VideoNuze Posts

Now there's really no excuse not to work out.

This morning Netpulse is unveiling an exclusive partnership deal with Town Sports International, operator of 158 fitness clubs in the Northeast, to bring its interactive media platform to 8,000 pieces of cardiovascular equipment. The deal is yet another example of online video's growing pervasiveness. It's also another reminder of how clever entrepreneurs are finding unique new online video applications and business models. Yesterday, Bryan Arp, Netpulse's CEO brought me up to speed on the company and how the TSI deal works.

When the Netpulse platform (which for TSI will be private labeled "Sports Clubs Active Network) is installed, the equipment user logs in and sees a customized view of their content choices. The user can watch live TV from their personalized line-up, dock their iPhone/iPod/iTouch in a cradle and watch all their iTunes content on a widescreen HD TV, browse among hundreds of music videos, create their own playlists and gain access to tons of online-only video. In addition, the platform will record the key metrics of their exercise session so that when the user goes home he/she can log-in and download their stats for analysis. Bryan likened it to having a set-top box on each piece of equipment.

Netpulse is focused on one of the increasingly rare moments left when people are not online or connected to their mobile devices. But that 30-60 minutes spent in a gym is a perfect time to offer users entertainment choices because it's a huge incentive for them to go to the gym in the first place. It's a time to watch that episode of "Lost" that you missed or sample some independent online video program that your friends keep talking about. No doubt TSI recognizes this, and is a key motivation for them to partner with Netpulse. It doesn't take much to imagine how TSI could create an advertising campaign that focuses on how you can be entertained while you work out.

For its part, Netpulse is clever about its approach to getting its platform into the gyms. It has signed deals to be integrated with manufacturers of screens that can be added to existing equipment and also with the manufacturers of the equipment itself. That means that Netpulse can be deployed when the fitness club upgrades existing equipment or when it does full replacements, which are done regularly. With the TSI deal, for example, any new equipment TSI purchases have to include the Netpulse platform.

While Netpulse is focused on license fees for its platform, advertising quickly becomes a really attractive proposition for the club. Bryan estimates that the TSI locations (which are branded NY Sports Club, Boston Sports Club, etc.) alone account for 4 million user sessions per month. That's a critical mass opportunity for any brand selling to people with active lifestyles. Further targeting can be done based on profile information users submit.

Netpulse is additional evidence of how online video is making it possible to offer consumers customized entertainment that fits their lifestyles. It also shows that by putting together an ecosystem of parties, each with their own motivations, everyone can benefit.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Last week while I was in LA I had a chance to sit down for an extended chat with Albert Cheng, EVP of Digital Media for Disney-ABC Television. Aside from general catch-up, I wanted to dig into a comment I'd heard Albert make at the recent NATPE conference - that full-length programs on ABC.com are now achieving "DVR economics."

The comment caught my attention because, as I've written a number of times, I've been concerned that the broadcast networks' streaming initiatives (and Hulu specifically) could be undermining their traditional business models. The main reason for this is that the ad load in streaming programs is a small fraction vs. what it is in on-air. If all online viewing is incremental to on-air that wouldn't matter. But despite certain research that suggests online doesn't cannibalize on-air, for some viewers who have long since transitioned to time-shifted consumption, it surely does. More importantly, as convergence devices that link broadband to TVs gain penetration, the choice for viewers of how to watch a particular program - via online or via on-air - gets even more pronounced, putting further pressure on on-air.

Albert explained that ABC has been closely following the economics of programs' different viewing methods and recently concluded that it was more appropriate to compare online's economics to DVR's economics than to on-air's. Their reasoning is that because online is a "catch-up" medium it should be weighed against other comparable opportunities, not against on-air. Importantly, ABC "windows" the online release of its programs by 4-6 hours, so that hard-core fans who have to watch immediately will skew to on-air, rather than waiting. (Of course the question arises - in our increasingly on-demand, time-shifted world, how sizable is the "must-see" audience for all but the most popular programs like "Lost?" But that's a question for another day.)

When looked at this way, ABC believes online delivery compares favorably to DVR. No surprise, Albert would not disclose ABC's revenues or research, but he did give me a wink-and-a-nod when I shared my estimate that the on-air revenue per program per viewer is in the $.50-$.75 range (of course specific programs and specific episodes are above and below this range). To be clear, this only means the revenue generated is in this range. Because of bathroom breaks, channel flipping, viewers chit-chatting, etc. obviously not all of the ads are actually viewed.

Estimating the revenue per program per viewer range for DVR playback, given its attendant ad-skipping, is more complicated. Ad-skipping is surely high, but it's unclear exactly how high. For example, last Nov, the NY Times reported Nielsen research that somewhat remarkably showed that 46% of viewers age 18-49 still watched a program's commercials when in DVR playback mode. A different story is told by TiVo, which released data last Sept saying that for the programs that won the top Emmy awards, somewhere between 55-83% of the audience viewing these programs in DVR mode skipped the ads.

Just to round off, if we say that 60% of the ads in DVR playback are skipped, then DVR economics - and therefore ABC.com's economics - are in the $.20-$.30 range on a per program per viewer basis (i.e. 40% of $.50-$.75). Even on the low side of that range, that's better than my previous estimate of $.15 per program per viewer for Hulu in particular (which in reality was probably a little high anyway).

Further, Albert said that there's plenty of room for improving online's economics. One key focus is increasing the ad load, possibly to as much as double the current 5 ads per program. ABC.com has experimented with this and its research shows that neither the viewer nor the advertiser experience is diminished. As a result, ABC is inclined to increase the ad load to continue improving online economics further, but is somewhat constrained by advertisers' desire to minimize clutter and their own desire to remain consistent with non-ABC sites' ad loads.

Online distribution of full-length programs is still in its relative infancy. Yet as consumers hunger for it, broadcast networks have little choice but to provide it. The key is how to make this new delivery method profitable and also not harmful to the traditional network P&L. The use of windows for example, seems like an effective tactic insofar as there exists an audience intent on watching a program the moment it's shown on-air. Based on last week's conversation with Albert, along with prior ones, it seems like ABC is balancing things well - taking steps to pursue online, but doing so in a well-researched and analytically sound manner.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Google's recently-announced fiber-to-the-home experiment (which I estimated could cost the company $750 million or more) looks even sillier in the context of continued announcements by cable operators of faster broadband deployments. As an example, this week brought news that Virgin Media, a large U.K. cable operator, is launching 100 megabit/second service by the end of this year, and also intends to expand its trial of 200 megabits/second service. Virgin's announcements came on top of Shaw Communications (a large Canadian cable operator) news from last week that it would soon test expanding its current 100 megabit/second service to 1 gigabit/second, a 10x increase. And big U.S. cable operators themselves continue deploying "DOCSIS 3.0" equipment to offer ever-faster broadband services.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

This week brought yet another new twist in the sizzling broadband-to-the-TV convergence space, as Cablevision unveiled a technical trial of its "PC to TV Media Relay" service. Cablevision didn't release a lot of details, but from what it said, it seems that users will download software to their computer which will allow them to then share content to their Cablevision digital set-top box for viewing on TV.

If it works - and of course that's an if for now - Media Relay could have broad implications, first and foremost for those trying to either sell standalone convergence boxes (e.g. Roku, soon Boxee, Apple TV, etc.) and other CE devices trying to leverage convergence functionality (e.g. gaming consoles, Blu-ray players, Internet TVs). Depending on how Cablevision prices Media Relay, it may make a lot more sense for consumers to use it than to go buy a convergence device. Online content providers and aggregators like Netflix and Hulu would also benefit from seamless TV-based viewing. While TV Everywhere seeks to expand access to cable programming outside the home, Media Relay complements it by offering online content within the home, on the TV. It's a very interesting development and worth keeping an eye on to see if others emulate it.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

The brinksmanship between Disney and the 3 largest U.K. theater chains over whether they would show Tim Burton's new "Alice in Wonderland" film is officially done, with all 3 chains now signed on. As I described last week in "In Trying to Preserve DVD Sales, Studios Are in a Tight Spot," in a bid to boost DVD sales, Disney was looking to trim the DVD release of "Alice" to just 12 1/2 weeks after its opening, from the customary 16 1/2. British and other European theaters revolted, angry that the move would diminish their box-office take, a particular hot-button in light of significant investments they've recently made in digital technologies.

Specific details of the Disney-U.K. deals aren't known, but as the Guardian reported, it appears that Disney has agreed to cap the number of movies that will get earlier-than-usual DVD releases and provided some improved financial terms. Despite the U.K. resolution, some other European chains are still holding out, as is the AMC chain in the U.S. Regardless of the final outcome of the "Alice" situation, early DVD releases are going to remain a priority for Hollywood studios who are desperate to stanch the fall-off in DVD sales brought about by the recession and the shift by consumers to rental, subscription and online viewing options. There are many more chapters to be written in this saga.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

The Journal is right on the mark with its video strategy, and is nicely demonstrating how newspapers can leverage their brands, journalists and advertising relationships into online video. There's nothing fancy about any of this video as the Journal is using cost-effective technologies like Skype and personal video cameras, plus a simple, yet functional set in its newsroom. The Digits video series would not be mistaken for broadcast journalism, but for the web, where real-time original analysis is key, it's well above the quality bar. Obviously the WSJ is a unique property, and it is complimented by other DJ resources. Still, all newspapers should be looking closely at its video strategy and applying its lessons. I've insisted for a long while that online video is anything but a death knell for print publications; the Journal is proving it in spades.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 51st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for February 26, 2010.

First up this week Daisy discusses the Beet TV online video roundtable in which she participated this week. Beet got a bunch of industry executives together for a discussion moderated by Kara Swisher of AllThingsD. Daisy talks about what she learned and the one-on-one interviews she conducted which will be available soon at the Beet site.

Then we discuss my post from yesterday, "Sezmi is Slick; Marketing It Will Be the Big Challenge," in which I reviewed the opportunities and challenges that Sezmi, the recently-launched next-gen video service provider is facing. Sezmi is now available in the entire LA area, with expansion to other U.S. geographies in store for later this year. I delve into why I think the skeptics are getting ahead of themselves in their downbeat assessments.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 52 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

While in LA this week, I caught up with Phil Wiser, Sezmi's president and co-founder and got another good look at the Sezmi service, which just officially launched in the entire LA market with Best Buy. I've been covering Sezmi for over 3 years, and from a technical and product standpoint, I continue to be impressed with what it has accomplished, especially for a 1.0 launch. Out-of-the box set up is very straightforward and a series of intuitive menus quickly creates a personalized user profile complete with recommended shows based on your interests and selections from linear and on-demand channels.

Sezmi gained my attention early on because unlike other broadband-only devices (e.g. Roku, Vudu, ZillionTV, AppleTV, gaming consoles, etc.), Sezmi's goal has always been to become a full replacement for existing multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"). That "boil the ocean" strategy has required it to develop its own hybrid broadcast/broadband content delivery system, sign up local broadcasters for access to their bandwidth, ink carriage deals with cable networks and design the user experience from scratch, among other things. Having done much of that work (with a key exception being to still get the remaining cable channels from Disney/ESPN, Fox, Scripps and A&E into the line-up), Sezmi's next challenge is to actually market the service and add subscribers cost-effectively. This could well prove to be Sezmi's biggest challenge.

The market for multichannel video subscriptions has never been more competitive than it is today. Deep-pocketed cable operators, satellite operators and telcos (and in some places 3rd party "overbuilders" like RCN) are beating the hell out of each other in many U.S. geographies. For example, here in the Boston area we're bombarded daily with ads on radio, in newspapers, in direct mail, through door-hangers and other means, to switch providers. While there are a lot of noisy promotional offers, there are plenty of product and technology-based pitches as well - more HD channels, faster broadband speeds, better VOD and so on. The "triple play" bundle of video, voice and data is a significant marketing lever. I don't know what the marketing cost per acquired customer is for Comcast or Verizon these days, but I have no doubt it has never been higher.

This is battleground that Sezmi is now entering after nearly four years of development. Many people are skeptical about Sezmi's odds of success (read TDG president Michael Greeson's well-done piece from last week for a rundown of the issues), at least as Sezmi is currently configured. Some of these concerns are very valid, in particular Sezmi's $299 upfront equipment fee (which is pretty much unique in the industry), its currently incomplete channel lineup (note also that HBO, Showtime and Starz are also not available) and the $20/mo rate which is marginally better than alternatives (but is likely to increase anyway as more channels and especially expensive ones like ESPN are added).

No question, Sezmi faces a steep marketing challenge. Still, I believe there are reasons for optimism. First, as Sezmi has said many times, it is not a box company and Best Buy isn't its only route to market. It plans deals with telco and ISP partners who will not only bundle its pricing but also erase the upfront charge through a rental model. The rental could be very aggressive depending on the partner's goals, opening up more pricing competitiveness for Sezmi. Second, Sezmi's user interface and certain product features are very compelling differentiators. Granted, incumbent MVPDs are not standing still (see Cablevision's "Media Relay" announcement just yesterday), but the fact that Sezmi owns its whole system from end to end gives it more control and flexibility to enhance the product (for example in VOD it is not relying on traditional vendors).

Lastly, and I'll admit this is where things get fuzzy, but I do think there's a segment of existing MVPD customers who hunger for something new, better and lower cost than is currently available. I've made the analogy for Sezmi to what JetBlue has done in the airline industry and I think that still holds. Depending on how distinctive Sezmi's positioning and messaging is, I think it could really resonate with younger, urban, tech-savvy users. One Sezmi feature alone - access to all YouTube videos - is a totally new value proposition. Phil and I quickly searched YouTube yesterday for "Alec Baldwin Hulu Super Bowl Ad" and in seconds there it was. Can any other MVPD offer that today?

There are plenty of reasons to discount Sezmi's chances of success, but I think that's premature thinking, especially given how dynamic the video landscape is today. But even if Sezmi doesn't thread the needle and fully surmount the marketing challenges ahead, the company still has a lot of value in its technology and products. If Vudu fetched a reported $100 million from Wal-Mart, and Sling got $380 million from DISH as announced a couple years ago, then there should be a palatable financial exit in store for Sezmi as well, even with $75 million or so invested to date. Of course its investors and executives are hoping for far more than just a "palatable" final chapter. The real test of what's in store for Sezmi is just now beginning.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).