VideoNuze Posts

A couple of weeks ago in "Hulu Out-Executing Comcast in On-Demand Programming?" I took Comcast's Fancast to task because Hulu was first to implement its deal with Comedy Central for full episodes of "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report." It was a missed opportunity for Fancast, which had previously announced a deal with Comedy Central for these shows. Hulu gained a bonanza of favorable press attention, likely spiking its usage.

Well fair is fair and so I'm now happy to report that Fancast has also posted these programs. But at the risk of sounding like a Fancast scourge (which I'm really not trying to be) Hulu continues to distinguish itself with a superior user experience. For those looking to succeed in broadband video the execution differences between these two sites provide key lessons.

First, after searching for The Daily Show on Hulu, the site automatically displays the most recent episodes first (beginning with last night's episode). When starting the player, Hulu's quick 7 second "brand slate" runs and then the program starts. This emphasis on a quick payoff no doubt reflects lessons Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar learned from his years at Amazon, which, like all great e-commerce sites knows that a distraction-free checkout process results in more completed transactions.

Conversely, at Fancast, after doing a search for Daily Show, the results are "Sorted by air date Ascending | Descending." Ascending is pre-selected, and the first episode shown is from April 9th, with Lewis Black. Huh - why such an old episode being shown first by default? And is the average user really going to be familiar with these sorting terms? Why not just offer choices like "Newest" and "Oldest" with "Newest" as the default?

When I tried watching several episodes I encountered more distractions and inconsistency. I alternatively saw a 30 second pre-roll, a 15 second pre-roll and once I even got back-to-back 15 second pre-rolls (of the same A1 steak sauce ad no less). Contrast this with Hulu where each time I knew to expect the voiceover intoning "The following program is brought to you...." Hulu understands that positive online experiences emphasize usability and consistency.

Separately, Hulu offers the ability to send a link to the full episode to a friend or clip just a segment, which can also be posted easily to a number of social networking sites. The features worked flawlessly and when done the video resumed playing automatically. On the other hand, an envelope icon at Fancast reveals 2 sharing options, "Beginning of Video" or "Current Scene." Yet after clicking on both they seem to reveal the same screen. So what's the difference? Worse, after finishing up sharing, the video was frozen, forcing me to close the browser and start all over again. Ugh.

Just to be clear, I don't expect perfection and I do recognize that Fancast is still in beta. To put all this in some context and explain why I'm dragging you into the weeds with this part 2 post, I've long believed that broadband's openness will allow new aggregators to emerge, attempting to compete with incumbents like cable and satellite operators. Differentiating themselves is no small feat considering, as in this case, the underlying content they have will likely be similar to what's available elsewhere.

Hulu is differentiating itself through great execution - particularly noteworthy for such a young site. My guess is that execution and usability DNA run very deep within the Hulu team. On the other hand, Fancast has not yet demonstrated comparable execution mastery and as a result is leaving the competitive door ajar for its customers to give Hulu a try. Winning Hulu users back to Fancast will be tougher than winning them now.

Broadband aggregation is going to be a battleground with big eventual payoffs. As a powerful incumbent, Comcast must do everything possible to preclude users from seeking out Hulu and other aggregators. (Truth be told, it is unlikely these broadband aggregators would have raised close to the $366+ million I recently reported in the first place had Comcast and other incumbents proactively seized the online aggregation space several years ago. But that's a story for another day.)

For all the time I spend talking about strategy at VideoNuze, I've always been a big believer that competition is mostly won in the trenches. That's especially true in online where great execution and usability separate winners from the rest. For Comcast, the competitive bar is far higher than it has ever been. To succeed, it must significantly improve its execution.

I recently attended a presentation by Martin Olausson, Director of Digital Media Strategies at Strategy Analytics, who shared key findings from his firm's recently fielded digital media survey. Strategy Analytics is a research and consulting firm specializing in information, communications and entertainment. In a follow-up chat, Martin provided a little more color on the data and he also agreed to share a half dozen slides as a complimentary download for VideoNuze readers.

Click here to download the slides.

Some of the most interesting data confirms the shifts that are well underway in how younger people consume video. For example, the weekly TV reach for 15-19 year olds is 64%, while for 35-49 year olds it's 82%. Conversely, the weekly reach for broadband video averages around 25-26% for those in the 15-29 age brackets, but at 35-49 it drops to 15%, and then for 50+ it drops again to just 5%. Broadband consumption clearly skews younger, suggesting a more permanent shift as this group ages.

In addition, 16-18% of 15-29 year olds said they'd be interested/very interested in paying for TV online, while only 11% of those 35-49 said so, and only 3% of those 50+ said so. Similarly, 21-22% of 15-29 year olds said they'd be interested/very interested in paying for movies online, while only 16% of those 35-49 said so, and only 5% of those 50+ said so.

Media and marketing executives need to focus on what opportunities this creates. For example, this might suggest that special offers to download TV programs and movies that have particular appeal to younger people might help accelerate the paid business model. Or that co-marketing deals with other brands that already have credibility and reach into these age groups would help open up the market.

Strategy Analytics also included a revenue forecast for various business models for 2008-2012. The four paid categories, "Download to Own: Movies," "Download to Own: TV," "Download to Rent: A-La-Carte" and "Download to Rent: Subscription" total up to approximately $3.87 billion by 2012, while the ad-supported category totals to $3.48 billion by then.

Martin is most bullish on the subscription model as the big driver of paid revenues, and focuses on Netflix in particular as having a strong online delivery opportunity. While I haven't created my own revenue projections, I still bias toward thinking ad-supported will outstrip paid in the next 3-4 years. If I look longer-term, say 5-10 years out, I can see that shifting to the paid model as today's issues (portability, rights, mass broadband connectivity to TVs, etc.) are resolved at scale.

Taken together, the data adds to our understanding of what's happening in the market today and where things may be heading. If you want further information about the survey, Martin's contact information is on the cover slide.

Click here to download the slides.

More evidence this morning of the Syndicated Video Economy playing out, as Disney is announcing it will distribute both ABC and ESPN programming to Veoh, the broadband video aggregator. This follows ESPN's first and recent syndication deal with AOL.

Last week in "Disney/ABC's Cheng is Confident About Broadband Video Advertising," I explained how Disney places a huge emphasis on its video player, so that it can present a consistent user experience and also control advertising. The Veoh deal is aligned with that thinking. Veoh users are exposed to Disney programming, but once they want to view, the Disney video player launches.

In fact it's interesting, if you compare what's been implemented so far at Veoh vs. how ABC shows come up at Hulu (an aggregator that Disney does not have a deal with), there's not that much difference. Recall that Hulu is just taking a feed of Disney's program-related metadata, but again, if you actually want to view, you'll launch the Disney video player.

I'm guessing the major difference here, and why some money changes hands with Veoh, but not Hulu, is that Veoh must be making some kind of commitment to promote Disney programs. Though you never want to judge a deal by how it's implemented on day 1, for now Disney doesn't seem to getting much visibility. I noticed a Jimmy Kimmel thumbnail rotate through the Veoh home page, but when I drilled down through the "TV Shows" and "Channel" tabs, I didn't see any extra promotion of ABC programs. In fact the only ABC program even listed in Veoh's generic alphabetized directory was "Ugly Betty." I found a few full-length episodes when I drilled down through an "ABC" link I found with the Kimmel video, but couldn't find that link anywhere else.

All of this is a reminder that there's a very interesting minuet going on between established networks looking to broaden their online reach and the big video aggregators that have grown dramatically and raised lots of money, but are still unprofitable. The Disney-Veoh deal shows that aggregators may be willing to agree to networks' desires for online control in exchange for the potential to generate high-margin promotion-based revenue (remember they're not hosting or delivering the Disney video, so for Veoh in this case there's very little expense involved) and incremental on-page ad revenue. Of course too many of these kinds of implementations and the aggregator's user experience will look quite inconsistent.

No doubt there will be many more network-aggregator deals yet to be done, demonstrating how this market will eventually shape up.

More news today in the video publishing space as PermissionTV is making two product-related announcements with an eye toward enabling easier, faster creation of video applications by media companies, brands and third party agencies. Specifically the company is releasing its Platform Development Kit (PDK) and "Solutions Hub." Last week Corey Halverson, PermissionTV's VP of Product Management gave me a demo and rundown of both.

"Solutions Hub"

The "Solutions Hub" is a gallery of video player applications that Permission is offering developers use of to help jumpstart their video efforts. The examples are both pragmatic and inspirational, showing developers for the kinds of things that can be done with Permission's tools.

Corey explained the Solutions Hub is meant to address a phenomenon that Permission often encounters: developers who have expansive visions of the kinds of apps they'd like to build, but who still need grounding to help them get started quickly and easily. The Solutions Hub addresses this by providing a range of downloadable apps including many featuring integrations with 3rd parties (e.g. DART, Move Networks, Tremor). By anticipating developers' needs, Permission is aiming to accelerate time to market.

PDK

Targeted to agencies that need to be able to create highly customizable applications quickly but on a budget, Permission's new PDK bundles together all of its APIs, with tutorials, reference players, source code and other Flash-oriented tools. Corey characterized the PDK as allowing developers to "color outside the lines," while providing as much functionality as possible right out of the box.

While I'm not a Flash developer and therefore can't fully appreciate some of the details of the PDK, there's no question that as the market matures a blend of customization and scalability is required to succeed. In particular, as business models remain in flux and experimentation prevails, the ability to quickly and inexpensively try different approaches is key. Taken together the Solutions Hub and PDK look like solid forward progress to meeting these market objectives.

As you can likely imagine I'm always on the lookout for interesting uses of broadband video. Periodically I get a heads up from others about something they've spotted; now, even closer to home, my wife has brought me an example.

In the summer we spend a lot of time in the Berkshire Mountains in western Massachusetts. Occasionally we go to a summer dance theater there named Jacob's Pillow, which my wife enjoys attending. The performers range from classic ballet to some pretty cutting edge modern stuff. I'll concede I'm not a big fan myself, but since it's hard to play golf at night, I'll oblige by joining her once or twice each summer.

The problem that always arises is choosing which performances to attend. Pictures and a text description are really not adequate to capture what you might see in a dance performance. Unless you really know these performers there's a lot of guesswork. As a result, over the years we've seen some good stuff and some weird stuff.

This summer though, Jacob's Pillow did something very smart, which my wife noticed and told me about. On its web site, for each performance, there is now a "See Video" button, which allows you to see an actual clip of the performers in action. Though they're mostly lower-quality clips hosted at YouTube, they give you a real flavor of what to expect. I'd be willing to bet that these videos are getting noticed and are helping increase attendee satisfaction.

While I spend a lot of time at VideoNuze on the tectonic influences of broadband video such as how it affects broadcasters' economics or shifts advertising spending, Jacob's Pillow is another great example of how broadband's myriad uses can help different businesses deliver more value to their customers. If you have any examples, please send them along!

Though broadcast TV networks have been aggressively pushing their shows online, there has been simmering angst about what impact this will ultimately have on their traditional economics.

I have explored this issue recently in "Does Broadband Video Help or Hurt Broadcast TV Networks?" and in two posts on Fox's "Remote-Free TV" initiative here and here. NBCU's CEO Jeff Zucker has helped to stoke this concern, publicly calling broadcasters' #1 challenge the risk of exchanging "analog dollars for digital pennies."

Thus I was both a bit surprised, but also encouraged, to hear Albert Cheng, Disney/ABC's EVP of Digital Media tell me in a recent briefing that despite the fact that online revenue per program per eyeball is currently less than it is for on-air, he's confident that online will eventually catch up and surpass on-air. I don't regard these comments as idle boasts. A thick PowerPoint deck covering its online video strategy, which Disney/ABC shared with me, reveals the meticulous thought and in-depth audience research that is guiding Disney's online video initiatives. Not to mention ABC.com is the most-used network web site.

Cheng is quick to point out that Disney/ABC has followed a careful and consistent strategy since it moved into online distribution a few years ago (note Disney/ABC was the first network to work with iTunes and first to offer programs for free. Other networks quickly followed). The focus has been on continued learning and refinement.

From a strategy standpoint, Disney/ABC's video player, powered by Move Networks, is the centerpiece. The focus is on delivering a high-quality, consistent user experience in which ads are engaging, but not intrusive. While other networks have received more ink for their syndication efforts Cheng is quick to point out that access to Disney/ABC's player has always been open, allowing other sites to refer their users, if not actually integrate the player.

By making an RSS feed available of its online programs' meta-data, Cheng believes Disney/ABC can achieve much of what others gain through syndication deals (see how Hulu displays results for a "Lost" search below, subtly noting "Watch at ABC" This is the same concept I noted in my recent Hulu vs. Comcast post), while avoiding the downsides of ad sales conflicts, business rules implementation and delivery overhead.

By controlling their own ad inventory, Disney/ABC avoids the sometimes one-sided revenue sharing deals widely-discussed in the industry (Hulu alone is rumored to keep 90%) and the channel conflict that inevitably results from having two sales teams calling on the same media buyers. Cheng does see a role for online aggregators, but mainly for library or off-network product, especially as a backstop for traditional syndication.

Cheng's rationale for broadband's eventual revenue superiority to on-air ultimately boils down to this: since broadband can offer both superior targeting and engagement vs. on-air, by definition it deserves higher pricing. But getting to that vision from today's reality is where Disney/ABC's hard work of evangelizing to advertisers and ongoing testing is key (and where the company's recently announced "Ad Lab" comes in).

What do you think? Post a comment and let everyone know!

Scripps Networks, owner of the powerhouse cable brands HGTV and Food Network plus niche brands DIY, Fine Living and GAC, is joining the syndication fray, today announcing a deal with AOL Video for distribution of clips from at least 25 of its programs. The deal stops short of full program syndication along the lines of last week's Comedy Central-Hulu deal and others, but is still a meaningful step in extending these brands beyond the borders of their respective web sites.

I've been following Scripps Networks for a long while and recently got a briefing from Deanna Brown, who serves as president of the Interactive Group which handles all Internet-related activities at Scripps Networks. Brown joined the company a little over a year ago and is an online veteran, having served as an executive at both Yahoo and AOL previously.

Scripps was one of the early adopters of broadband video, initially seeding its site with program clips from HGTV and Food and more recently creating standalone broadband properties (e.g. HGTV KitchenDesign, HGTV BathDesign, others). Brown explained that Scripps views video as part of the overall user experience, not to be positioned as standalone. Contextualization drives more video consumption and page views. For the most recent 3 months Scripps averaged almost 10 million video views/month, up about 36% from the prior year's period. HGTV was a big part of that, doubling its video views year over year.

I've long thought that broadband is a huge win for Scripps because its lifestyle brands and programs are part information, part entertainment and presented in short segments. This is about as good a fit for online consumption as possible. In fact, over the years when content startups have sought my input, I've often referred to Scripps as an example of content having a highly actionable content model and a "natural base" of advertisers, a model for others to emulate in further product categories.

With Scripps, advertisers reach an audience that is both targeted and action-oriented. Given the massive size of the home and kitchen-related products markets, Scripps is in an enviable position. Yet once again reflecting the early state of the broadband video ad market, Brown explained that they're continuing to test what works in video advertising, particularly mid-rolls and overlays recently. Brown cited monetization flexibility as a key part of Scripps' recent decision to standardize on Maven Networks' platform. Note that in the AOL deal, Scripps will sell ads against its inventory.

Though Brown described herself as partnership-driven, most of Scripps broadband efforts have centered on building out its sites. She explained that they haven't felt pressure to do a lot of deals quickly, instead tending to be methodical about which distributors offer the best ROI potential. A key goal of its distribution deals is to reach younger audiences and video is seen as a way to speak to this audience. A slew of social networking initiatives are underway as well to tap this demo's online behavior.

With Scripps Networks poised to be separated on July 1st from the larger newspaper and broadcast businesses at E.W. Scripps, online will be a critical growth driver. That suggests we can expect plenty more video activity going forward.