Global ad agency giant Universal McCann recently described online video as this year’s digital darling.

That’s all very well, but that doesn’t make online video easy.

Jerry Bader of MRPwebmedia hit the nail on the head a few months back when he posed the question on LinkedIn:

“Web video is quickly becoming the must-have content presentation vehicle. Considering its increasing importance to online content delivery, what has stopped you: cost, concept, implementation, the right producer, or just don’t see the value?”

Here’s what we said at the time (and it’s as relevant as ever today):

Web video has definitely increased in importance as a content delivery mechanism (we leave it to others to debate its merits as a “must-have”). However if we are to consider using video as a professional option (rather than in the ‘boy bites dog’ fashion of YouTube), then there are a number of issues to address.

The first is content.

It’s one thing to write an essay or a document that reads well, a far more ambitious undertaking to provide the same information in video form. We are all conditioned to expect professional production values in videos thanks to decades of network television — to communicate via video we need to be similarly professional.

That means, in effect, providing compelling content in both audio and video format.

That, in turn, means a need for creativity in performance art, not just words. And skilled hands in the production of the video. And on-screen talent, lest we be judged amateurs based on our acting capabilities or lack thereof.

So, for example, an answer such as this represents thought and a relatively few minutes work on the keyboard. To provide an answer by way of a video would require:

• a scenario (Scene 1: Blogger thrust on camera, proves poor speaker. Cut to angry crowds. Scene 2: Blogger given media training. Scene 3: set built. Scene 4: Blogger to camera, in extreme closeup. Makeup artist rushes over to damp down sweating, cover up zits …. etc etc)

• a script
• a setting
• production facilities
• on-screen talent
• editing expertise
• blah blah

At this point, the payoff isn’t sufficient to warrant the resources and upskilling required.

We have to move beyond the mundane everyday communications, saving video for the big events. Or else agree not to judge a book by its video ….

Has YouTube lowered the bar?

No. Not for professional communications. If we see a baby biting his brother’s finger on YouTube (129 million views and counting), we may smile and consider it entertainment, but we don’t attribute any significant brand values to that event. Nor do we criticise the parent capturing the moment (not for his/her videographing skills, anyway). That’s not what’s important.

On the other hand, if you’re trying to promote your travel agency or sporting goods store online, you’ll be quickly branded amateurish if you don’t achieve the expected quality level for a ‘professional’ operation.

No problem if you’re trying to come across as folksy and down-to-earth, just one of the fellas. But those attributes seldom work, certainly not in big city businesses. Fail.

In summary: online video may be hot, but it ain’t easy (and probably isn’t cheap either).

This Saturday’s World Cup Football qualifier between England and the Ukraine will be shown exclusively online in the UK for the first time, according to MediaWeek.

Live TV rights for the fixture, which takes place in Kiev at the weekend (on 10 October) were previously held by Setanta, which exited the UK earlier this year

However international football rights agency Kentaro has been unable to resell the rights to a UK broadcaster.

Instead, the game will now be shown live online at Ukrainevengland.com for £4.99, a fee which will increase during the week to a maximum rate of £11.99 for purchases made on the day of the game.

Kentaro has appointed online sport specialist Perform to market and stream the match online on a pay-per-view basis.

The game will also be shown via the websites of The Sun, The Times, News of the World, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Star and The Independent.

Virgin Media and Orange will also air the game.

James Richardson will present the live coverage, alongside ex-England manager and Notts County director of Football Sven Goran Eriksson. Commentary will come from David Pleat and Tony Jones.

In addition, Kentaro has also struck a deal to screen the game in key cinemas across the country.

What does it take to make a hot viral video — and what sorts of viewership numbers can you expect to gather if you succeed?

Ad Age Digital has just begun to publish a list of the week’s Top Ten Viral Videos, powered by data compiled by Visible Measures. For the week commencing 30 March 2009, the Top Three Viral Videos were:

1. Samsung’s “Extreme Sheep LED Art” (The Viral Factory), which attracted 1,662,892 views for the week (and, at the time we write this, has clocked up a cumulative 6,101,637 views, and 17,900 ratings averaging five stars, on YouTube alone);
2. Geico’s “It’s the Gecko/ Numa Numa” (The Martin Agency, Horizon Media) 1,409,322 views for the week, cumulative total on YouTube 1,318,532 views;
3. and T-Mobile’s “T-Mobile Dance” (Saatchi & Saatchi, MediaCom), 730,405 views for the week (10,049,725 views on YouTube).

So how did they get those sorts of numbers? We’re still completing our research on the subject (sign up for our newsletter and we’ll let you know when we’ve figured it all out), but here are some quick insights into the secrets of viral video marketing from Kevin Nalts (creator of more than 680 online videos, viewed more than 35 million times):

• Your video needs a hot title and an appealing thumbnail description
• Keep it short, short, short
• Make it topical and timely
• Don’t over-produce it
• Make the intro engaging
• Make the clip funny, sexy, quirky or shocking (or all four)
• Go for a surprise ending

Want more than that? Listen to Idris Mootee, CEO and Chief Strategist of Idea Couture, who offered up his own very useful insight into matters viral on the FutureLab blog:

• Creating the brand connection.
  This is very important; a concept should not be forced because it fits a brand. Rather, a brand should be fit into a great concept. This is where the art comes in. How do you align the positive attributes of the viral videos to the desirable brand attributes to further strengthen them.
• Size does and doesn’t matter.
  People often think that a viral video needs to be short 15-30 seconds, that’s really not the case. It doesn’t matter, as long as it is not 30 mins. So whether it is 30 seconds or 90 seconds, I don’t think it makes a difference. It is the content.
• The shock factor myth.
  Well sure it attracts attention, but the best viral doesn’t need to resort to using this. Having said that, it is always important that a viral video will allow and attract viewers to investigate further. Lots of folks think the shock factor is the key viral component, may be for very small teenage segments. Most people don’t care.
• Don’t create a mini TV commercial.
  That’s guaranteed to fail and not getting viral. Don’t make an outright ad: if a video feels like an ad, it reduces the likelihood that viewers would share it unless it’s really amazing in production value.
• Truly authentic user stories.
  People are interested in regular people; the cool factor lies in those little things with those everyday folks. Even those they are professionally produced, keep everything as authentic as possible. If you idea involves real life stories, it is even better.
• Allow voting.
  Let the public vote for what they like or whatever makes sense. This will get the bloggers buzzing to their readers. This is the most powerful participation driver. Everyone loves competition.
• Be ‘good’.
  People who believe in a cause tend to be more proactive in spreading the word. They can be fiercely vocal about what they believe it. Leverage that behavior and dig deep to find the ‘good’ in your brand.
• Encourage ‘remix’.
  There are lots of creative people out there, and I’m sure many of them would be delighted to add or remix their ideas. Make that easy for them.

So should you go viral? Many ad agencies seem to think so (although the thinking is still pretty loose and in many cases accountability is definitely lacking). In August/September 2008 Feed Company conducted an online survey of 40 executives at the top US creative ad agencies and media buying firms. This is what they concluded:

• Brands and agencies are both aware of and interested in viral video.
  Eight in ten marketing and advertising professionals are “very familiar” with viral video, and just under half of agency clients (48.8%) are “interested” in viral video, with 23.3% expressing high levels of interest.
• Viral video campaigns are likely to produce desirable results.
  The majority of respondents (56%) reported being “pleased” with the results of a viral video campaign. Less than 3% say they have been displeased.
• Marketers still have not established a benchmark for success.
  Some 27.8% say a video must get more than one million views to be considered a success, but 22.2% would say so if it was viewed 100,000 times, 250,000 times, or 500,000 times.
• Advertisers are seeking more accountability.
  Approximately 95% of those surveyed indicated the need for improvement in the area of tracking and reporting effectiveness of campaigns.
• Exponential views and brand engagement are greatest benefit.
  More than nine out of ten (92.3%) marketers labeled “exponential views” as the leading benefit to viral video marketing, followed closely with 87.2% choosing “brand engagement.” Online reach and the brand seen as “forward thinking” were also rated as highly positive factors.
• Budgets for viral video will stay strong.
  Ad budgets for 2009 are under pressure, but those designated for viral video marketing are growing. A substantial 70% of agencies reported an intent to increase their budgets in the category.

Viral marketing is seen as a holy grail, maximum impact for limited effort. Of course, the true grail has proven somewhat elusive as well ….