VideoNuze Posts

The NY Times is reporting that Yahoo is ramping up its original broadband video offerings, with the impending launch of "Spotlight to Nightlight," a new series showcasing celebrity moms, hosted by former Miss USA Ali Landry and sponsored by State Farm Insurance. The new show highlights how far Yahoo has evolved from its era of failed dreams of grandeur directed by former Yahoo Media Group head Lloyd Braun. Before you say, "ugh, its Yahoo, they'll never succeed with video," I'd suggest that their new plan has some merit.

As we all know, Yahoo has suffered through all kinds of recent challenges and significant management turnover. But it is still one of the most popular online brands - the 2nd most-trafficked web site with over 146 million monthly unique visitors, the #3 search engine (now just behind YouTube) with a 21% market share and operator of the second-largest ad network behind Platform A.

Despite these strengths, I've thought Yahoo has been somewhat unimpressive in the video area. It has focused heavily on aggregating and distributing others' content in a bland, mechanical manner though still managing to become a highly popular video streaming destination. I've sometimes wondered whether anyone really "owned" the video experience at Yahoo or whether it had been diffused over so many managers that it had been orphaned along the way. It's not been uncommon for me to see broken links, repetitious ads, 30 second pre-rolls adjacent to under 1 minute clips, and other annoyances that can quickly turn off users.

In the midst of this confusion, a bright spot on the original video front has been "Primetime in No Time" a short, energetic TV recap show that has gained a sizable following plus other series in specific verticals like sports and finance. On the flip side, in a sign of the mixed internal signals, it also killed "The 9" a recap show of top online content, which had both a following and a sponsor in Pepsi.

With "Spotlight to Nightlight" Yahoo seems to be further recognizing that it is sitting on mounds of data that, if properly analyzed, can reveal lots of clues about what kinds of programming would match up with its users' and advertisers' interests. Given Yahoo's size and resources, there are few online companies that should be better tuned in to what's hot and could be the strong basis for a new series.

Yahoo's opportunity is to capitalize on this information by creating short, upbeat (and humorous where possible) series that appeal to users' demonstrated interests. It should then promote the shows like crazy in appropriate vertical areas of its site (as "Spotlight to Nightlight" will be with Yahoo's "OMG"), and adjacent to relevant searches.

Recently I wrote about Demand Media, which has built a "content factory" by doing many of these same kinds of things. Yahoo could create a stable of inexpensively produced but high-quality broadband-only series that can instantly find their natural audiences. Advertisers looking for adjacency to premium video that aggregates sought-after audiences, would soon follow.

New Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz has a lot of issues on her plate to resolve, but also plenty of opportunities. Video is a big one that has been largely untapped by the company. If Yahoo builds a cohesive video strategy that relies on the significant data it has unrestricted access to, it may finally be on a winning video path.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Happy Friday the 13th...

Below is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for March 13, 2009.

This week Will adds some detail to his recent post, "Clarifying Comcast's and Time Warner's Plans to Deliver Cable Programming via Broadband to Their Subscribers." These plans are not fully locked in, but since there have been a lot of questions about them, it seemed worthwhile to provide a quick update.

Also, Daisy discusses a recent article she wrote about Clearleap, a new broadband-to-the-TV technology company that recently announced its platform. The whole broadband-to-the-TV area has been really hot recently and we expect a lot more activity to come.

Since this is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, we thought it would be a good time to check in with listeners and get you reactions. What do you think of the format and length? We thought the most meaningful content approach would be to provide some additional insight about what we've written recently, but does this feel fresh and substantive enough? Would it be better if we discussed recent market activities that we haven't necessarily written about yet? Or maybe answered some listener questions? Or something else?

The podcast format is very flexible and Daisy and I view the VideoNuze Report as a work in progress. We'd love to hear what listeners think and how we can change and improve. Either drop me an email (wrichmondATvideonuze.com) or leave a comment.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 29 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

The first round games of the NCAA's March Madness are a week from today and the hype surrounding the tournament is in full swing. But the tournament itself is no longer the only story; the broadband-delivered "March Madness on Demand" has become a big part of the 3 week experience as well. Since converting from a subscription service to a free, ad-supported format 4 years ago, CBS Sports and the NCAA have made MMOD a huge winner, providing plenty of lessons for others. These include:

1. Under the right circumstances, free with ads beats paid with subscriptions. It was big news back in '06 when CBS converted MMOD from subscription access to free, ad-supported. In retrospect, it looks like a stroke of genius. The $30M in ad revenue MMOD will generate for CBS this year would have required 1.5 million of the old $20 subscriptions. Hitting that subscription number would have been miraculous. With the free model, instead of allocating scarce marketing dollars and resources on acquiring temporary subs, CBS can focus on promoting the games, selling ads and striking high-quality distribution deals - 3 things that networks do very well. Free vs. paid will be a perpetual debate for premium video, but solid market research, well-thought out business cases and a willingness to experiment can lead to big payoffs, as MMOD has shown.

2. Well-executed online access burnishes the brand. Following the above, MMOD is a huge win for the CBS brand and for the NCAA. Fans love MMOD and appreciate the easy online access. Of course, anything for free is always well-received, especially in a down economy. Large audiences mean lots of cross-promotional opportunities for other CBS programs. Abundant media coverage means the brand gets tons of free promotion. And the list goes on.

3. Advertisers love being a part of engaging, high-quality online experiences. The increase in MMOD ad revenue from $4M in '06 to $30M this year speaks to advertisers' interest. It's no surprise that big brands are increasingly challenged to access large target audiences and have their messages heard (that's why the Super Bowl maintains its massive appeal). MMOD offers an exciting, immersive and interactive avenue to augment brands' on-air tournament spending. MMOD gives CBS ad sales teams a formidable differentiator. As AdAge notes, that helped CBS retain wounded GM as an advertiser, while the company dropped the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards from its media plan.

4. User experience matters, a lot. MMOD is a hugely complex undertaking for CBS, but delivering a positive experience that lives up to the hype is ultimately what matters. In the past, not knowing how many simultaneous users to expect or what bandwidth would be required, CBS cautiously proceeded with its so-called "waiting room" model. That's now been eliminated, and everyone can watch on-demand. This year CBS is also offering a high quality or "HQ" option, powered by Silverlight. Overall, CBS's player is clean and easy to use. My experience in the past has been that the ads are obvious, but not overwhelming. All of this registers with users and contributes to a positive experience.

5. The side dishes complement the main meal. There's no question that the games themselves are the primary attraction. But CBS has been clever in augmenting the games with lots of other stuff that contribute to the overall experience. For example, if you go to the site now, you can see highlights of past championship games. Then on Sunday will come the selection show. There's a Facebook integration, widgets and the "Selection Sunday Challenge." And this year CBS is also introducing mobile access, albeit for a fee. Add it all up and CBS has been able to build a far larger franchise around MMOD than just offering the games themselves.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

We're less than a week away from VideoNuze's Broadband Video Leadership Evening, on Tuesday, March 17th in New York City. There are over 230 people now registered and I expect it to be a high-energy evening of networking with industry colleagues and learning from our panel of top-tier digital media executives. (And yes, in honor of St. Patrick's Day, Guinness will be available at the bar...)

Lots of great media and technology companies will have people in attendance. In addition to the list I posted last week, companies represented include: Akamai, Babelgum, blinkx, Clearleap, Dolby, FAST, 5Min, Google, HealthiNation, Hearst-Argyle, Kaltura, NeuLion, Ogilvy, Sezmi, Starz, thePlatform, Tremor Media and many others.

We'll start with a "VideoSchmooze" cocktail/networking reception from 6pm - 7:30pm, followed by a panel discussion I'll moderate from 7:30pm - 9pm titled, "Broadband Video '09: Building the Road to Profitability." The panel includes:

• Albert Cheng, EVP, Digital Media, Disney/ABC Television Group
• Greg Clayman, EVP, Digital Distribution & Business Development, MTV Networks
• John Edwards, President and CEO, Move Networks
• Karin Gilford, SVP, Fancast and Online Entertainment, Comcast Interactive Media
• Daina Middleton, SVP, Moxie Interactive, Publicis Groupe

Click here to learn more and register now!

The event will be held at the Hudson Theater on West 44th Street just off Times Square. NATPE, VideoNuze's partner since launch, is on board for the event. And I'm extremely grateful to lead sponsor Move Networks and supporting sponsors AnySource Media, ExtendMedia, Horn Group, mPoint and PermissionTV who are making the evening possible.

I've set up a Facebook group so you can start meeting other attendees and also keep up to date on all the recent broadband news we'll discuss on the panel. Yesterday I contributed a column to MediaPost which outlines the challenges and opportunities broadcast networks face in the broadband era, a key topic of our discussion.

I hope to see you there...

Click here to learn more and register now!

Last Friday, Leichtman Research Group released is quarterly roundup of broadband subscription growth sorted by major cable operators and telcos. LRG, run by my former colleague and friend Bruce Leichtman, has long been the bible for many in the industry for tracking broadband subscriber growth. LRG's numbers continue to demonstrate why broadband video has become such an exciting new distribution medium while adding context to Comcast's and Time Warner's recent moves to begin making online access to cable programming available to their subs.

To highlight a few key numbers, at the end of '08 the top broadband ISPs had 67.7 million subscribers, with top cable operators accounting for about 54.5% and top telcos the remainder. Top cable operators continue to maintain their edge in subscriber acquisition as well, grabbing 59% of all new broadband subs in '08.

And no surprise to anyone, with the rising penetration levels, the annual increases in total new subs have continued to slow: in '06 top cable and telco ISPs added 10.4M subs, in '07, 8.5M subs and in '08, 5.4M subs. Still, in the teeth of harsh economic downturn in Q4 '08, these ISPs were still able to add over 1M subs, growth that contracting industries like autos, retail and home-building would no doubt have killed for.

Broadband has long since become a utility for many American homes, a service that is as much expected as essentials like electricity and plumbing. A key reason broadband video is enjoying the success it is owes to the fact that broadband subscriptions have been driven for other reasons (e.g. faster email access, music downloads, always-on connectivity) over the years. Video has only recently become an additional and highly-valued benefit, which broadband ISPs now expect will drive interest in faster (and more expensive) broadband service plans.

Broadband's importance to the cable industry is demonstrated by the chart below showing #1 cable operator Comcast's performance over the last 2 years, which I originally posted on last November ("Comcast: A Company Transformed).

Note the company has now lost basic cable subscribers for 7 straight quarters, even as it continues to add digital video subs and broadband subs (and voice subs) at a healthy clip. I expect these trend lines will continue in their current pattern. No doubt this is the kind of picture that has helped spur Comcast (and #2 operator Time Warner Cable) to begin planning online distribution of cable programming, a feature that I believe will provide highly popular. Operators are in a tremendous position to capitalize on the shifting interests of their subscribers.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Last week a publicly-traded communications-equipment company invited me to speak to a group of investment analysts it had assembled for its annual "investor day." In the Q&A session following my presentation I took a question that I'm not often asked, nor do I give much thought to: "10 years from now, who will be the video industry's winners and losers?"

It's a far-reaching question that doesn't lend itself well to an impromptu answer. Also, while it's great fun to prognosticate about the long run, I've found that it's also a complete crapshoot, which is why my focus is much shorter-term. I've long-believed there are just too many variables in play to predict with any sort of certainty what might unfold 10 years into the future.

Still, as I've thought more about the question, it seems to me that there are at least 5 main factors that will influence the video industry's winners and losers over the next 10 years:

1. Penetration rate of broadband-connected TVs -There's a lot of energy being directed to "convergence" technologies and devices which connect broadband to the TV. Broadband to the TV is a big opportunity for video providers outside the traditional video distribution value chain. It's also a minefield for those who have dominated the traditional model, such as broadcasters. The Hulu-Boxee spat demonstrates this. A high rate of adoption of broadband to the TV technologies will result in more openness and choice for consumers. That's a good or a bad thing depending on where you currently sit.

3. How well the broadcast industry adapts to broadband delivery - The broadcast TV industry generates about $70 billion of ad revenue annually. But both broadcast networks and local stations are on the front lines of broadband's change and disruption, putting a chunk of that ad revenue up for grabs. With broadband-to-the-TV coming, broadcast networks must figure out how to make broadband-only viewership of their programs profitable on a stand-alone basis (i.e. when the online viewing is the sole viewing proposition). Local stations face bigger challenges. As the Internet was to newspapers, broadband delivery is to local stations. They face a slew of new competitors for ad dollars and audiences, while losing their exclusive access to network programming. To what extent they're able to reinvent themselves will determine how much share they hold on to and how much others peel off.

4. How aggressively today's video providers (cable/telco/satellite) and new paid aggregators pursue broadband video delivery - While anecdotes about "cord-cutting" will no doubt only intensify, the reality is that if today's video providers adapt themselves to broadband realities, they are likely to be as strong or stronger 10 years from now. The recent moves from Comcast and Time Warner are encouraging signs that the cable industry gets that being ostriches about the importance of broadband delivery is a road to nowhere. Consumers expect more flexibility and value; incumbents are in a tremendous position to deliver. Ownership of local broadband access networks that serve consumers' unquenchable bandwidth demands is going to be a very good business to be in. That all said, new paid aggregators like Netflix, Amazon and Apple could well steal some share if they aggressively beef up their content, offer a competitive user experience and deliver a better value. They could have a major impact on online movie distribution in particular.

5. The level of investment in startups - The venture capital industry, crucial to the funding of early-stage innovative technology companies, is going through its own turmoil. The industry's limited partners have been wounded by the market's drop, causing VCs to raise smaller funds (if they're even able to do this), limit the number of investments they make, and shy away from betting on big transformational startups. Plenty of strong video technology companies are still successfully raising money, but it's harder than ever. Lots of potentially promising ideas are going begging. The length and severity of the economic slowdown will have a big effect on just how much funding new technologies that can potentially reshape the video landscape over the next 10 years.

So there are 5 factors to consider in how the video landscape shapes up over the next 10 years. Now back to the here and now..

What's your crystal ball say? Post a comment now.

Adap.tv is announcing its upgraded OneSource 2.0 ad management platform this morning. The Adap team explained to me on Friday what's new in this release.

OneSource 2.0 builds on the product's initial vision of improving ad optimization while reducing complexity. Adap noted that the main pain point that its customers are expressing especially given the weak economy, is the need to spend more time focused on selling ads and less time on operationalizing the ad relationships. The need to improve their ROIs through both higher ad rates and higher fill rates is driving them to source ads from multiple sources and to want to refine those sources to find the optimal mix. All of this increases implementation and reporting complexity.

OneSource 2.0's new features are meant to address these issues. The video provider can now accept ad tags from virtually any source, and do so more efficiently. In addition, through a management dashboard, the provider's ad ops manager can specify and adjust the fill order for the ad sources on a per ad basis. That means that for a specific piece of content there can be one queue for pre-rolls and another for overlays or for two pieces of content there can be two different pre-roll queues, and so on.

By sequencing multiple sources, OneSource creates a failover system so that an ad is likely always served, thereby increasing fill rates. Adap pointed to one provider who has been able to increase their fill rate from 20% to 70%.

In addition, OneSource 2.0 allows reporting by revenue source, video positions and geographic regions, which, at least in the demo screens that I saw, looked quite powerful. The ad ops manager can track performance on a daily basis and re-order sources accordingly. Lastly, there are enhanced tools for managing ads when content is syndicated, along with performance reporting.

I continue to see OneSource in a competitive set with Tremor Media's Acudeo ad management system, and also to some extent with Panache and FreeWheel. All of these systems are, in one way or another trying to improve video content providers' monetization and/or syndication efforts. Adap notes that by not also operating an ad network, it can be more agnostic about ad sources and solely focused on its technology. It now has 300+ publishers on board, helping monetize "high 100s of millions" of impressions per month, which it said is a 10x increase from OneSource's launch in May '08.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Summary:

What: Major cable operators Comcast and Time Warner intend to offer broadband access to cable programs for the first time, but they have provided few specifics to date, thereby creating a swirl of confusing interpretations. This post seeks to clarify their plans.

Important for whom: Cable networks, other content providers, cable operators, consumers

Potential benefits: Flexible access and first-time online availability of popular cable programs.

Background

Since the WSJ reported two weeks ago today that Comcast and Time Warner Cable plan to offer online access to cable TV programming to their subscribers, there has been a significant amount of confusion and misinterpretation about what these companies are actually planning to do. Absent official statements from either company, there has been an ongoing debate about whether cable operators, who want to defend their traditional model, were moving to choke off the largely open access to broadband video that users have grown accustomed to.

Things got more confusing this past Monday when AdAge ran an interview ("TV Everywhere -- As Long As You Pay For It") with Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner Inc. in which he elaborated on a company initiative dubbed "TV Everywhere" that major cable network owners such as Time Warner Inc. Viacom, NBCU, Discovery and others are said to be collaborating on. Bewkes outlined a broad online vision including the idea that cable programming could also be available on sites like Hulu, MySpace, Yahoo and YouTube as well, provided that users were paying a fee to some underlying service provider (cable/satellite/telco).

The NYTimes' technology reporter Saul Hansell then picked up on the interview and wrote a piece on the paper's widely-read "Bits" blog entitled "Time Warner Goes Over the Top," which provocatively began, "Just as soon as Time Warner has divested itself from the cable business, Jeff Bewkes, its chief executive, is preparing to stab the cable industry in the back. That's what I read in an interview with Mr. Bewkes in Advertising Age..."

Saul went on to describe his interpretation of one particular Bewkes comment as implying that Time Warner Inc. would offer its networks directly to consumers (or "over the top" of cable operators), thereby setting off a domino effect in which others' networks did the same, all of which would ultimately lead to the destruction of the cable industry business model.

The attention all of this received, particularly in the blogosphere, prompted a fair number of people to contact me and ask what's really going on here.

Time Warner's Plans

Yesterday I spoke with Keith Cocozza, TWI's spokesman, who said that Bewkes's comments do represent both TWI and TWC. Their mutual vision is to have cable programming offered not just at TWC's RoadRunner portal, but also at various third-party aggregators (Hulu, etc.) so long as they subscribe to any multichannel video service (whether from TWC, Verizon, DirectTV, etc.). They do envision offering a streaming-only service for those that don't want the traditional cable subscription, but it would only be available in their geographical footprint. All of that means that there's in fact no over-the-top threat involved here at all. TWI and TWC are "agnostic" about third-party aggregator access to the cable programs, because they recognize that people want to go to whatever sites make them most comfortable. And they do not plan to charge subscribers extra for online access.

From a consumer standpoint, all of this is quite enlightened. But from an operational standpoint, it feels incredibly complex. For example, I asked Keith about how a remote user, seeking to watch programs at a third party aggregator's site like Hulu, would be authenticated as an actual customer of a video service provider? While acknowledging it's too early to have all the answers, he said a test TWC has conducted in Wisconsin with HBO has shown this not to be a big technical problem. I don't agree. It's hard enough for companies to do a bilateral account integration (e.g. tying a user's Amazon account to a user's TiVo account); the idea of doing multilateral account integration (the numerous combinations of potential aggregators and service providers) is fraught with complexity and seems highly daunting.

Then there are financial issues to address. With no incremental subscriber payments, online program delivery needs to be sustained through ads alone. This would be quite workable if it were just cable operators and networks involved (they could split the ad avails proportionately as they've traditionally done with linear delivery), but by allowing third-party aggregators in too, a third mouth now needs to be fed. That will trigger a whole new negotiating dynamic, as each aggregator lobbies for a different share. And it's questionable whether there's even enough ad revenue for three parties to begin with, though Keith believes there is.

Comcast's Plans

Conversely, Kate Noel, Comcast's spokeswoman, told me yesterday that while it's still early to say anything definitive about Comcast's plans for distribution through third-party aggregators, their first priority is distribution of cable programs on their own sites (e.g. Fancast, Comcast.net) and the networks' own sites. Comcast seems to have more of a "walk, before you run" approach. It recognizes that protecting subscribers' privacy in any account integration is crucial so it plans to proceed carefully. I tried to pin Kate down on whether Comcast intends to charge for online access. Again she felt it was too early to be definitive, but it sounds like they're leaning toward a no-charge model as well. The timeline is to begin rolling out access in the 2nd half of '09.

Clearly there are a lot of moving pieces involved with these companies' plans. In general Time Warner has a more aggressive, yet I believe far less pragmatic, plan. They're trying to get all the way to the end zone right away, when just advancing the ball further downfield would be real progress for today's broadband users seeking improved access to premium content. Time Warner's "TV Everywhere" seems like a great vision, but it would take years to fully implement. Comcast's plan is probably achievable in a year or less. Either way, major cable operators finally seem to have the ball rolling toward broadband distribution of cable programming. As I pointed out last week, this can only be viewed as a positive.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(btw, if you want to learn more about all this, come to the Broadband Video Leadership Evening on March 17th in NYC, where we'll dig deeply into these issues with our top-notch panel)