Facebook Video or Youtube?

Since video views on Facebook hit 4bn a day back in April, some industry experts have been heralding how Facebook would soon be usurping YouTube as the web’s primary source of video consumption.

A great proofpoint was when Beyonce launched her behind the scenes footage for the MTV awards on Facebook and YouTube. On Facebook, the video was seen 2.4 million times compared to a few thousand on YouTube.

Facebook being a more socially connected platform and with video posts costing the same as an image post (charged on a CPM basis) why wouldn’t you put up a video and give your consumers the chance to see a more immersive, visually engaging piece of content?

The answer is you should put up video (if you have it) instead of a photo post. Videos are preferred by the Facebook algorithm, meaning amongst other benefits they will achieve higher organic reach. Creatively they offer a richer experience.

However if the VIEW is your main objective, you should NOT be relying on Facebook as your cost effective solution, especially in developing Asia.

Firstly, at the time of writing, all Southeast Asia markets (with the exception of Singapore on WiFi) videos do not autoplay. It means views don’t start racking up like they do in autoplay markets, as the user has to click to play the video (and probably wait a while for the video to start).

The second challenge is the capabilities of many agencies assigned by clients to make digital video content for Facebook (or YouTube for that matter). I see many capable agencies across the region who appreciate the benefit of creating content for the different platforms and how to best maximise viewability, engagement and most importantly move metrics that drive a change in consumer perception and behaviour. Yet, particularly with large MNC’s, it is still often left to the creative agency to produce this content.

I am certainly not naive enough to suggest all creative agencies are not capable, the issue is however it goes against their business model. They have historically made high margins coming up with great consumer insights and creative ideas then spending a lot of the clients money making high production value TVC’s. That was ok when a brand only needed a couple of TV ads a year to broadcast to a single screen audience. Now however brands have a multiplicity of screens and platforms they consume content from everyday everywhere, so the legacy model just doesn’t fit.

Thirdly and most importantly for SEA and India, whilst Facebook video CPM’s are very competitive, CPV’s are typically well in excess of YouTube (and other video distribution platforms). This is fundamentally because videos do not start playing automatically in the feed in developing Asia (see point 1).  If you’re using YouTube TrueView, you are only charged at either 30 seconds or when your video ends (whichever is shorter). So if a consumer gets frustrated at slow speeds after 6 seconds, you’re not footing the bill.

For this reason, we need to think about the implications for Asian markets when we read this big headlines coming out of the US and not just take what we read as red that what is being said in the US and Europe necessarily applies here in the same way. Also whilst the raise of Facebook video is definitely impressive, even in autoplay markets it’s not a case of either / or with YouTube. Both play an important yet different role in your content distribution strategy. YouTube offers an immersive viewing experience with playlists customised to the user and an ecosystem built around video that features premium content ad solutions and shoppable videos. Facebook will drive faster, wider reach build, is connected much better socially and greater accuracy through real identity targeting.

So it’s not a case of either / or, but be aware of the benefits and limitations of both platforms, especially in non-autoplay markets.

lead image from Enzo Varriale