What I think my good friend Rich Dettmer has overlooked (in addition to the fact that when a tree falls in the forest it does, indeed, make a sound) is what we speak of so often when explaining the difference between B2B and B2C – the minimization, if not elimination, of impulse-buying. With a handful of notable exceptions, the value of “live” is minimal. I may not be in front of a screen when Usain Bolt races in the Olympics, but I’ll catch the video in short order. And the video I watch will likely skip the pre-race warm-ups and any false starts, which are decidedly NOT what I am tuning in to see. For B2B marketers, it is much better to invest in video capabilities that can be edited to create a polished, focused “on demand” version of key messages than to risk all that can go wrong with “live.”
If those video capabilities end up with an ad that can be inserted mid-roll into a live stream, targeted either contextually or demographically to the right audience, that’s a big benefit. But it’s the existence of the video message that is the key – since it can then be placed in front of the right audience with few constraints. The “live” feature may help bring the right audience, but for now I believe it is a capability seeking a role beyond expanding what public access television provides.
Arrange a live event, and try (and hope) that the right audiences shows up? I think that’s asking too much, unless, of course the live video footage is then edited into a compelling video message, deliverable through any number of channels.