VideoNuze Posts

Sezmi, a company I wrote about enthusiastically back in May as a big potential disruptor of cable/satellite multichannel services, is making steady progress toward commercial launch. Phil Wiser, the company's co-founder/president gave me an update this week.

Most important, the company has completed technical trials in Seattle with three local broadcasters (Fisher, Tribune and Daystar), to prove in its "FlexCast" distribution model. Sezmi uses a portion of over-the-air spectrum, along with broadband connectivity, to its set-top box to bypass traditional cable infrastructure. Phil explained that broadcasters are motivated to work with Sezmi for several reasons: incremental revenue from leasing spectrum, enhanced positioning in the Sezmi UI vs. current EPGs, and new ad-driven destination areas or "Zones," that broadcasters can use to create more customized and monetizable viewing experiences.

On the cable networks side, Sezmi pulls down signals to its operational center in Melbourne, FL, processes them and uplinks them. Then, with dishes and other equipment installed at its local broadcast partners' facilities, Sezmi combines all channels for distribution to the home. That gives the viewer three ways to access programming: through traditional linear feeds, through VOD and through DVR.

Phil's confident that these technical trials validate the Sezmi delivery model as well as the feasibility of a national rollout. The next step is a beta trial, with "hundreds" of consumer homes, with a limited, geographically-based commercial rollout intended for sometime in Q1 (no doubt driven by its partners' priorities). Phil confirmed several other broadcast deals, including ones where multiple cities are covered, have been signed, and that several distribution partners are on board, including one with a national footprint (hmm, AT&T? Verizon? Someone else?)

Importantly, I also extracted from Phil that the company has closed another round of financing - greater than the earlier round of $17.5M. Sezmi has a big vision and with 3 pieces of consumer premise hardware (antenna, set top and remote), plus backend equipment and national/local delivery infrastructure to fund, this is a big dollar project for sure.

I remain optimistic about Sezmi's opportunity. As I said in the May post, I haven't seen the whole thing work at scale yet, so there are significant technology unknowns. There's also a sizable customer education mountain to climb (though hopefully mitigated by large well-branded partners' assistance). Then there's the small matter of signing up the local broadcasters, as well as the cable networks.

Still, Sezmi's core value proposition - a better viewing experience at a lower cost than today's cable/satellite incumbents - is right on the mark. The old adage about execution mattering more than strategy has rarely been truer than with Sezmi. It's going to be interesting to watch its continued progress.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Digitalsmiths is announcing a $12M Series B round this morning, led by .406 Ventures, with participation from existing investors The Aurora Funds and Chrysalis Ventures. The company started life focused on video search, but now appears well on its way to successfully morphing into a tier one video management/publishing platform with indexing and analytics serving as key differentiators. I caught up with Ben Weinberger, Digitalsmiths' CEO yesterday to learn more.

Ben explained that Digitalsmiths has been landing customers like TheWB.com, TMZ, Essence.com and others TBA by focusing heavily on helping these content providers monetize more effectively. Monetization is driven by Digitalsmiths' metadata creation and indexing technology that can transform high value content into easily navigable and searchable frame-by-frame segments (this can be seen at TheWB.com).

Improved monetization is the number one challenge for the entire broadband video industry as I've been saying for some time now, and the economic meltdown has only accelerated its importance. The simple fact is that the industry has to learn how to drive more consumption by moving users beyond simple linear playback, and then achieving an ever-higher ROI against each one of these streams with more inventive ad units.

Digitalsmiths is helping accomplish these objectives by first ingesting the whole video file, then running its indexing algorithms against it, and finally generating the individual segments. These segments are then more discoverable within the site's own search, but also, importantly, by the outside world, through improved SEO (note there are some relevant comparisons between Digitalsmiths and EveryZing and Gotuit, two other companies I've written about previously). As non-linear, user-friendly experience is the result.

Ben said that Digitalsmiths' market acceptance is also being fueled by an innovative, success-based business model that ties its customers' actual gains in video consumption and monetization effectiveness to the company's own compensation. This approach obviously helps instill customer confidence, all the more so in current difficult economic times.

I also spoke briefly yesterday with Maria Cirino, the partner at .406 Ventures who led the round. Of course, it's cliche that VCs think their portfolio companies are the be-all and end-all, but I thought a couple points Maria (who's a heavy hitter in the Boston technology scene due to her success as CEO/co-founder of Guardent, acquired by VeriSign in 2003) made were quite salient.

Specifically, when I asked her about concerns she had regarding the notoriously crowded field of video management/publishing companies that have been around for far longer, she recalled the once similarly crowded web search space, dominated by well-entrenched names (Yahoo, Lycos, Excite, AltaVista, etc.). Google entered late, but broke through by offering a demonstrably better product directly addressing users' key pain point (better search results and user experience). To be clear, Maria was not inferring Digitalsmiths is the next Google (!); rather her point was that "2.0 products" can gain significant traction by tightly focusing on the market's up-to-date needs, especially if they have game-changing technology.

For Maria, Digitalsmiths' proprietary metadata/indexing capabilities, tied directly to improved monetization, are its key ingredients. That's not to say there aren't other competitors bringing their own differentiators to the table, or that content providers' motivations are monolithic, or even that there won't sufficient business to go around for a while. However, in Maria's mind, the key to Digitalsmiths' current success has been to hone in on the market's most critical decision-making driver (i.e. better monetization) and deliver against it.

I'm practically a broken record on the video management/publishing space, as I continue to marvel at the sheer number of competitors and the amount of money invested in the space as indicators of the broadband video industry's ascendance. This space has a lot more room to run and chapters to be written. It's also inevitable that the big boys will eventually follow Comcast and Yahoo (which have acquired thePlatform and Maven, respectively) in, by making their own acquisitions.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

(Note: Digitalsmiths is a VideoNuze sponsor)

Meanwhile, Transpera, which I wrote about previously here, is also announcing today an $8.25M Series B round, including new investor Labrador Ventures and existing investors Flybridge Capital Partners, Intel Capital and First Round Capital.

The mobile video space is earlier stage than broadband, but is coming on strong. At the recent Digital Hollywood Fall, I ran into Transpera CEO/founder Frank Barbieri, who told me that the company's phones are ringing off the hook from content providers seeking a turnkey mobile video distribution and monetization platform (recall that Transpera is both a technology provider and a mobile ad network). He explained that for now, customers are focused on the basics: getting their video out there and getting paid for it. Other more interactive features are less important, at least for now.

We touched on mobile video briefly at my two panels earlier this week. There's definite excitement, particularly in light of the iPhone's rapid acceptance. Wherever I go, people seem to accept as an inevitable that there's strong consumer appetite for mobile video. Transpera seems well-positioned to capitalize on this.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

First, apologies for those of you getting sick of me talking about the cable TV industry and broadband video; I promise this will be my last one for a while.

After attending the CTAM Summit the last couple of days, moderating two panels, attending several others and having numerous hallway chats, I've reached a conclusion: the cable industry - including operators and networks - is closing ranks to defend its traditional business model from disruptive, broadband-centric industry outsiders.

Before I explain what I mean by this and why this is happening, it's critical to understand that the cable business model, in which large operators (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.) pay monthly carriage or affiliate fees to programmers (e.g. Discovery, MTV, HGTV, etc.) and then bundle these channels into multichannel packages that you and I subscribe to is one of the most successful economic formulations of all time. The cable model has proved incredibly durable through both good times and bad. In short, cable has had a good thing going for a long, long time and industry participants are indeed wise to defend it, if they can.

It's also important to know that the industry is very well ordered and as consolidation has winnowed its ranks to about half a dozen big operators and network owners, the stakes to maintain the status quo have become ever higher. All the executives at the top of these companies have been in and around the industry for years and have close personal and professional ties. There's a high degree of transparency, with key metrics like cash flow, distribution footprint, ratings and even affiliate fees all commonly understood.

One last thing that's worth understanding is that the cable industry has very strong survival instincts, or as a long-time executive is fond of saying, "Real cable people (i.e. not recent interlopers from technology, CPG or online companies that have joined the industry) were raised in caves by wolves." The fact is that the industry started humbly and experienced many very shaky moments. Yet it has managed to survive and continually re-invent itself (for those who want to know more, I refer you to "Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable Business" by Mark Robichaux, still the best book on the industry's history that I've read).

All of that brings us to broadband and its potential impact on the cable model. As I've said many times, broadband's openness makes it the single most disruptive influence on the traditional video distribution value chain. Principally that means that by new players going "over the top" of cable - using its broadband pipes to reach directly into the home - cable's model is at serious risk of breaking down, once and for all.

The cable industry now gets this, and I believe has closed ranks to frown heavily on the idea of cable programming, which operators pay those monthly affiliate fees for, showing up for free on the web, or worse in online aggregators' (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, Veoh, etc.) sites. The message is loud and clear to programmers: you'll be jeopardizing those monthly affiliate fees come renewal time if your crown jewels leak out; worse, you'll be subverting the entire cable business model.

And this message isn't being delivered just by cable operators such as Peter Stern from Time Warner who said on my Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast panel that "a move to online distribution by cable networks would directly undermine the affiliate fees that are critical to creating great content." It's also coming from the likes of Discovery CEO David Zaslav who said on a panel yesterday that "there's no economic value from online distribution," and that "great brands like Discovery's must not be undervalued by making full programs available for free online."

The issue is, as a practical matter, can the industry really control all this? If there's zero online distribution, then as Fancast's impressive new head, Karin Gilford said on my panel yesterday, "pressure builds up and another channel inevitably opens" (read that as The Piracy Channel). The problem is that if, for example, an operator does put programs up on its own site - as Fancast is doing - they're available to ALL the site's visitors, not just existing cable subscribers, unless other controls are put in place like passwords, IP address authentication, geo-targeting, etc. But these are confusing and cumbersome to users whose expectations are increasingly being set by broadcasters who are making their primetime programs seamlessly available to all comers.

So what does this closing ranks suggest? Going forward, I think we'll still see cable networks putting up plenty of clips and B-roll video from their programs, maybe the occasional online premiere, some made-for-the-web stuff, paid program downloads (iTunes, etc.) and promotional/community building contests, as Deanna Brown from Scripps described with "Rate My Space" or Zaslav discussed with "MythBusters."

But when it comes to full cable network programs going online, I think that spigot's going to dry up. That has implications for online aggregators like Hulu, who will continue to have big holes in their libraries until they're ready to pay up for these carriage rights. And it also means that broadband-to-the-TV plays are also going to be hampered by subpar lineups unless these companies too are willing to pay for cable programming.

For my part, there are just too many moving parts for me to call this one just yet.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

My opening question to frame the discussion centered on broadband's eventual impact on the cable business model: does it ultimately upend the traditional affiliate fee-driven approach by enabling a raft of "over-the-top" competitors (e.g. Hulu, Netflix, Apple, YouTube, etc.) OR does it complement the model by creating new value and choice? As I said in my initial remarks, I believe that how this question is ultimately resolved will be the key determinant of success for many of the companies involved in today's broadband ecosystem and video industry.

I posed the question first to Peter Stern, who's in the middle of the action as Chief Strategy Officer of Time Warner Cable, the second largest cable company in the U.S. I thought his answer was intriguing: he said that it is cable networks themselves who will determine the sustainability of the model, depending on whether they choose to put their full-length programs online for free or not.

Later in the session, he put a finer point on his argument, saying that "a move to online distribution by cable networks would directly undermine the affiliate fees that are critical to creating great content" and that finding ways to offer these programs only to paying broadband Internet access subscribers was a far better model for today's cable networks and operators to pursue (for more see Todd Spangler's coverage at Multichannel News).

Peter's point echoes my recent "Cord-Cutters" post: to the extent that cable networks - which now attract over 50% of prime-time viewership, and derive a third or more of their total revenues from affiliate fees - withhold their most popular programs from online distribution, they provide a powerful firewall against cord-cutting. Speaking for myself for example, the prospect of missing AMC's "Mad Men" (not available online anywhere, at least not yet...) would be a powerful disincentive for me to yank out my Comcast boxes.

Still, our audience Q&A segment revealed some very basic cracks in the panelists' assertions that the transition to the broadband era can be orderly and managed (not to mention that afterwards, I was privately barraged by skeptical attendees). First and foremost these individuals argued the idea that the cable industry can maintain the value of its subscription service by using the control-oriented approach typified by the traditional windowing process flies in the face of valuable lessons learned by the music industry.

Of course most of us know that sorry story well by now: an assortment of entrenched, head-in-the-sand record labels forcing a margin rich, but speciously valued product (namely the full album or CD) on digitally empowered audiences, who decided to take matters into their own hands by stealing every song they could click their mouses on. Consequently, a white knight savior (Apple) offering a legitimate and consumer-friendly purchase alternative (iPod + iTunes), which would grew to be so popular that it has made the record labels beholden to it, while simultaneously hollowing out the last vestiges of the original album-oriented business model.

Does history repeat itself? Are Peter and the other brightest lights of the cable industry deluding themselves into thinking that a closed, high-margin, windowed platform like cable can ever possibly morph itself into a flexible, must-have service for today's YouTube/Facebook generation?

As Fred succinctly wrapped things up, "The reason I love capitalism is that it forces all of us to keep doing things better and better." To be sure, broadband and digital delivery are unleashing the most powerful capitalistic forces the video industry has yet seen. What impact these forces ultimately have on today's market participants is a question that only time will answer.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

I'll be off the grid for a while Monday morning, moderating the inaugural Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast here in Boston. We have a great group of panelists and attendance approaching 270 people. We'll be offering a full video replay of the session; as soon as it's available I'll post an update.

Three numbers in last week's third quarter Comcast earnings release underscored something I've believed for a while: Comcast is a company transformed, now reliant on business drivers that barely existed just ten short years ago. Comcast's transformation from a traditional, plain vanilla cable TV operator to a digital TV and broadband Internet access powerhouse is profound proof of how consumer behaviors' are changing and value is going to be created in the future.

That it doesn't any longer owes to the company's ability to bolster video services revenue and cash flow through ever-higher penetration of digital services into its remaining sub base (at the end of Q3 it stood at 69% or 16.8 million subs). Years after Comcast and other cable operators introduced "digital tiers," stocked with ever-more specialized channels that consumers resisted adopting, the industry has hit upon a winning formula for driving digital boxes into Americans' homes: layering on advanced services like HD, VOD and DVR that are only accessible with digital set top boxes and then bundling them with voice and broadband Internet service into "triple play" packages. Comcast has in effect gone "up-market," targeting consumers willing and able to afford a $100-$200/month bundle in order to enjoy the modern digital lifestyle.

Still, in a sense the new advanced video services represent just the latest in a continuum of improved video services. Far more impressive to me is the broadband growth that both Comcast and other cable operators have experienced. Comcast's approximately 15 million YE '08 broadband subscribers will generate almost $8 billion in annual revenue for Comcast, up dramatically from its modest days as part of @Home 10 years ago. (It's also worth noting the company now also provides phone service to over 6 million homes today vs. zero 10 years ago)

The cable industry as a whole will end 2008 with approximately 37 million broadband subs, again up from single digit millions 10 years ago. And note that the 387,000 net new broadband subs Comcast added in Q3 '08 compares with just 277,000 net broadband subs that the two largest telcos, AT&T and Verizon added in quarter, combined. As someone who was involved in the initial trials of broadband service at Continental Cablevision less than 15 years ago, observing this growth is nothing short of astounding.

While broadband's financial contribution to Comcast is unmistakable, its real impact on the company is more keenly felt in its newfound importance in its customers' lives. Broadband Internet access has become a true utility for many, as essential in many homes as heat, water and electricity. A senior cable equipment executive told me recently that research done by cable companies themselves has shown that in broadband households, broadband service would be considered the last service to get cut back in these tough economic times. In these homes cable TV itself - long thought to be recession-resistant - would get cut ahead of broadband.

Comcast is indeed a company transformed from what it was just 10 years ago. Technology, changing consumer behaviors and a little bit of "being in the right place at the right time" dumb luck have combined to allow Comcast to remake itself. Comcast itself must fully recognize these changes and aggressively build out Fancast and other initiatives to fully capitalize on its newfound opportunities.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Over the past several months Netflix has made a series of announcements related to its "Watch Instantly" feature. On the device side, there are new partnerships with TiVo (for Series 3, HD and HD XL models), Microsoft Silverlight (for Mac viewing), Samsung (for Blu-ray players), LG (for Blu-ray players), Xbox 360 and of course Roku. All allow Netflix Watch Instantly content to be delivered directly to users' TVs. Meanwhile on the content side, there have been deals with Starz, CBS and Disney Channel, with more no doubt yet to come.

Our household has been an enthusiastic subscriber to Netflix for years and I welcome the commitment that Netflix appears to be making to Watch Instantly. However, as I pointed out in May, in "Online Movie Delivery Advances, Big Hurdles Still Loom," Watch Instantly is hobbled by its limited catalog, now totaling around 12,000 titles, just 10% of Netflix's total catalog, even after including the recently added Starz titles.

The fundamental problem Netflix is bumping up against in building out Watch Instantly's film catalog is Hollywood's well-established windowing process. Studios have wisely and methodically maximized their films' lifetime financial value by doling out the rights to air them to a series of distribution outlets. These rights unfold in a carefully calibrated timeline and have become wrapped up in a thick layer of contractual agreements extending to all parties in the value chain. It is a system that has served all constituencies well, generating billions of dollars of value. It is also unlikely to change in any material way any time soon.

As such, Netflix, the "world's largest online movie rental service," as it calls itself, is increasingly discordant. On the one hand, growing the Watch Instantly service is crucial to Netflix's long term success in the digital/broadband era but on the other, it doesn't have the ability to offer a competitive catalog that meets consumers' online delivery expectations. So what to do?

My recommendation is for Netflix to incorporate the delivery of TV programming, via Watch Instantly, into its core value proposition. Specifically, Netflix should be making an all-out effort (if it is not already doing so) to secure next-day rights to deliver all prime-time broadcast network programs to its subscribers.

This strategy provides Netflix with many clear benefits and positions it well for long-term success. First, in these tight economic times, it dramatically expands the value of the Watch Instantly feature, turning it into both a bona fide subscriber retention tool to battle churn as well as a high-profile subscriber acquisition lever (not to mention an exciting pull-through offer big box retailers could use in their Sunday circulars to generate traffic).

Second, it is a clever competitive strike against four primary alternative ways whereby consumers can watch network programs on demand: cable-based VOD, a la carte paid downloads at iTunes/Amazon/others, free online aggregators like Hulu/Fancast/others and DVRs (though note the TiVo deal addresses this last option).

A comprehensive Netflix prime-time catalog compares well with each alternative. Against cable VOD it offers familiar, superior navigation plus a viable revenue stream for broadcasters while cable tries to get Canoe ready; against paid downloads, the obvious advantage of being a value-add service; against online aggregators, commercial free delivery; and against DVRs, the lack of consumer hardware purchases and persistent recording space limitations.

All of this should make Netflix a very appealing partner for the broadcast networks. They are getting hammered by ad-skipping, audience fragmentation, quality programming migrating to cable and an inferior single revenue source business model. The prospect of Netflix offering payments for their programs should be well-received. There may be concerns about programs' long term syndication value and also the potential enablement of a new gatekeeper. In better times these might be deal-killers; in this climate they shouldn't be.

Finally, there's the big potential long-term Netflix prize: if it can stitch together a large-scale network of compatible devices for Watch Instantly distribution, it could create a viable "over-the-top" alternative to today's multichannel subscription services (cable/telco/satellite). As I described in my recent "Cord Cutters" post, to really succeed, Netflix would have to eventually incorporate cable network programming. But if its reach is wide and its economics sound, that's within the realm of possibility as well.

But those are long-term issues. For now, while the recent CBS deal is a great start, Netflix should be working double-time to build out a full library of broadcast programs. It would dramatically improve Watch Instantly's appeal and value, while positioning Netflix well for the broadband era.

What do you think? Post a comment now.