VideoNuze Posts

This morning Anystream, a leading digital media management and production company and Voxant, a content syndication network, have announced their merger. The deal marks an important milestone: it's the first M&A transaction that I'm aware of which is predicated on the Syndicated Video Economy dominating the future broadband video landscape.

NewCo's combined capabilities are noteworthy on many levels, one of which is its potential to disrupt the competitive dynamics of the video content management and publishing space by providing fundamental new value to content producers. There has been a lot of capital invested in this space, and by my recent count at least 18 companies are playing in or around it. With the broadband gold rush underway, there's been enough business to go around. Competition for new business has mainly focused on features and pricing/business models.

Anystream has traditionally (and somewhat quietly) focused on digital media transcoding and workflow for more than 700 companies around the world. It too has moved up the stack into content management and publishing, lately handling  the video management for NBC's Olympics on-demand distribution, and prior to that announcing deals with Hearst-Argyle Television and others. On the other hand, Voxant has been a mid/long tail syndicator, having built out a distribution network with 30,000 publishers gaining rights-cleared content from 400+ providers. These publishers generate 35 million video views per month, making the Voxant network #15 in video views according to comScore.

NewCo's belief is that the bilateral syndication deals we've seen to date (e.g. CBS-Yahoo, ESPN-AOL, Next New Networks - Hulu, among many others) has whetted the market's appetite for this emerging business model, but that there is still far too much friction for syndication to really take off. That fits with what I hear from even the most aggressive content syndicators, one of whose CTOs said on a recent panel I moderated that his company is overwhelmed just trying to fully implement the handful of deals its already done.

So, much as I've considered the Syndicated Video Economy solidly into its first phase of development, I've been sobered by the reality that the operational overhead of negotiating deals, implementing them through distributors' often heterogeneous sub-systems, and monitoring their performance requires so much human intervention that the whole syndication concept could end up collapsing under its own weight. (Side note, this is why the Google Content Network which I wrote about last week also has so much potential).

First, these new revenues could put NewCo in a position to cross-subsidize its technology platform, thereby altering some of the fundamental economics in the platform space. This could trigger possible price-cutting by others solely dependent on platform revenue. Given the vast number of players in the space, and everyone's hunger for market share, this scenario isn't unreasonable to imagine. Second, NewCo could create steep switching barriers for its media customers. Upon getting a taste for turnkey NewCo-driven syndication revenues, content producers would almost certainly be less enticed by new platform-centric features that other competitors may offer. Combined, these disruptions would create a markedly new competitive dynamic.

Yet don't expect competitors to stand still; many of them are examining how to capitalize on their own distinct advantages to alter the dynamics still further. NewCo's abundantly strong management team must now execute on its vision and help its media customers realize syndication's real value. The Anystream-Voxant merger is a bold and possibly game-changing bet on the Syndicated Video Economy being fully realized over time. If that happens, NewCo will surely be among the industry's long-term winners.

What do you think? Click here to post a comment.

(Disclosures: Anystream is a VideoNuze sponsor and I also provided very brief "sounding-board" reactions to this merger prior to its closing.)

Here's an example of how convoluted broadband's use can be.

On CNN's AC360 program last night, Anderson Cooper was promoting "live webcasts" with news anchor Erica Hill, which would run during on-air commercial breaks. As explained here, the idea is that CNN viewers can go "behind the scenes" to continue their AC360 experience by watching the live stream on their computers. I dutifully did this and watched Hill and Cooper somewhat mindlessly chatting/flirting for several minutes.

But wait: if CNN is urging on-air viewers to turn their attention to these "webcasts" during commercial breaks, then that means that CNN is diverting attention from its own on-air advertisers. That undermines CNN's all-important advertiser value proposition. That of course begs the question: is CNN's ad sales team on board with these webcasts? And if so, what are they thinking??

I guess the argument could be made that CNN believes anyone who would jump online would be multi-tasking, so they'd still have their TV on. Yet at a minimum they'll mute their TV's audio (as I did) to hear the webcast's audio. That means the users' eyes and ears are now focused online instead of on-air.

CNN has been laudably in the forefront of weaving online technology into their on-air programs. Tune in to anchor Rick Sanchez's show some time and you'll him juggling an orgy of on-air Twittering, Facebook emailing and YouTube video sharing. Cooper too has been relentlessly flogging his AC360.com web site since its recent relaunch.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Some of you may have noticed the VideoNuze site was down intermittently this week, and also that you did not receive emails from me this past Monday or yesterday. That's because VideoNuze was the target of a persistent and vicious hacker. What a nightmare. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a hacker's onslaught, I know you'll be able to relate. If you haven't, consider yourself lucky.

Suffice to say it's been a week I'd like to forget. We've scrambled to make a series of fixes. VideoNuze isn't out of the woods yet, so you may still see some interruptions of service. But our blood pressure is returning to some semblance of normalcy and we're in a better position than we were a week ago. Thanks for your patience.

Many of you know that Google has recently begun distributing short animated videos from Seth MacFarlane (creator of TV's "Family Guy") to a wide network of sites that previously only received ads from Google, through their participation in AdSense. The company dubs this the "Google Content Network" (GCN for short), and from my vantage point, it has a lot of potential and implications for other players in the video distribution value chain. Yesterday, I spoke to Alexandra Levy, Google's Director of Branded Entertainment, and the point person for driving this initiative.

The first thing that resonates for me about GCN is that Google's vision for it harmonizes perfectly with my concept of the "Syndicated Video Economy." VideoNuze readers know that last March I introduced the SVE concept to capture a trend that I was noticing: an ecosystem was forming to distribute broadband video widely across the Internet, in contrast to the traditional, narrower distribution model.

Alex echoed the SVE, saying that in her many conversations with content producers, finding an audience is their top challenge. Great content, unwatched, is like the proverbial tree that falls in the forest when nobody is around to hear it.

So enter GCN, which Google rightly sees as a "media distribution platform." To understand its implications fully, you have to evaluate its potential to all relevant constituencies: Users get great updated content served to them at the sites they already visit. Those sites benefit from offering premium content, while also receiving a revenue share on the accompanying ads. The content provider benefits from leveraging Google's vast AdSense network to have video "pushed" to relevant audiences, increasing viewership and engagement. And advertisers' brands benefit from adjacency to premium content that is sought after and compelling.

Of course, last but not least, Google benefits from being the intermediary in this whole process. We all know from Google's massive success in web search that being the intermediary in a model where all constituent interests are neatly aligned creates near-infinite economic value. While Alex concedes the MacFarlane video (which is sponsored by Burger King and was brokered by Media Rights Capital) is still an "experiment," GCN sure does seem to bear a lot of resemblance to Google's traditional search model in the alignment of constituent interests.

Another twist here is that users who click for more video are driven back to MacFarlane's YouTube channel (already the 69th most subscribed channel, with almost 70K subscribers), which drives habituation, a key lever for ongoing video success as any network TV executive will admit. In this light, GCN gives Google a way of finally tying its powerful AdSense engine to YouTube. I'm not suggesting that Google is sweating the ROI on its $1.6 billion YouTube acquisition, but GCN surely looks like a way to move YouTube far beyond its roots as everyone's favorite UGC aggregator.

Alex is quick to point out that GCN does not budge Google from its often-stated position that it is not a content creator. Rather, it's using GCN to connect brands, content producers and users. If that connecting process drives audiences and generates revenues for content producers - and admittedly the proof is not yet in - that would give Google a lot of disruptive capital to help shape the video landscape. Just so nobody gets carried away, Google announced a similar experiment 2 years ago with MTV that fizzled out. So the company has yet to prove its experiment works and that it is fully committed to the GCN model.

ABC's Sarah Palin interview from late last week may have been a broadcast ratings success, but in my opinion ABCNews.com has missed out on many big broadband opportunities. ABC's broadband implementation shortfalls span the full gamut of navigation, usability and delivery quality, offering a further data point that many media companies have not yet recognized or capitalized on broadband's full potential.

The biggest interview of the political season was tailor made for on-demand consumption. No doubt millions of people flocked to ABC.com (the site most people would associate with ABC) to find the interview. However, ABC.com is the company's entertainment site, and there is currently no promotion of the interview at all. The visitor is required to guess that clicking on the "news" link in the main navigation will get them to the interview.

Oddly, clicking on the banner brings you to a 2,300 word text story about the interview, with a few thumbnail images sprinkled about. That's a key implementation error in my opinion. Instead of text, that page should be a well-laid out assortment of videos, beginning with the option to watch the full interview either by its 3 segments or as one long episode. A link to ABC's text story would be great to offer, but not be the main focus of the page when users were expecting video.

Clicking on one of the various thumbnails launches the ABCNews.com video player, which then displays the 3 segments' thumbnails at the bottom. Here the issue is that there are no bite-sized clips displayed with specific interview topics (e.g. earmarks, abortion, foreign policy) of likely interest. Plus there is no way to search on those topics specifically. You'd have to watch each of the full 6-8 minute segments the Q&A section to happen upon the part you're particularly interested in. (Note that creating topical clips from the full 22 minute interview using a metadata management tool like Gotuit's VideoMarker Pro would have probably taken ABC News just an hour or so.)

Meanwhile, there's also no way for the user to clip out custom segments, as Hulu and other sites currently allow. Enabling this would have been wildly popular among bloggers - and led to lots of viral distribution. The lack of topical clips creates another missed opportunity as ABC could have aggregated comments and video from other sites tightly related to these specific clips in order to create a really comprehensive user experience on a topic-by-topic basis.

Net, net, it's great that ABCNews.com is making the Palin interview available online. But taken as a whole, the user experience ends up being little more than a TiVo-like interview replay, leaving tons of engagement opportunity - and revenue - on the table. I recognize that doing the kinds of things I'm describing requires a robust content management system and staff. Many companies have not yet made these kinds of commitments to broadband - which just provides more evidence of how nascent the broadband medium still is.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Yesterday's post, "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband Video is Accelerating Demise of their Business Model" spurred some great comments on the site, and as usual, a flurry of private emails to me from folks who don't want to comment publicly (this is a recurring VideoNuze phenomenon I've mentioned before...).

Since there's substantial interest in this topic and I thought some of my comments from yesterday needed some clarification, I want to dig in a little further today.

First I want to address the numbers I outlined, especially the benchmark of $1 of ad revenue per viewer per episode that I asserted NBC derives from "Heroes" on-air. I've had some push back that this number is too high and that it more likely is 50-75 cents/viewer/episode. As I refined my assumptions further, I do think I was probably a bit too optimistic, particularly regarding the actual number of ad units NBC sells. I do think all of these numbers are somewhere in the ballpark, but what they actually are on a show-by-show basis is obviously only known only to NBC itself.

That all said, the gap between today's "analog dollars" and the revenue being derived from online distribution (the so-called "digital pennies") may still be pretty close to what I suggested yesterday. That's because I also had push back on my assumption that Hulu is generating an effective CPM of $60 (note, I had characterized that as "generous"). According to some folks, it's possible their eCPM could in fact be closer to $30 - or less. This is all private data, so again, it's really hard to pin this down.

One point I'd like to make again, so nobody's left with any misimpressions: I don't believe networks have been wrong in pursuing online distribution of their shows. I applaud their proactivity. Rather, my problem is that I think the way they've chose to monetize broadband delivery - with such a paucity of ads - is not only under-monetizing and undervaluing their product, but also creating a set of consumer expectations about the online medium that are going to be hard to reverse.

For Hulu to put the equivalent of 1 1/2 minutes of advertising against "Heroes," when NBC can command premium on-air rates for about 20 minutes of ads, strikes me as seriously out of whack. At the risk of sounding anti-consumer, I think Hulu is hurting its parent company's financial interests by over-emphasizing its user experience. The consequences of Hulu's "limited commercial interruptions" policy are really the thesis of yesterday's post: I believe the networks own use of broadband is accelerating the demise of their traditional ad model.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Heroes on Hulu should carry 20 minutes of ads, but I do think it can carry more than 1 1/2 minutes. As important, its ad model needs to quickly evolve to include better targeting, more engagement, more creative units, etc, to break from a purely CPM-based paradigm. I know that many folks are hard at work on these items.

Net, net, these are incredibly complicated times for networks. As the Portfolio piece says, NBC's Zucker is "unsparingly harsh about the prospects for broadcast television..." And NBC's issues don't end with broadband; as commenters to yesterday's post noted, it's also being buffeted by the effects of DVRs, VOD and fragmentation driven by social networks, mobile and other shifting consumer behaviors.

I love Zucker's sense of honesty and urgency about the network business. I thought NBC's hardheaded approach to obtaining variable pricing from iTunes was terrific. And as many of you know, I think Hulu's site execution has been world-class. But Hulu, NBC, and the other networks must recognize that their current approach to ad-supported broadband delivery is undervaluing their own product and hastening the demise of their traditional P&L.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Last weekend I finally got a chance to read "Zuckervision," the splashy cover page piece about NBCU's CEO and president Jeff Zucker in the September issue of Conde Nast's Portfolio magazine. It's a pretty candid expose of the challenges that Zucker faces turning around the flagship NBC brand. More broadly though, it describes the challenges that all network executives have in trying to profitably navigate the digital era.

Zucker says, "Predicting what the media world is gonna look like in eight years is incredibly daunting. I defy anybody to that." He's right, and I'm not going to take him up on his offer. What's more salient though is to focus on the here and now - on what networks are doing with ad-supported broadband distribution today. From this perspective I think it's fair to conclude that broadcast networks' current use of broadband is accelerating the demise of their business model.

That's right. For all of Zucker's and his compatriots' lament about "analog dollars being turned into digital pennies," as best I can tell, the networks themselves are actually the ones most responsible for turning this fear into a reality. I touched on this in a previous post, but here are the numbers explaining why.

When each of us, watches an episode of NBC's "Heroes," for example, on-air, NBC generates approximately $1.00 of advertising revenue (assuming NBC sells 75% of the 22 minutes of ads at a CPM of $30). That $1/viewer/episode figure obviously varies by program, but it's a good benchmark to use. (Note: per the following post, I think these assumptions are a little high, a more accurate range for NBC's revenue/viewer/episode is probably $.50 - $1.00.)

Now consider what happens when we watch "Heroes" on Hulu, NBC and Fox's well-respected aggregator. There are 5 ad breaks with just one 15 second ad in each break. There's also a 7 second "brand slate" at the beginning of each episode ("The following program is brought to you by....") and a display ad at the conclusion. Rounding up, let's say that totals three 30 second ads. Assuming Hulu sells all the ads at a generous $60 CPM (note that's 2x the on-air rate), the revenue/viewer/episode is 18 cents. That means that when you watch Heroes on Hulu, NBC is generating less than 20% of its customary revenue (hence the "digital pennies" fear).

Hulu's ad implementation is not unique - if you look at the other network sites, their ad models are roughly comparable. I don't know who came up with this ad approach, but I would contend that in their zeal to move prime time programs online, the networks have all gone too far in emphasizing a user-friendly experience over sound business discipline.

Of course, as consumers this new ad model is great. We get high-quality, free content at our fingertips, with minimal interruptions. For the vast majority of consumers, this value proposition beats buying and downloading an episode at iTunes any day (all the more so as popular shows like Heroes are bound to cost even more under NBC's new variable pricing relationship with Apple).

With the current model, NBC needs for Hulu to get more 5x its current CPM (which would be more than 10x NBC's current on-air CPM) just to stay even with its traditional ad model. That's a pipe dream. It doesn't matter how much interactivity or exclusivity Hulu can give an advertiser (and by the way Nissan already had full exclusivity in the Heroes episode I watched) no advertiser is going to pay 10x on-air rates. Simply put, Hulu's and others' minimal quantity of ads cannot be compensated for using higher prices.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle with the networks' online ad model, it's going to be awfully hard to make major modifications to it. As eyeballs inexorably shift from on-air to online, NBC and the other networks' top line ad revenues is going to get pinched. Also poised to bear the brunt is the whole Hollywood community accustomed to benefiting from on-air economics (Zucker's aggressive attempts to reduce expenses are also discussed in the Portfolio piece).

Bottom line: the way NBC and other networks have implemented broadband accelerates the vast change that is buffeting the broadcast business.

What do you think? Post a comment!

As I alluded a week ago, today I'm very pleased to share details of VideoNuze's first Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast Panel.

The session will be held on November 10th, in Boston, and is entitled, "How to Profit from Broadband Video's Disruptive Impact." It is being held on the first full day of the annual CTAM Summit, so if you're coming to town for that event, I hope you'll be able to carve out time to attend the leadership breakfast.

The panel features an A-list group of executives, whose companies are at the forefront of the broadband revolution:

• Deanna Brown - President, SN Digital, Scripps Networks
• Bill Carr - Vice President, Digital Media, Amazon
• David Eun - Vice President, Content Partnerships, Google/YouTube
• Herb Scannell - Chairman/Co-Founder, Next New Networks and former Vice Chairman, MTV Networks and President, Nickelodeon Networks
• Peter Stern - Executive Vice President, Strategy and Product Management, Time Warner Cable

Click here to register for the early bird special

I recruited this diverse group specifically to ensure a range of perspectives (established vs. early stage, content vs. distributor, ad supported vs. paid, etc.) are represented. It will be invaluable for attendees to hear the pros and cons of varying broadband video strategies, as well as the current data supporting these approaches. Having moderated dozens of panels over the years, I'm focused on bringing together best practices I've observed to ensure this is a well-structured, high-impact discussion.

Among other things, I expect attendees will learn about the tradeoffs of different business models, how consumers' video behaviors are changing, what these five companies' broadband priorities are and what roles upstart content providers and aggregators will play in the future. The most important takeaway will be what you, as participants in the broadband market, can be doing now to ensure your future success.

The breakfast panel is generously sponsored by ActiveVideo Networks, Akamai, Anystream, KickApps and Yahoo and is being run in association with CTAM's New England and New York chapters, on whose boards I serve.

Click here to register for the early bird special

I'm incredibly excited about the leadership breakfast, as it marks a continued push by VideoNuze into the events space, a key priority going into 2009. In fact, last night marked the kickoff of our events push, with the inaugural VideoSchmooze networking evening, which drew 200+ attendees on a rainy, Red Sox-at-home night (pictures are here). Look for more VideoSchmoozes in '09 as this networking event goes on the road.