VideoNuze Posts

While broadband video consumption continues to surge, mobile video usage is also now showing strong signs of growth, mainly due to the iPhone's popularity. In fact Nielsen just reported last week that iPhone users are 6 times as likely to watch mobile video as are other mobile subscribers. And for Q4 '08, it reported that 11.2M people watched mobile video, with 51% stating they're new to the medium, viewing for less than 6 months. This is still small compared with the 150M or so people (U.S.) watching broadband video each month, but with an onslaught of new or upgraded video-capable smartphones hitting the market, mobile video is poised to grow rapidly.

All of this is very good news for content providers, for whom this "3rd screen" (after TV and PC) opens up all kinds of new opportunities. Many have been participating to date in carrier-provided (e.g. VCast, FLO TV) and other (e.g. MobiTV) subscription services that have achieved solid growth. But with still advertising the primary business model for many content providers, they've been eager make ad-supported video available to growing base of mobile video users as well.

NBC for example has been pursuing ad-supported mobile video, and last summer, made a big mobile push with its Summer Olympics coverage. Still, as Stephen Andrade, NBC.com's SVP and GM and Robert Angelo director web/mobile, told me recently, inserting ads in its mobile-distributed video has been painfully laborious and grossly underoptimized. To address these issues, NBC recently struck a deal with Kiptronic, an ad serving firm that specialized in non web-based content.

Stephen and Robert explained that their overarching goal with NBC.com video is to "publish once, distribute everywhere" - a goal I often hear from other video content providers as well. However mobile-distributed video was siloed and not fully incorporated into its online/broadband work flows. This was especially problematic on the ad side, where mobile inventory wasn't exposed in DART, on which NBC has standardized its ads. As a result a lot of mobile inventory was unsold, and even when it was sold, advertisers were required to jump through a bunch of new hoops to get their ads to NBC, which itself then "hand-stitched" the ads to its mobile-distributed video.

After looking at multiple solutions to address these issues, NBC chose Kiptronic's kipMobile. Stephen and Robert said the key was kipMobile's flexibility in plugging into NBC's existing content management system and work flow. Now when an NBC producer uploads video, upon preset instructions kipMobile transcodes the HD source file into relevant mobile formats and transfers them to Akamai (NBC's CDN). When a mobile user calls for a video, kipMobile determines which format is best-suited for that particular device, dynamically grabs appropriate ads from DART and combines the two into a file which Akamai then serves to the user.

Beyond dramatically simplifying NBC's work flow, Stephen and Robert are also excited about the new revenue potential, given NBC's booming mobile usage (Q1 '09 video streams jumped to 9.6M from 2.5M in Q1 '08 with mobile page views increasing from 32M to 96M in the same period). Looking deeper into the usage patterns, NBC sees more than half the mobile video usage occurring at home, as users increasingly look at their mobile device as an alternative screen when the TV isn't available. While 75% of NBC mobile usage is iPhone-based today, they're seeing strong adoption by non iPhone devices. Though still early, geo-identification is creating yet another ad opportunity unique to mobile.

NBC and many other content providers are going to be riding the wave of surging mobile video consumption. kipMobile and other monetization solutions will become increasingly important as these content providers seek to unify their online/broadband and mobile work flows and to fully monetize their views.

I have to say, I chuckled a little when I read this morning's Online Media Daily story, "Opening a Pandora's Boxee" about a new report from Laura Martin at Soleil Securities titled "Content's $300B Gamble." I haven't read the report, but the article says that it expresses concern that ad revenues for programs watched online could be 60% lower than when watched on-air, "threatening TV's the TV platform's price umbrella."

The reason I chuckled is because I've been saying the same things for months now (for example, see "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband is Accelerating Demise of Their Business Model" and "OK, Hulu Now Has ABC. But When Will It Prove Its Business Model?") It's nice to see others starting to understand these important issues as well.

Recently I've had a number of conversations with TV and broadband executives who are similarly concerned about what role Hulu is going to play longer term for the broadcast industry, given the current absence of a proven business model for the site. There are some pretty strong feelings out there, ranging from "Hulu is totally misguided and will be the downfall of the broadcast industry" to "the Hulu team is so smart, they're bound to figure it out." One way or the other, with Hulu's growing popularity, I continue to believe that the broadcast industry's fortunes are increasingly tied to Hulu's financial success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Remember "two great tastes that taste great together," the slogan from the classic Reese's ads featuring the mixing of peanut butter and chocolate? Recent developments suggest that independently produced/made-for-broadband video and Video-on-Demand could be another Reese's-like combination, bringing together two disparate worlds that have attracted loyal audiences in an offering that could have significant consumer appeal.

Consider, last week Multichannel News reported that Verizon plans to bring over 7 million broadband video clips from providers like blip.tv, Veoh and Dailymotion to its FiOS service, which users can browse with their set-top boxes. Also last week, AnySource Media, a software company that powers broadband-connected TVs, announced content deals with TheStreet.com, Break.com, Revision3 and Next New Networks, creating hundreds of "virtual VOD channels." And yesterday, Clearleap, a startup technology platform I recently profiled, announced its own deals with blip.tv, Revision3 and Next New Networks, providing content that cable operators can meld with their VOD offerings.

This push among made-for-broadband producers, technology companies and incumbent video service providers is not coincidental. While they each have their own motivations, their alignment could signal a winning proposition for viewers.

For the indie content producers, on-demand access on TVs augments their viewing experience and access to their programming. Given how difficult the environment has become for independents (Daisy had a good piece on this topic yesterday) on-demand access is a real differentiator. For cable operators and telcos, popular indie video gives them a targeted pitch to the tech-savvy, younger audiences who have become loyal fans of indie content. Down the road this group is probably most up-for-grabs for alternative "over-the-top" services, so focusing on defending them is smart. And for technology providers, a big market opportunity looms trying to connect the previously disparate worlds of broadband and VOD.

In fact, in a conversation I had last week with Braxton Jarratt, CEO/founder of Clearleap, he explained that cable operators get all this. They're looking for quality "mid-tail" video from broadband producers, including clips and short-form programs. The company's technology is currently feeding broadband video to a couple hundred thousand cable VOD homes, with a backlog of "double digit" markets pending deployment. Braxton has a lot of content deals on Clearleap's docket, creating a menu for its cable customers to pick and choose from to incorporate into their VOD offerings. Clearleap also offers an ad insertion platform, so indie video can be monetized, not just offered as a value add.

Meanwhile, VOD has long proven itself popular with viewers. Comcast recently announced it has delivered 11B views since it launched VOD. It has continued to augment its library and add more HD titles. While VOD hasn't really been a money-maker itself, it has become a strong part of the digital value proposition and a defensive move against other viewing alternatives. By incorporating popular broadband video into its VOD choices, its appeal is only strengthened.

While the tectonic plates of "convergence" continue to shift, examples of broadband video making its way to the TV continue to happen. TiVo has been at this for a while with its "TiVoCast" service, along with technology providers like ActiveVideo Networks and others. The likelihood for independently-produced broadband video and VOD to get together seems poised to increase.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

As the annual "upfronts" - the TV industry's program preview and ad sales extravaganza - kick off today, the recent financial performance of the network TV industry and the cable TV industry continue to diverge. The cable network model, powered by both ad sales and monthly affiliate fees, is proving very durable in the Great Recession, while the ad-only network TV model has been hammered. One conclusion from these numbers is that Hulu's owners must be pushing to figure out how the site can introduce a paid subscription model.

I pulled together financial information for a select group of companies comparing performance for the recently concluded March 31 quarter vs. a year ago.

As the chart shows, operating income increased for all the cable networks and revenue was up for all of them as well, except Scripps Networks, where it was flat. The press release commentary from these cable networks was the same: affiliate revenues are up, with ad sales soft, but not disastrous. Cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable also fared well in the quarter with both revenue and operating income/cash flow increasing.

Contrast this with the broadcast TV numbers for Disney, Fox and CBS, all of which operate both TV networks and own local TV stations. Disney fared the best, with revenues down 2% and operating income down 38%. CBS followed with revenues down 12% and operating income down 49%. Fox was affected the worst, with revenues down 29% and operating income down 99%. As two examples of purely local station performance, Gannett's broadcasting segment revenues were down 16% and operating income down 24%, with Sinclair's revenues down 19% and operating income down 43% (before an impairment charge). The commentary from all the broadcasters was the same: the ad market is terrible, and they're doing their best to contain costs (meaning laying off staff).

As the TV industry gears up to sell billions of dollars of ad time this week, a clear lesson from the above financial performance is that it is essential to diversify into the paid subscription ecosystem instead of relying on advertising alone. Disney, Fox and NBCU have recognized this for a while and have strongly built up their portfolio of cable networks.

With ad sales in the doldrums, it's hard not to wonder what Disney, Fox and NBCU, the three major owners of Hulu, are thinking about with respect to Hulu's own business model, which is of course currently 100% reliant on ads. I mean, if your incumbent business model is frayed, wouldn't it make sense, when essentially "starting over" online, to aggressively pursue the one that is resilient even in the recession?

Hulu's exclusive online lock on high-quality programming from 3 of the 4 broadcast networks would seem to position the company perfectly for a subscription play. If its owners looked hard at the divergent fortunes of cable vs. broadcast, it seems inevitable we'll see some type of paid subscription offering from Hulu - either directly or through distributors - sometime in the near future.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 16th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for May 15, 2009.

This week I provide some further detail on a post I wrote earlier this week, "Comcast's Sam Schwartz Offers Some Insights into OnDemand Online Authentication Plans." Comcast's and Time Warner Cable's intention to make cable programs available online to their paying subscribers would be a big leap forward for the video and broadband industries. A key piece of how to bring this to life is "authentication" - how to ensure users are who they are, and that they gain access to programs they're supposed to. Sam explains how Comcast is approaching authentication and what we can expect later this year.

Meanwhile Daisy talks about her post on Beet.tv, "CBS Expanding Original Web Video for New Personal Finance Site," which explores how CBS is pulling video together from its online content group, news division and local stations to beef up the video available at its recently-launched financial destination site, CBSMoneyWatch.com. Also, with the demise of TV Week as a print publication, Daisy talks about the range of industry coverage she's providing at other online and print pubs.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 40 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Amid the steady stream of sneak peek press releases I'm sent each day, one I received late Tuesday from Tremor Media, the video ad network and monetization platform, caught my eye.

The release cited March data from comScore indicating that Tremor's network now had potential reach of 137M unique users and 57M unique video viewers (both unduplicated). The former number is from comScore's Media Metrix Ad Focus report and the latter from its Video Metrix Ad Focus report.

In particular, the latter number stuck out because I recalled comScore numbers from just 2 weeks ago that revealed the viewership for the top 10 video sites. Google (YouTube) was #1 with about 100M viewers, and Fox Interactive (mainly MySpace) was #2 with about half the amount, 55M.

comScore's new data meant that Tremor's potential reach was second only to YouTube's actual reach. And if you make the argument that much of YouTube's viewership is still UGC, while Tremor's network focuses solely on premium publishers, Tremor would be #1 in potential reach against premium video, a key point of the release. It's also worth noting that 2 other video ad networks focused on premium publishers also show up in comScore's top 10 for potential unique viewers- BrightRoll with 56M and YuMe with 41M.

First, it's important to read these numbers carefully, as there's a little bit of apples vs. oranges going on. The Video Metrix Ad Focus report combines actual viewership by the destination sites (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, Yahoo, Hulu, etc.) with potential viewership by the ad networks. The report clearly denotes what's considered "potential." If I understand it correctly then, the comScore numbers for ad networks should be read as "here's the total potential audience of viewers you have access to." However, what percentage of this accessible audience actually gets an ad served by the ad network is only known by the ad network itself.

VideoNuze readers will recall there's been a lot of sensitivity around these comScore numbers, since last summer a minor kerfuffle broke out over comScore's ranking of YuMe's traffic. Initially it attributed MSN's full audience to YuMe, but later revised YuMe's ranking down by only included pages against which YuMe ads could be served. comScore also stated that on an ongoing basis it would report "potential" reach for ad networks based on documented agreements and "actual" reach for those networks that included certain tags. The new Tremor numbers reflect this potential reach measurement.

It's also important to remember that comScore filters its data to arrive at unduplicated reach. As I understand it that means that if for example Tremor had USAToday.com and Fox.com in its network (note Tremor doesn't disclose its publishers except to its advertisers) and a single user watched video at both sites, the user would only be counted once in Tremor's potential reach. I don't know how exactly comScore de-duplicates viewership, but let's assume it's accurate.

The extent of Tremor's reach (along with BrightRoll's and YuMe's), particularly against premium video is an encouraging sign. I've written in the past that key inhibitors of TV ad dollars moving over to online video are both scale and various friction points in the ad buying process. The comScore data demonstrates that a cluster of ad networks is emerging that can deliver against TV ad buyer's reach expectations, while adding new targeting and reporting capabilities unavailable in TV. There have also been recent enhancements to these companies' reporting/analytics (particularly around GRPs) to synch up with TV ad buyers' expectations.

I've written a number of times (here, here, here) over the last few months about the recently disclosed plans from Comcast and Time Warner to deliver cable programs online to their paying subscribers. In general I'm a big fan, as these plans offer the potential for users to watch cable shows online that are mostly available through in-home set-top boxes only today. I'm also encouraged that cable operators seem to be going on the offensive to satisfy their subscribers' desire for anytime, anyplace access to content they're already paying for. Being offensive will certainly help mitigate "cord-cutting" tendencies.

However, if there's a fly in the ointment in these plans, it's how the cable subscriber will be "authenticated," or recognized as qualified to access that particular content at the web site where he/she's trying to watch. This is a crucial step because again, these cable operators only plan to provide access to paying subscribers of their traditional video services. To understand this how Comcast is approaching authentication, last week I spoke to Sam Schwartz, Comcast Interactive Media's EVP of Strategy and Development, and president of Comcast Interactive Capital, who is a point man for the company's OnDemand Online initiative.

Overall, Sam explained that the company is still working through how best to authenticate online users and keep content secure. Users will need to log in and then have their credentials checked to ascertain what programming they're entitled to. So the crucial step here is opening up traditional cable billing systems for access by web sites serving up the desired content. This isn't trivial because these billing systems weren't originally built to do this. Therefore there's a need for some type of entitlement database which must be pinged with the user's credentials to verify content access.

To prevent leakage in the authentication process Sam said the company is studying best practices from other digital providers. iTunes is one model which limits content availability to 5 devices. Alternatively, if access is within the home, then Comcast, as a large broadband ISP, would be able to verify IP addresses. Yet another method would be to require a credit card, which would disincent credentials sharing by subscribers. Two Comcast companies, thePlatform and Plaxo are playing key roles in supporting both the content management/distribution and user identification.

All of this is magnified because Comcast's programming partners rightfully expect that any content Comcast is distributing will be done so in a fully secure manner. In the digital TV realm, this has traditionally been handled by the set-top box and "conditional access" software in the headend (a cable operator's distribution hub). Paid online services which are connected to incumbent video services present new issues which free ad-supported sites like Hulu and YouTube haven't had to address.

Sam said pulling all of this together has been a major project, involving 100+ people throughout the company. The complexity becomes quickly apparent as this initiative touches so many different areas - video product management, technology, operations, billing, content acquisition, customer service, online media, etc. Partly as a result of this complexity, Sam explained that at the outset simply enabling its own sites like Fancast or Comcast.net is the goal. Other 3rd party sites may come on board later, only after the model is proven in.

Though it's evident that Comcast is taking a "walk before we run" approach, Sam emphasized the company is moving this along as fast as possible. Its goal is to be in the market this year with OnDemand Online. While the utopian gadflies are already decrying these kinds of paid access services, I think they balance multiple interests well, and will help to preserve the multi-billion dollar video value chain from decomposing into a free but profitless quagmire (like other media sectors have already). If all this ends up working properly, it will be a major milestone for the video industry in general and broadband video specifically.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Side note: I was also encouraged to see Time Warner move Turner Broadcasting System veteran Andy Heller to vice chairman yesterday overseeing its networks' push for "TV Everywhere." His role as champion of TV Everywhere gives the initiative added heft. Still, the bottom line here, as explained above, is that the back-end technology must be in place before any programming starts to flow. I hope he has this priority in his new role.)

Jambo Media has moved video syndication another step forward with the official release of "Jambocast," an all-in-one video syndication platform. Jambocast, which is available for white-label licensing, essentially allows vertically-focused web sites to build out their own private video syndication networks. For web site that either don't have their own video, or want to augment what they do have, syndicating video into their sites is a great option. Jambo's CEO Rob Manoff recently explained to me how Jambocast works.

Jambocast follows on the company's success with its own video syndication network, Jambo Video Network (JVN). According to comScore, JVN ranked #18 in March '09, with 9M unique visitors and 37M video streams (U.S. only). As Rob noted, JVN has taught the company a ton about what's required to build and run a syndication network, lessons it has incorporated into the development of Jambocast.

First and foremost is the importance of offering a comprehensive solution. Rob explained that what he sees as unique about Jambocast is that it offers each piece part of what a syndicator would need - a "video syndication network-in-a-box." Customers get a customizable video player, ad management (which is also integrated with 3rd party ad networks), publisher/syndication management, content management and tracking/reporting. Jambocast's goal is to make it easy to get up and running and start making money. As Rob says, "we're a bunch of ad network guys building a video network with an ad network mentality."

Jambocast also responds to what content providers have been telling Jambo for a while: they want full control of where their content resides. Though embedding has become highly popular, Rob sees Jambocast as the "anti-embed alternative," for content providers who want hyper-distribution, but without risk of their brands ending up in undesirable places. Jambocast's syndication management features give web sites the tools to offer 3rd party content providers comfort.

Jambocast is getting quick traction - customers on board include Mondo Media (adult animation), KidsTube (video aggregator for kids), a large pet-related site (undisclosed for now) plus 6-8 others signed up, but also not yet disclosed.

Jambocast is a classic example of how syndication is continues to permeate the broadband video ecosystem. Though it's distinct, I'd put Magnify.net and KickApps in a somewhat similar orbit, with the former placing more emphasis on UGC and the latter more on social media features. Yet all are part of what I refer to as the Syndicated Video Economy, which continues to grow in influence. Having already made its own syndication network profitable, Jambo is now also going to help others do the same.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(note: Jambo Media is a VideoNuze sponsor)