VideoNuze Posts

Undoubtedly we've all had the experience at one time or another of watching (or trying to watch) a particular online video, only to have some problem arise that interrupts our experience. To the average user, it's a mystery what might have happened. Is it a problem with my computer? With my personal Internet connection? With my Internet service provider? With the source of the content?

Regardless, it causes user frustration, which can lead to clicking away from the video, possibly never to return. More often than not, the content provider isn't even aware of these user problems. As online video becomes more central to content providers' strategies and P&Ls, inferior user experiences are a growing concern for content providers. And given the vagaries of the Internet and the exploding volume of video being consumed, it's an issue unlikely to go away anytime soon.

That's where Conviva comes in. Conviva gives content providers unprecedented insight into their users' viewing behaviors as well as tools to quickly identify and resolve problems. As Darren Feher, Conviva's new CEO explained to me when I met up with him recently, and in a subsequent demo, the company's studies show that at least 25% of all streams suffer one problem or another. Affected users watch between 30-80% less video than those who don't have problems.

Here's how Conviva works: a small bit of its code is integrated by the content provider alongside the Flash or Silverlight player, whichever is used (in either case no user download involved). Conviva is also integrating with online video platforms (so far just thePlatform, but others to come), so the step is eliminated for the content provider. When deployed, Conviva's code monitors the user's video experience and sends back "heartbeat" reports every 10 seconds to the Conviva console. The console gives the content provider multiple views of their users' experiences, including things like a geographic distribution of current viewing, what player's being used, the average time it's taking to start streaming, the average duration of viewing, the amount of buffering, and so on. Conviva shares the science behind all of this if you're so inclined.

Conviva's secret sauce is mashing up all that in-bound data in real-time and detecting if/where problems exist, and when they do, what the source is. Problems could include buffering on the user's machine, issues with the currently-used CDN, congestion in the local ISP, etc. In addition to these telemetry/analytics services, the company also offers a service it calls "Conviva Distribution" which will seek to remedy problems as they arise based on a set of pre-configured policies. For example, if the user's machine is buffering, Conviva will adjust the stream being sent to a lower bit rate. Or if the CDN being used is the problem, Conviva will switch to another CDN (of the content provider's choosing) in mid-stream, unbeknownst to the user. The content provider gets real-time visibility into what troubleshooting is happening.

In addition to improving the user experience, Darren believes this degree of insight opens up new opportunities for content providers. For example, say there's a higher value set of streams, maybe for a subscription service or a live event. Those streams can be tagged and monitored separately, and have greater resources allocated to them to ensure up-time. Improved visibility into videos that are going viral means their placement on the site and their monetization can be enhanced. Another example is better-informed customer service agents responding to issues specific to a certain set of videos.

Some of what Conviva does is similar to analytics products like Omniture, performance measurement from companies like Keynote and Gomez and some of the reporting CDNs themselves provide to customers. But Conviva seems to bring together user viewing data in a unique and far deeper way than any of these. This week Conviva is helping NBC better understand its Olympics streaming using Silverlight. Conviva also counts Fox, ABC, NFL and others as customers. Conviva started life as Rinera Networks, pursing managed P2P distribution. It has raised $29 million to date from UV Partners, New Enterprise Associates and Foundation Capital.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

As the biggest annual mobile conference - the Mobile World Congress - gets underway today in Barcelona, new initiatives from some of the biggest names in technology underscore the growing importance of smartphones and of mobile video specifically. Among the most important headlines:

- Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer is unveiling Windows Phone 7 which includes Xbox LIVE games, Zune video and audio, plus enhanced sharing. With Phone 7 Microsoft is continuing to vie for position in a crowded smartphone operating system landscape.

- Sony Ericsson is launching "Creations" allowing users to create and publish video, audio and images from their mobile phones in collaboration with professional developers.

- AT&T and 11 other mobile service providers, which together have about 2 billion subscribers, are introducing a new applications store designed to appeal to developers and compete head-on with Apple's App Store.

- Symbian is taking the wraps off its new Symbian 3 open source release, which includes support for HDMI, so that users can connect their Symbian phones to their TVs and watch 1080p video, in effect creating a Blu-ray player in your pocket.

- Intel and Nokia are merging their respective Moblin and Maemo software platforms to create MeeGo, a unified Linux platform to run across multiple devices.

- Adobe is providing an update that by mid-2010, its AIR runtime for building rich applications will be available for Android and that Flash 10.1 will be generally available for various mobile platforms, including Android. In addition, Adobe is announcing that Omniture, which Adobe recently acquired, will add mobile video measurement within its SiteCatalyst product.

While each announcement, plus countless others, have their own significance in the burgeoning mobile ecosystem, the one that's most relevant to mobile video specifically is the coming availability of Flash 10.1, especially for Android. Mobile video has been hampered to date with the lack of Flash player support on iPhones, so its pending launch on Android phones threatens to scramble the relative appeal of these devices for users eager to watch video from sites like Hulu on their smartphones.

Late last week I got a glimpse of how significant Flash on smartphones is from Jeff Whatcott, SVP of Marketing at Brightcove, which today is announcing an optimized version of its platform for Flash 10.1, to be released in the middle of 2010. Adobe has made the beta of Flash 10.1 available to content providers, and Jeff has a video showing how it works with Brightcove for its customers like NYTimes.com and The Weinstein Company.

Brightcove has done 3 things - optimized its template for mobile devices (so navigation and interactivity is seamless on the small screen), enabled auto-detect of mobile devices (so the correct Brightcove template is served) and leveraged cloud-based transcoding (so a mobile-ready H.264 encoded video is streamed). The goal is for Brightcove's customers to be able to deliver an optimized mobile and Flash experience identical to their online experiences, with minimal additional work flow. Brightcove provides the appropriate logic for mobile templates to its customers which they embed in their pages. When a user visits from a mobile device and clicks to watch video, the right Brightcove-powered experience is delivered.

All of the above activity is happening in the shadow of the now-dominant iPhone (and coming release of the iPad) which do not support Flash. As non-iPhone devices - and content providers - progressively incorporate Flash this year, it seems like the smartphone market is poised for another new turn. Flash is the dominant video player and as users look to replicate their online experiences on their smartphones, the void of Flash on iPhones will become even more pronounced. I don't underestimate Steve Jobs or Apple's ability to compete, but this will be one place where it feels like the iPhone will be at a real disadvantage. Apple is keen to prevent Flash from extending its online hegemony to mobile as well, so it will be interesting to see how it chooses to play this.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Veoh declared bankruptcy yesterday and laid off the last of its employees. For those of us who follow the online video industry closely, it wasn't a huge surprise, as Veoh has struggled for a while to find a business model while facing Universal Music Group's relentless copyright challenge (in which Veoh ultimately prevailed). Veoh's failure is a cautionary tale that even an early start, $70 million invested from blue-chip backers and strong user support aren't necessarily enough for success.

Veoh lived in YouTube's shadow from day one, and as it became apparent that UGC was a winner-take-all market which YouTube had won, Veoh scrambled for a new opportunity. It discontinued support for adult content, which alienated a core group of its users. It pushed to be an aggregator for premium video, sealing partnerships with CBS, MTV, Lionsgate, PBS and others, while continuing to attract independent content. But it got squeezed when Hulu appeared on the scene, which quickly became the de facto destination for premium programming. Veoh's last stand was promoting its "Video Compass" browser plug-in offering enhanced video discovery. A neat feature, but clearly not enough to build a company around. R.I.P. Veoh.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

SpotXchange, the performance-based video ad network, took the wraps off its retargeting service this week and shared a case study of a quick service restaurant that used it to achieve dramatically higher conversion results. For those not familiar, retargeting refers to the practice of tracking users' behavior on specific sites and then serving them different ads on these sites (or others) they subsequently visit, depending on what behavior they've exhibited. Re-targeting is common in online display advertising, but as SpotXchange's CEO Michael Shehan explained to me, it's still nascent in online video advertising.

Because of its emotional impact, most video advertising is focused on branding, rather than trying to elicit a direct response, which is of course what search marketing is all about. Retargeting is a tactic to try blending the two benefits. Imagine a user who has poked around at a site promoting trips to the Caribbean, but who didn't click on the "Book Now" link. In subsequent visits to this site or others, video ads promoting Caribbean travel, with messaging like "What are you waiting for" and clear calls to action would help move the user along the buying process. It's still early for video ad retargeting, but to the extent that it can help conversion rates and in turn spur higher CPMs, it will be welcomed in the market.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Sports Illustrated's 2010 swimsuit edition hit the stands this week and video is a central part of its promotion. For the real die-hards, SI has been hosting a series of videos with the models at its Ustream channel. There's also a collection of videos at the site, though I have to say the video quality is surprisingly mediocre. SI has also included "JAGTAGs" in the print issue. When readers take a picture of the JAGTAG with their phone and send them in via MMS, they receive additional behind-the-scenes videos of the models. I give SI credit, they're really turning the swimsuit edition into a multi-media extravaganza. If (and it's a big if) the iPad sells well, SI will be able to do even more next year. I continue to believe that video gives magazines a whole new editorial and advertising opportunity which some like SI are aggressively pursuing.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

In yesterday's post, "Google's Fiber-to-the-Home Plan Could Cost $750 Million or More" I sounded a skeptical note about the company's intention to build out 1 gigabit/second experimental broadband networks to between 50,000-500,000 U.S. homes. Yesterday I was a guest on the Emily Rooney radio show which airs on WGBH 89.7 FM in the Boston area, and I provided further detail on why I think Google's plan is suspect. (Click here to listen; you need to select the Feb. 11th show and my segment starts at about the 21 minute mark.)

While Google's plan has stirred up a lot of conversation, I've yet to talk to anyone who believes it will have much actual impact. I know this will sound cynical, but if Google's real intent with the gigabit experiment is to promote the company's net neutrality position and influence Washington broadband policy-making, I think a far better use of its resources would simply be to spread significant lobbying largesse around to key legislators. Regrettably, that's a much more direct way of getting Washington's attention. Building physical residential fiber networks is very heavy lifting, even more so for a company that's operated strictly in the ether. And the potential cost of this project is daunting, even for Google. If anyone has some real insights into what Google's thinking here, I'd love to hear them.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 49th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for February 12, 2010.

This week Daisy and I dig into the 2009 comScore data that I detailed in my post on Tuesday (slides available for download too). It was a blistering year for online video, with total streams growing from 14.8 billion in Jan '09 to 33.2 billion in Dec '09. All the other relevant metrics also recorded strong growth. I share more details on the numbers and what they mean, focusing particularly on the top 2 sites YouTube and Hulu.

Then Daisy discusses her takeaways from the recent iMedia conference she helped organize. She talks about how brands are trying to break through the clutter, and the role of online video ad networks. Finally, she also discusses recent interviews she conducted with Facebook executives.

Click here to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 55 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

I hope for Google's sake that it understands the cost to build its 1 gigabit/second ultra high-speed fiber network experiment announced today could be $750 million or more. Even for Google that's a very big number, especially considering the company has said it has no intention of actually pursuing this as a business. Of course, we don't know exactly what Google is forecasting its project costs to be, but using Verizon's FiOS numbers wouldn't be a bad starting point to do the math. So here goes.

Google said it would offer the gigabit service to between 50,000 and 500,000 people. Let's start at the high end of that range. Verizon has disclosed that it will spend $18 billion to pass approximately 18 million homes in its footprint with its FiOS fiber-to-the-home network. It's not fair to do a straight average and assume that Verizon is still paying $1,000/home passed given that its costs have no doubt declined over the years. However, in Google's case, since it has approximately zero experience laying fiber in neighborhoods, and won't get the same level of vendor discounts that Verizon enjoys, it is probably fair to assume Google will spend at least $1,000 per home passed. So if it goes all the way to 500,000 homes, that's $500 million in neighborhood build-out costs.

But that's only to wire the neighborhoods, then the service has to be deployed in the homes themselves. That means in-home wiring, on-premise equipment, labor, trucks, insurance, overhead, etc. Estimates for Verizon's per home cost vary, but $500 is in the range often cited. In Verizon's case they're also deploying a set-top box to deliver TV, which Google hasn't announced plans to do (more on that below), so that cost should be deducted. But on the flip side, once again, because Google has never wired a consumer's home (that I'm aware of anyway) it has a steep learning curve ahead of it, meaning its costs could be much higher than Verizon's.

But to make things easy, let's just use the $500 per installed home. So 500,000 homes at $500 apiece, another $250 million for the project. Add it to the $500 million for the neighborhood build-outs and the total is $750 million. This assumes Google decides to go all the way to 500,000. Obviously if it stopped at 50,000, the costs would be a lot lower.

Executives at cable operators and telcos - who build and operate residential networks for a living - are very familiar with modeling network deployment costs. But I wonder, how familiar do you think Google is? Does it know what it has bitten off here? And for what benefit exactly - to test next-generation apps? Hmm. Everyone knows video is the biggest bandwidth hog; an expensive experiment isn't going to change that. And also remember, Google only plans to sell broadband Internet access, not a full bundle with TV or voice. It says it will do this at competitive prices, which means around $50-$100/mo. At these revenue levels and with operating costs that I haven't even mentioned, it's inconceivable to me that there's a positive business case for Google's gigabit experiment.

I'm all for innovation and for pushing competitors along. But Google's experiment really has me scratching my head. No doubt the folks at Verizon, Comcast and other big broadband ISPs are wondering as well. It's one thing for Google to throw $2.5-$3 million at a 52-second Super Bowl ad, but quite another to be contemplating a $750 million experiment with ambiguous goals. What am I missing?

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).