible they end up being subliminal and all that. E.g., there is an actual billboard in the scene, you could have an ad to fit that billboard – perfectly legitimate.
But in practice, I agree they just mess with the flow of the story. Imagine a gripping video of combat fire with ad for American Idol in the back.
If I were the filmmaker I’d hate to have my story messed up that way; and if I’m the producer, I’d be mad to have my $$$ production ruined with cheap composites.
I don’t find it all that distracting either. TV is so littered with product placement these days that seeing a brand or two (or three) over the course of an online video is better than me having to x-out an overlay.
Well I have no doubt the guys at Zunavision must be loving these comments…and after watching that clip, you can just through me into that same pile that disagrees with Robin.
I totally disagree with the author. This is a far better and non-intrusive solution for video advertising than other ways. Please grow up before posting your critic views in a reputed blog like techcrunch
Absolutely watchable and doesn’t interfere with my experience nearly as much as stopping the video, playing a 15 second commercial or overlaying text ads like YouTube does. A huge exaggeration to call that unwatchable. So far, that’s the best kind of video ad I’ve seen.
While everyone likes money, professional filmed entertainment content (video) is often produced with legal clauses that restrict a distributor or subdistributor from “adding” to the Content — usually, even cuts have guidelines.
Generally, this kind of virtual product placement would not be allowed by most professional content legal agreements — a scene is lit, art direction set, blocked — and, then, some bozo with technology comes along a year later and inserts a Pepsi Logo in the scene?
Won’t fly.
It will will be outright banned in Europe.
For good reason. Ads DO NOT HAVE TO BE EVERYWHERE. They just have to be very good, where they are.
If Ad Agencies and Brands actually dropped a few bucks on really fabulous Creative and production for short-form episodic ads in the Pre-Roll space that ENTERTAINED US, we’d be fine with them.
The problem isn’t with finding a technology format, it’s with moving good money and minds into this space.
Seems to me that the real utility behind this kind of technology is not to add advertisements to the kind of polished content you are talking about. It’s to monetize the tremendous amount of user generated content floating around the web.
That’s the benefit of an automated algorithm like the one they’ve developed. At this point I don’t think anyone is claiming that such a tool could compete with professionally branded content. It’s value is in its ability to be rolled out on a large scale.
The question is whether this sort of advertising will suck the character out of the charming home made videos we all love.
No way Brands are going to approve their image use in context/relationship to Content they haven’t pre-approved.
Something as simple as having a FORD logo appear while a TOYOTA is in frame would never “pass,” never mind more obvious examples.
No one is going to monetize UGC video with this product.
Never.
The other comments re Technology not being the answer are more on the money than anyone would like to think. It’s the brands and agencies who can (and might) make this industry actually advance and stabilize, the technology is just a tool kit, not a magic wand.
Technology not being the answer to video monetization?
OMG. Someone finally speaks the truth.
This platform evolves “brand awareness” to “brand annoyance.” Let’s hope it dies a sudden death.
I don’t see it being a very effective way of selling any companies product… branding yea… but other than that i don’t think it is going to count for much as far as advertisers are concerned. Large companies have strong brands and may not be so concerned with using this product and small companies are concerned with moving product immediately and don’t have the budget to just brand themselves… My analysis, is that this product wont make big waves in the video monetizing arena..
I agree with many of these comments, that ads here have way more potential to be subtle and as opposed to say explicit 15-30 second ads or other kinds of ads we often see in online videos.
Even if it were true that the ads will dent the user experience of video to some extent, it is hard to see why this is a “bad investment decision”. A non-profit TV channel that shows no ads might be better user experience, that a profit making TV channel that shows ads, but the latter is certainly a better investment!
A hypothetical Google that showed no ads would likely offer a better user experience than the real Google, but would be a far worse business and investment.
I disagree with the post. The ad placement looks like it has some real potential and didnt seem too contrived.
I think this trend of non-obtrusive ad embedding in video is great! Zunavision has really great potential to make some inroads here.
Allowing the average youtube uploader to make money off of ads can only incentivize it further for users to create more videos/content for the rest of the users, which can’t be a bad thing
Much, much MUCH better than the obtrusive text ad overlays.
Robin mate, generally I love the blog but I think you have been pretty unanimously shot down on this one. I think a new post answering all these critics would be a good shout. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on having been so unanimously disagreed with.
JB
I love being disagreed with (particularly with arguments), but I’m not changing my opinion over this, I think the idea stinks.
Fair enough, i respect your single mindedness. However, i look forward to coming back and posting here when these guys make an absolute killing on it, and rubbing it in your face. Take care mate!
JB
I only looked at this post because of the headline for those complaining it’s irresponsible. Anyway, great product, won’t work on UGC because brands don’t want to be paired with boring, poorly produced crap = 99.999% of UGC content.
But with mid-range stuff it’s a good “afterthought” way for advertisers to try to monetize say a viral video that’s going supernova, if used sparingly. It’s just like the artificial overlays used in live sports isn’t it?
In the wild, I agree it won’t always be tastefully or as well implemented as the demo vid, but should we ban all pop ups because of the same argument…oh wait, yes we probably should
Could this actively sell anything that isn’t already a cliché brand? It seems to me the reason this works is because I already know Home Depot and its logo. If you were to attempt to advertise some new product to me, I think you would need more than a subliminal logo passing by.
So, perhaps great for the big brands, but not so great for start-ups.
I think ad insertions defeats the very idea of an ad, in that your suppose to notice them.
First things first. I don’t see any reason why u call the effort unwatchable? I believe their effort is worth praises and is commendable.
Secondly, with due respect to your profession of advisor for startups and a blogger, I would like to say that perhaps you have not understood the concept this company is working on. A marketer by profession let me explain what concept these young brains have worked upon. It is called “Subliminal Advertising” in which a consumer is exposed to ads and brand logos in such a manner that they actually don’t realize that they are watching a brand name in the background and yet the name gets registered in their brains. So cluttering the videos with ads is just out of question! U would have not even noticed the Pepsi logo in their video had u not known the purpose of watching that video. But still the red and blue logo of Pepsi gets registered in the subconscious level. (And you might deny this fact, but it has been proven by researches and numerous studies on this concept of advertising)
This concept in itself is such a wonderful one that I believe any brilliant brain ( in this case David Cheriton ) knew where he’s putting his money and sees a bright future for this startup! Obviously he’s not a dumb guy.(have you forgotten about the success story of Sergey Brin and Larry Page). You might be criticizing the idea at this point, but accept it or not, this is a wonderful, great idea. And perfectly deserves another funding from me or any sponsor as well. Thanks for writing this article. Had you not written it, I would have not come out to defend this startup with so much conviction and tenet.
Hats off to Zunavision.
proved through*
I couldn’t help but wonder what popular viral videos might look like with this technology applied:
http://vidiseo....background-ads/
Enjoy!
If ZunaVision makes it to become the pop-up ads in online videos it will be really successful
Robin, like many other commenters here, I disagree with your assessment of ZunaVision. More specifically, I disagree with a follow-up reply you made to a comment — ” I fear what amateurs, who produce their own user-generated videos, will do with the technology (it won’t look as subtle). ”
I was one of those who heard about this early on and signed up for a test drive. I found it quite easy to make very convincing video, as evidenced by the following video:
http://www.yout...h?v=vp4K0_0buOo