Posts for 'Cable Networks'

Happy New Year. If you're just back from a holiday vacation and have been partially or totally off the grid for the last week or two, here are 7 video-oriented items you may have missed:

1. Time Warner Cable and News Corp fight over fees, then settle - Two behemoths of the cable and broadcast TV ecosystem spatted publicly during the holidays over the size of "retransmission consent" fees that News Corp (owner of the Fox Broadcast Network and cable channels like Fox News) wanted TWC (the 2nd largest U.S. cable operator) to pay to carry its 14 local stations. While a last minute deal averted the channels going dark, broadcasters' interest in dipping into cable's monthly subscription revenues will only intensify as audience fragmentation accelerates and ad revenues are pressured.

For my part I wish Fox and other broadcasters were as focused on building new and profitable digital delivery models for their programs as they were on trying to redistribute cable's revenues. Even as Rupert Murdoch continues advocating the paid content model, the freely-available Hulu is seeing its traffic skyrocket (see below). But if Hulu's viewership isn't incrementally profitable, then all that growth is pointless. Urgency is mounting too; in '10 convergence devices that bridge broadband to the TV are going to get a lot of attention. In the wake of their adoption, consumers are going to want Hulu on their TVs. If Hulu doesn't allow this it will be marginalized. But if it does without first solidifying its business model, it could hurt broadcasters further.

2. Hulu has a big traffic year, but no further information provided on its business model - Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar pulled back the curtain a bit on the company's strong progress in 2009, citing 95% growth in monthly users, to 43 million, 307% growth in monthly streams, to 924 million (both as measured by comScore) and a doubling of available content, to 14,000 hours. While noting that its advertisers increased from 166 to 408 during the year, with respect to performance, Jason only said that "we are extremely excited about atypically strong results we have been able to drive for our marketing partners."

Though Hulu is under no obligation to disclose details of its business model, I think it would dramatically increase the company's credibility if it shared some metrics about how its lighter ad load model is working (e.g. improved awareness, click throughs, leads, conversions, etc.). Per the 1st item above, as Hulu grows, a lot of people have a lot at stake in understanding what effect it may have on broadcast economics. In addition, as I pointed out recently, it is important to understand whether Hulu thinks it may have already saturated its U.S. audience. After a jump in Q1 '09 from 24.6 million to 41.6 million users, traffic actually dipped below 40 million until October. What does Hulu do from here to gain significantly more users?

3. Cable networks' primetime audience is nearly double broadcasters' - Punctuating the ascendancy of cable over broadcast, this Multichannel News article pointed out that in 2009, ad-supported cable networks as a group captured 60.7% of primetime audience vs. 32% for the 4 broadcast networks. That's a major change from 2000 when the broadcasters had a 46.8% share vs. cable's 41.2%. Cable increased its share every single year of the last decade, powered by its innovative original programming. NBCU's USA Network in particular has become the real standout performer, winning its second consecutive ratings crown, with 3.2 million average primetime viewers, up 14% vs. 2008.

The surging popularity of cable programming is a crucial barrier to consumers cutting the cord on cable. Since cable networks are highly invested in the monthly multichannel subscription model, they are unlikely to disrupt themselves by offering their best shows to others under substantially different terms than how they're offered today. So to the extent cable programs are either unavailable to over-the-top alternatives or offered less attractively (e.g. less choice, higher cost, delayed availability), little cord-cutting can be expected. And if TV Everywhere achieves its online access goals, the cable ecosystem will only be further strengthened.

4. YouTube is working to drive higher viewership - Amidst the turmoil in the traditional ecosystem and Hulu's growth, YouTube, the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world, is working hard to deepen the site's viewership. As this insightful NYTimes article explains, a team of YouTube developers is analyzing viewing patterns and tweaking its recommendation practices to encourage more usage. YouTube says time on the site has increased by 50% in the last year, and comScore reports that the average number of clips viewed per user per month jumped to 83 in October, up from 53 a year earlier. Still, as comScore also reports, duration of an average session has yet to crack 4 minutes, meaning video snacking on YouTube is still the norm. YouTube's moves must be watched closely in '10.

5. Showtime's "Weeds" available online before on DVD - This WSJ article (reg req'd) pointed out that Lionsgate, producer of Showtime's hit "Weeds" series is offering episodes online before they're available on DVD. By putting the digital "window" ahead of DVD's, Lionsgate is further pressuring DVD's appeal. We've seen periodic experimentation in this regard, and I anticipate more to come, especially as the universe of convergence devices expands and consumers can watch on their TVs instead of just their computers. Until a tipping point occurs though, "Weeds" like initiatives will be the exception, not the rule.

6. Netflix goes shopping in Hollywood - And speaking of reversing distribution windows, this Bloomberg Businessweek piece was the latest to highlight Netflix's efforts to woo studios into giving it more recent releases. Netflix has of course made huge progress with its Watch Instantly streaming feature, but its appeal to heaviest users will slow at some point unless it can dramatically expand its current slate of 17K titles available online. Hollywood is understandably wary of Netflix given all the variables in play and a desire to avoid Netflix becoming master of Hollywood's post-DVD, digital future. Whether Netflix will spend heavily to obtain better rights is a major question.

7. Get ready for Google's Nexus One and Apple's "iSlate" - Unless you've really been off the grid, you're probably aware by now that two very significant mobile product releases are coming this month. Tomorrow (likely) Google will unveil the Nexus One, its own smartphone, powered by its Android 2.1 operating system. The Nexus One will be "unlocked," meaning it can operate on multiple providers using GSM networks. The device will further fuel the mobile Internet, and mobile video consumption along with it. Separately, Apple is widely rumored to introduce its tablet computer later in the month, which many believe will be called the "iSlate." The tablet market is completely virgin territory, and while it's early to make predictions, I believe Apple could have most of the ingredients needed to make the product another big hit. The prospect of watching high-quality video on a thin, light, user-friendly device is extremely compelling.

It's time to say goodbye to 2009 and begin looking ahead to 2010.

2009 was yet another important year in the ongoing growth of broadband and mobile video. There were many exciting developments, but several stand out for me: the announcement and launches of initial TV Everywhere services, the raising of at least $470 million in new capital by video-oriented companies, YouTube's and Hulu's impressive growth to 10 billion streams/mo and 856 million streams/mo, respectively, the iPhone's impact on popularizing mobile video, the Comcast-NBCU deal, the maturing of the online video advertising model, the proliferation of Roku and other convergence devices and the growth of Netflix's Watch Instantly, just to name a few.

Looking ahead to next year, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about video's growth: the rollout of TV Everywhere by multiple providers, the proliferation of Android-powered smartphones and buildout of advanced mobile networks, both of which will contribute to mobile video's growth, the launch of Apple's much-rumored tablet, which could create yet another category of on-the-go content access, the introduction of new convergence devices, helping bridge video to the TV for more people, new made-for-broadband video series, which will help expand the medium's appeal, and wider syndication, which will make video ever more available.

In the midst of all this change, monetization remains the fundamental challenge for broadband and mobile video. More specifically, for both content providers and distributors, the challenge is how to ensure that the video industry avoids the same downward revenue spiral that the Internet itself has wrought on print publishers.

Regardless of all the technology innovations, high-quality content still costs real money to produce. If consumers are going to be offered quality choices, a combination of them paying for it along with advertising, is essential. While it's important to be consumer-friendly, this must always be balanced with a sustainable business model. In short, no matter what the size of the audience is, giving something away for free without a clear path for effectively monetizing it is not a strategy for long-term success.

VideoNuze will be on hiatus until Monday, January 4th (unless of course something big happens during this time). I'll be catching my breath in anticipation of a busy 2010, and hope you will too.

Thank you for finding time in your busy schedules to read and pass along VideoNuze. It's incredibly gratifying to hear from many of you about how important a role VideoNuze plays in helping you understand the disruptive change sweeping through the industry. I hope it will continue to do so in the new year.

A huge thank you also to VideoNuze's sponsors - without them, VideoNuze wouldn't be possible. This year, over 40 companies supported the VideoNuze web site and email, plus the VideoSchmooze evenings and other events. I'm incredibly grateful for their support. As always, if you're interested in sponsoring VideoNuze, please contact me.

Happy holidays to all of you, see you in 2010!

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal story, suggesting that CBS and Disney may participate in Apple's planned TV subscription service, caused was yet another tremor in the already chaotic video industry. Though Apple's plans are still preliminary, when I consider the numbers the Journal reported, the company's fuzzy math suggests incumbent distributors have little to worry about just yet.

The Journal said that in "In at least some versions of the proposal, Apple would pay media companies about $2 to $4 a month per subscriber for a broadcast network like CBS or ABC, and about $1 to $2 a month per subscriber for a basic-cable network..." Let's assume the mid-points for both: $3/mo for broadcast networks and $1.50/mo for cable networks. With 4 broadcast networks (assuming NBC participates, which under Comcast ownership is itself unlikely), that would be $12 in fees/mo. Say Apple signed up 12 cable networks, that would be another $18 in fees/mo. Together the $30 in fees/mo equals what Apple is reportedly looking to charge consumers. And this package would only deliver 16 channels, which would induce few consumers to cut the cord. And by the way, there's zero chance that one of those 16 cable channels would be Disney's ESPN, which already gets north of $3/mo/sub in all of its existing affiliate deals.

Given the broadcast networks' woes, it's within the realm of possibility that they would be enticed by the $2-$4/mo, considering it's above the $1/mo/sub that is often bandied about in retransmission consent discussions. Yet, Apple is supposedly talking about delivering the programs commercial-free, which means broadcasters' total revenue per month has to equal or exceed what they're already making per month for the plan to be interesting to them. With $60 billion/year in TV advertising revenue at stake, that's a big gamble for broadcast networks to make. Even the notion that consumers would pay for broadcast programs simply because they're commercial-free is speculative. Most research I've seen suggests the opposite consumer preference (they'd rather stomach ads in exchange for free content).

An even bigger challenge for Apple is to get cable networks to play ball. Starting with my post over a year ago, "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks," I've continued to assert that, despite ongoing skirmishes, cable networks and cable operators are joined at the hip in their desire to defend the traditional multichannel subscription model. In the model, big owners of cable networks bundle smaller channels with bigger, more popular ones, and require that cable operators, telcos and satellite operators take these as a package. This is the backdrop for why consumers often grouse that there are lots of channels, but little on that interests them personally. Meanwhile, TV Everywhere is intended to preserve this model as online viewing expectations build.

It stretches my imagination to believe that big cable network owners (Disney included) are going to allow Apple to cherry-pick which cable networks they want and disrupt the traditional model, especially at a time when cable networks want more, not less control. That cable networks would be willing to put Steve Jobs in the driver's seat of their digital futures is very unlikely. Analogies to the music business only go so far: remember, music companies were already under assault from rampant piracy and reeling under financial pressure when Apple came riding to their rescue. Cable networks feel no such urgency; they've been the brightest star in the media landscape as the recession has worn on.

I've learned never to underestimate Steve Jobs or Apple. But based on what's been reported so far, Apple's subscription TV math seems very fuzzy and any service that emerges from it is likely, for the most part, to be non-threatening to incumbent distributors. And that's before getting to the issues of Apple being a closed system and requiring consumers to buy a proprietary Apple TV box to get their programs onto their TVs. In the budding 'over-the-top" sweepstakes, Apple is one to watch for sure. But there are a lot of variables in play here. It will be fun to see if Jobs has yet another rabbit up his sleeve.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 44th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for December 18, 2009. This will be the last podcast for 2009, and we'd both like to say a huge thanks to everyone who's been listening in this year.

This week I start things off by providing further detail on my experience so far with Comcast's TV Everywhere initiative, Fancast Xfinity TV (or "FXTV" as I call it for short), which was released in beta to 14 million subscribers this week at no additional charge. On the whole I think it's a respectable effort, and in the big picture, is exactly what the company should be doing with online distribution. The main challenge for improving it is getting lots more content from ad-supported and premium cable networks, so that users are more likely to find what they're looking for. For all kinds of reasons, this won't be easy, but if any company can make it happen, it's surely Comcast.

Then Daisy reviews her '09 predictions and shares her "New Media Minute Awards for Excellence." She recognizes Kaltura, 5Min, boxee, Quantcast, and  number 1 pick, MyDamnChannel. All have excelled this year, attracting new venture financing, signing new deals and growing their business. Daisy is particularly proud of MyDamnChannel because it also achieved profitability this year. Listen in to find out more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 18 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Amid much anticipation, Comcast launched its "Fancast Xfinity TV" (my shorthand will be "FXTV") service yesterday. FXTV is Comcast's TV Everywhere offering and it will initially be available only to the company's approximately 14 million "dual play" (digital cable + broadband Internet access) subscribers. Comcast is keeping a "beta" label on FXTV for now, to give it some time to work out the kinks. As a Comcast triple-play customer, I have access to FXTV and I played around with it yesterday and last night. While there's plenty of room for improvement, overall FXTV is off to a respectable start.

When dual play customers now visit Fancast they are immediately notified through a prominent pop-up that there's "Great News for Comcast Customers" about online access to over a 1,000 new shows and movies. "Get started" prompts the user to enter their Comcast.net email address and password, then a 17.5MB download begins which includes the Move Networks player and an Adobe Air application. After naming your computer (you're allowed up to 3 devices to access FXTV), the site reloads with the new FXTV Beta branding. All of that worked fine for me.

A prominent window at the top of the page promotes 4 current TV shows, but FXTV misses a big opportunity to immediately demonstrate its value by oddly showcasing just 1 program (TNT's "Men of a Certain Age,") that's not sourced from Hulu. Savvy users will know the rest are already freely available there. Why not promote 4 programs that are only available to FXTV users? And why not include messaging like "Exclusively for FXTV Users!" to remind users of the payoff for having just gone through a download process?

On the positive side, below this window, FXTV promotes programming from premium channels HBO, Starz and Cinemax. As a non-subscriber to Cinemax, when I clicked on "Juno," which had a little key icon, FXTV's authentication process kicked in, prompting a message to subscribe to Cinemax to watch. However, when I clicked "Learn more" my popup blocker interceded which meant I needed to disable it and then reload the page. The Cinemax promotional page that loads is generic from the Comcast.com web site, featuring a graphic of "Gran Torino" and promotions for 3 other movies. Comcast has a golden upsell opportunity when FXTV users click on premium content. It would no doubt improve its conversion ratio if the landing page were customized to load a graphic of the original movie or show selected at FXTV, well merchandised with trailers, clips and other information. A special offer/reward for FXTV users would also help.

Back on the FXTV site, below the premium channel promotions is an area for Full Episodes, categorized by "Celeb News," "The Hot List," "Dramas," etc. Once again, many of the thumbnails link to content that is freely available online and to all other Fancast users. Once again, I'm surprised that Comcast isn't doing more to promote programs that are only available to FXTV users, making it more explicit what's special about FXTV.

I clicked and watched parts of a number of shows and in general my experience was positive. I've read other reviews describing buffering delays, but I didn't experience any issues, or at least anything different than I typically do when starting videos at other sites. One thing Comcast disclosed on the press call yesterday was that FXTV would be available to dual play subscribers outside their homes. Recall that in the 5,000 person trial, users could only access the service from within their homes, so this is a major step forward. I haven't yet tested FXTV remotely, but will do so while in Florida next week.

The biggest challenge FXTV faces is content availability, particularly from the ad-supported cable networks. For example of last week's top 10 rated cable shows, only TNT's "The Closer" and "Men of a Certain Age" are available on FXTV. Among the top 10, there are no sports (football or WWE) or kids shows like "Sponge Bob" (Nick) or "Phineas and Ferb" (Disney) available. Even for #10 show "Keeping up With the Kardashians" the most recent episodes are from Season 2, back in May 2008 - and this is a show that's on E! Entertainment, a channel that Comcast itself owns! There are no episodes offered of my favorite cable show, AMC's "Mad Men."

The content selection on the premium channels HBO, Starz and Cinemax (note Showtime is not yet available on FXTV) is better, but not eye-popping. For example, the only episodes of HBO's "Entourage" that are available are from Season 2 in 2005, despite the fact that Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts specifically demonstrated and highlighted the idea that all episodes of Entourage would be available when he showed the service at the Web 2.0 conference less than 2 months ago. For some reason HBO must have pulled the rights to Entourage in this time.

A lot of the questions on the press call Comcast conducted yesterday focused on content availability and it's clear that obtaining the rights to distribute the full slate of cable programs online is devilishly complex. To be sure, Comcast has made progress, saying it has 27 networks are supplying programming, totaling 12K titles. There's no distributor in a better position to make online distribution happen than Comcast, yet as I wrote last week about Nielsen not yet being able to collect and then synthesize online viewership, Comcast (and other TV Everywhere providers) are subject to forces beyond their control.

Yet another complicating factor is how advertising in FXTV will work. Comcast said that for now, while "nobody really knows what works best," each network will be permitted to experiment with ad loads. It's not clear how long this will go on, nor what role Comcast will play to guide networks to a certain load. In the meantime though, the downside is that the user experience is inconsistent from one network to another. For an offering that's free to subscribers that's not a big drawback, but the lack of consistency does chip away at least a little bit from the overall experience.

Taken together, Comcast deserves credit for getting FXTV out the door just 6 months since announcing it this summer, which is light speed in cable TV terms. There are lots of ways it can and will be improved upon. Gaining credibility with content providers, so that FXTV can beef up its library is priority #1. As I've been saying for a while now, conceptually FXTV is right on all fronts - it preserves the paid consumer model for content providers, offers users enhanced value and helps Comcast and other providers defend against cord-cutting. Hopefully Comcast and other providers will sufficiently invest in these services to let them reach their full potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Based on a number of conversations I've had with cable programming executives, Nielsen's current inability to measure online viewing of TV programs and meld that data effectively with on-air viewing is emerging as a key stumbling block to successful rollouts of TV Everywhere services.

Cable networks are justifiably concerned that any viewership that potentially shifts from on-air to online that they are not credited for will adversely impact their ratings and therefore their advertising revenue. Until the issue is fixed cable networks will be reluctant to offer their most popular programs to TV Everywhere providers, in turn diluting TV Everywhere's appeal to consumers.

Nielsen, the de facto standard in TV ratings measurement, is well aware of these concerns and as Multichannel News reported this past Monday, it plans to accelerate the deployment of its "TVandPC" software which measures online viewing to 7,500 of its National People Meter households by Aug. 31, 2010. While that's a start, as industry executives have told me, it's not just the online viewing data that's needed, but also the proper blending of that data with the on-air data that's critical.

Among the issues is how online viewing, which offers consumers the potential of much-delayed on-demand viewing, should be aligned with Nielsen's "C3" ratings, which captures up to 3 days playback on DVRs. Another issue is understanding and measuring new TV Everywhere viewership patterns (e.g. college students remotely watching shows on a laptop which has been authenticated by Mom and Dad's cable account). Then there's the question of whether the online ad loads are going to be comparable to those on-air (e.g. if the online share of a program's overall viewership carried far fewer ads than the on-air viewership, advertisers and media planners will want to know this). No doubt other issues loom as well.

Add it all up and the process of collecting and then blending online and on-air viewership data is non-trivial and will require a significant investment and testing on Nielsen's part to accomplish. From Nielsen's standpoint, it could be reluctant to make such an investment in overhauling its measurement service unless there were pre-commitments from some of its clients to accepting and buying the enhanced ratings service.

On the one hand, it would seem that cable networks' reluctance to embrace TV Everywhere until adequate measurement systems were in place would be a strong incentive for TV Everywhere providers to support Nielsen's enhancements. However, I've been told that when Nielsen previously made improvements to track Video-on-Demand viewership, not many service providers implemented necessary mechanisms to denote programs were VOD-based, and therefore Nielsen's investment yielded little return. Particularly given the tough economic times, that could make Nielsen more cautious about how it proceeds with online ratings. For now Nielsen has not disclosed its plans.

Still, Nielsen is under pressure to move forward given the formation of the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM), which is comprised of 14 TV networks, agencies and advertisers. CIMM's goal is to explore new methodologies for audience measurement, particularly for set-top box data and cross-platform media consumption. While some in the industry have tagged CIMM as a Nielsen challenger, its members have said they have no intention of trying to replace Nielsen. Regardless, the presence of an industry-backed group trying to wrap its arms around cross-platform audience measurement is likely to only accelerate Nielsen's online tracking efforts.

As VideoNuze readers know, I've been quite enthusiastic about TV Everywhere's potential, though I'm plenty cognizant of the challenges it faces. Measurement is surely near the top of that list. One of the benefits to Comcast of owning NBCU is that, if it chooses to, it can release NBCU's cable networks' programs for TV Everywhere viewing, absent complete online tracking. This would be comparable to what Hulu's owners have chosen to do by distributing their broadcast network shows online (they're at least partly motivated by the belief that online viewing augments on-air viewing). But Comcast won't take ownership of NBCU for another year or so. By that time Nielsen may well be close to rolling a blended online/on-air offering.

In sum, it could well be that 2010 ends up being more a year of experimentation for TV Everywhere while building blocks like audience measurement get put in place. VOD, which years since its launch still lacks many primetime programs as well as dynamic advertising insertion, offers a cautionary example for TV Everywhere providers of how a lack of investment can block the realization of a new medium's full potential. Cable networks in particular will keep looking for signals that TV Everywhere will be more robust than VOD before they get too enthusiastic about online distribution.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 42nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for December 4, 2009.

Today's sole topic is of course the big news of the week, Comcast's acquisition of NBCU. Daisy and I chat about the winners/losers/unknowns that I detailed in my post yesterday. There are a lot of aspects to the Comcast-NBCU deal and the new entity will have wide-ranging implications for the media industry. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 24 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

With Comcast's acquisition of NBCU finally official this morning (technically, it's not an acquisition, but rather the creation of a JV in which Comcast holds 51% and GE 49%, until GE inevitably begins unwinding its position), it's time to assess the winners, losers and unknowns from the deal, the biggest the media industry has seen in a long while. I listened to the Comcast investor call this morning with Brian Roberts, Steve Burke and Michael Angelakis and reviewed their presentation.

Here's how my list shakes out, based on current information:

Winners:

1. Comcast - the biggest winner in the deal is Comcast itself, which has pulled off the second most significant media deal of the decade (the first was its acquisition in 2002 of AT&T Broadband, which made Comcast by far the largest cable operator in the U.S.), for a relatively small amount of upfront cash. Comcast has long sought to become a major player in cable networks, but to date has been able to assemble an interesting, but mostly second tier group of networks (only one, E! has distribution to more than 90 million U.S. homes).

The deal moves Comcast into the elite group of top 5 cable channel owners, alongside Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and News Corp, with pro-forma 2010 annual revenues of $18.2 billion and operating cash flow of $3 billion. It also provides Comcast with a huge hedge on its traditional cable/broadband/voice businesses, as the JV, on a pro-forma basis would be 35% of Comcast's overall 2010 revenue of $52.1 billion, though importantly only 18% of its cash flow of $16.5 billion. On the investor call, Roberts emphasized that the deal should not be seen as the company diminishing its enthusiasm for the traditional cable business, but given the downward recent trends in fundamentals (vividly shown in slides from my "Comcast's Digital Transformation Continues" post 3 weeks ago), the conclusion that Comcast will be relying on its content business for future growth is inescapable.

2. Cable networks' paid business model/TV Everywhere - With Comcast's executives' platitudes about cable networks being "the best part of the media business," the fact that cable networks will contribute 80%+ of the JV's cash flow and the ongoing travails of the ad-supported broadcast TV business, the deal puts an exclamation mark on the primacy of the dual-revenue stream cable network model and Comcast's commitment to defending it (see "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks" for more on this.)

The deal can also be seen as cementing the paid business model for online access to cable networks' programs. Comcast is committed to having online distribution of TV programs emulate the cable model, where access is only given to those consumers who pay for a multichannel subscription service. Much as they may resist acknowledging it, Hollywood and the larger creative community must see Comcast as doing them a huge service by preserving the consumer-paid model, helping the video industry avoid the financial fate of newspapers, broadcasters and music. To be sure, some consumers will cut the cord and be satisfied with what they can get for free online, however it is unlikely to be a large number any time soon. As for aspiring over-the-top providers, they'll need to look outside the cable network ecosystem to generate competitive advantage.

3. Jeff Zucker - The current head of NBCU will migrate into the role of CEO of the JV, greatly expanding his portfolio and influence. Zucker has fought the good fight to preserve the NBC network's status, rotating in new creative heads, shifting Leno to primetime, backing Hulu, etc, but the reality, as he pointed out earlier this year, is that NBCU in his mind has long since become a cable programming company. I've been a Zucker fan since seeing him speak at NATPE in '08 when he laid out a sober assessment of the broadcast business. Through solid acquisitions and execution, Zucker has proved himself to be far more than the wonderboy of "Today" - he's going to fit in well at Comcast and be a great addition to its executive team.

Losers:

1. NBC broadcast network and the JV's 10 owned and operated stations - While Comcast executives said they "don't anticipate any need or desire to divest any businesses" and "take seriously their responsibility" to the iconic NBC brand, the reality is that with the broadcast business contributing just 10% of the JV's pro-forma annual cash flow, the network, and especially the stations, are not just in the back seat of the JV, they're in the third row. Though broadcast contributes 38% of the JV's pro-forma revenue and the deal is being struck near the bottom of the advertising recession, it's hard to see things improving much. Exceptions are the sports division (more on that below), the TV production arm and possibly the news division. The only thing saving the stations is retrans and Comcast's need to appease regulators to get the deal done and keep the regulators at bay thereafter.

2. Other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators - It's never good news when one of your main competitors owns the rights to a good chunk of the key ingredients in your product, yet that's the reality for all other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators. Sure Comcast must be disciplined about throwing its weight around too much, but if these distributors cried when NBCU (and other big network owners) forced bundling and drove fee increases, they haven't seen anything until Comcast runs the renewal processes. With 6 channels having 90+ million homes under agreement plus many others in the JV's portfolio, Comcast is in a very strong negotiating position. As the world moves online, the threat that Comcast eventually says to hell with other distributors and goes over the top itself (a scenario I described here), other distributors have even bigger problems ahead.

3. GE - Yes GE gets about $15 billion in cash and a graceful exit from NBCU, but 20 years since incongruously acquiring NBC, the question burns even brighter, what was GE doing in the entertainment business in the first place? Hasta la vista GE, time to focus on manufacturing turbines and unraveling the woes at GE Capital.

Unknowns:

1. Do content and distribution go together any better this time around - With the disastrous results of AOL-Time Warner still fresh in the mind, it's fair to ask whether vertical integration will work any better this time around. Sensitive to the issue and no doubt anticipating questions on it, Roberts said on the call that this is "a different time and a different deal" and, pointing to News Corp-DirecTV, noted that sometimes vertical integration does work. In addition, he highlighted that the deal's financials are not predicated on achieving any elusive synergies. Still, aside from the obvious benefits of getting bigger in cable networks, the primary reasons cited for Comcast pursuing the deal still have synergy at their core: a slide that clearly says that "Distribution Benefits Content" and "Content Benefits Distribution." As always there are plenty of opportunities to pursue in theory; the challenge is executing on them given the rampant conflicts and turf battles that inevitably ensue.

2. Hulu's future - the online aggregator was literally not mentioned once in the Comcast presentation and its logo only appears on just one of the 36 slides in the deck, yet its presence is hard to underestimate. Hulu is the embodiment of the free, ad-supported premium video model that Comcast is so fiercely committed to combating. So how does it fare when one of its controlling partners soon will be Comcast? In response to a question, Steve Burke said he sees "broadcast content going to Hulu" and that "Hulu and TV Everywhere are complementary products." He also tersely dismissed the much-rumored idea of a Hulu subscription offering. It's impossible to know what becomes of Hulu, but with such divergent interests among the owners, it wouldn't surprise me if Hulu is unwound at some point post closing.

3. ESPN's role - With the JV's NBC Sports assets, plus Comcast's Versus, regional sports networks and Golf Channel, the new JV is primed to play a bigger role in national sports. While Fox Sports and TNT have skirmished for high-profile rights deals with ESPN, the new JV has a much stronger hand to play. It's fair to wonder whether Comcast, which likely sends Disney a check for $70-80 million each month to carry ESPN to its 24 million subscribers, won't at some point say, "hey we can do some of this ourselves" and move to become a bona fide ESPN competitor. In fact, ESPN figures into a far larger Comcast vs. Disney story line in the media industry going forward. The two companies are incredibly dependent on each other, and yet are poised to become even tougher rivals. Expect to hear much more about this one.

4. Consumers - last but not least, what does the deal mean for consumers? Likely very little initially, but over time almost certainly an acceleration of digitally-delivered on-demand premium content - but at a price. Comcast has the best delivery infrastructure, with the JV, soon premier content assets and a persistent, if sometimes incomplete (as with VOD, for example) commitment to shape the digital future. I expect that will mean lots of experimentation with windows, multiplatform distribution and co-promotion across brands. Washington will scrutinize the deal thoroughly, but with continued public service assurances from Comcast, will eventually bless it. Then it will be vigilant for anything that smacks of anti-competitiveness. Consumers should buckle up, the next stage of their media experience is about to begin.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Oprah Winfrey's decision last week to voluntarily wrap up her long-running talk show captured the biggest headlines, but a more subtle takeaway message should also be noted: even in the broadband age where content providers can connect directly to their audiences, there's still enormous value in working through distributors who are willing to pay a guaranteed monthly fee to carry a 24/7 linear channel. In this case the channel is new Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN), which is a 50-50 joint venture with Discovery Communications and will be Oprah's main business focus.

OWN is actually taking over the 70 million home (U.S.) carriage that Discovery established for its digital channel Discovery Health Channel which didn't generate much ratings success. This allows OWN to count on an established revenue stream from its distributors before a single program has been put on air or a single ad has been sold. As a result, a portion of the new venture's financial risk is mitigated from the start. Of course there will still be huge pressure on OWN to create programs that have sustainable audience appeal (the bread and butter of all networks, cable or broadcast), but the cushion of those monthly distributor payments cannot be underestimated.

I've said for a long time that the fundamental differentiating aspect of broadband video is that it is the first open video delivery platform. By open I mean that content providers are able to reach their intended audiences without requiring deals with any third party cable operator, satellite operator, telco, cable network, broadcast network, local broadcast TV station, etc. If you're a producer, that's incredibly liberating: just put your video up on a server and online audiences have immediate access to it. YouTube's 10 billion+ monthly streams, many of which are user-generated, attest to how powerful a concept open video delivery is.

Of course the problem is that just because you can produce video and make it available, doesn't mean it has any economic value to an advertiser or to a distributor. By definition distributors only seek to take on products that they believe have value in the retail marketplace. In cable's early days, operators were desperate to differentiate themselves as more than retransmitters of broadcast stations and were willing to take on channels with untested and often quizzical formats: 24 hour news (CNN), music videos (MTV) and low-popularity sports (ESPN), among others. Over time the fees these channels and others command have grown significantly, helping fuel their programming budgets and in turn their audience popularity.

A comparable paid distribution model has not yet developed for broadband video. For a time I believed that sites like Hulu, Joost and Veoh might be able to develop such a model given the amount of capital that each had raised. Only Hulu now has the potential to do so, though there's no indication as yet that it intends to. Absent a paid distribution model, the vast majority of broadband-only video producers are reliant on advertising, just like broadcast TV networks. Some broadband producers are proving that an ad-only model works, yet there's no question a viable paid distribution model would be a tremendous boost for the industry.

Watching Revision3's Tekzilla on TV the other night via Roku, I was reminded that until broadband video is widely available on TVs it will remain hard for any new paid distribution model to take root. That's because consumers will require a comparable living room viewing experience before many of them show a willingness to pay. The good news is that this experience is coming, as millions of TVs will soon have broadband access, either on their own or through a connected device (e.g. Roku, Xbox, Apple TV, etc.). Until then though, the paid distribution model will only be available to Oprah and others with gold-plated appeal.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

TV Everywhere is getting another shot of momentum this morning as thePlatform, one of the leading online video platform companies (and a subsidiary of Comcast) is rolling out new features aimed at giving TV networks greater control of their programs in the coming TV Everywhere world.

The key new feature is what thePlatform calls an "Authentication Adaptor," which is a mechanism for networks that want to offer their programs on their own web sites to authenticate users as current paying video subscribers of a multichannel video provider (recall that under current TVE plans it is a requirement to be a multichannel video subscriber in order to access programs online). The authentication adaptor works by instantly checking with appropriate multichannel providers' billing systems and returning a yes/no authentication response for that user.

If the user is authenticated, then the adaptor verifies that the specific program is available for viewing to that user, depending on what tier of service the user subscribes to. thePlatform does this by mapping each individual show to specific channels that each have an ID. The channel IDs are in turn mapped to the multichannel provider's subscription packages. For example if you were to try watching "Entourage" on HBO.com, but you didn't subscribe to HBO the linear channel via your service provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.), your request would be denied. As one can imagine, with the endless permutations of shows, networks, subscription packages and multichannel providers, linking all of this together and delivering fast response times to the user is quite a challenge.

What's also interesting here is that if indeed a request has been denied, a marketing opportunity has been created for both the TV network and the multichannel provider. In the Entourage example above, the denial message could be accompanied by offers to watch now on a pay-per-view basis or to instantly become a subscriber to HBO via Comcast, or to buy the DVD, etc. Or maybe the offer is just to watch free clips to improve sampling. thePlatform supports the creation of these types of rules and integration to appropriate 3rd parties. This is a great example of how TV Everywhere also opens up the instant-gratification online economy to networks and video providers.

The new features gain in importance as thePlatform is also announcing this morning more than 20 TV networks have recently become customers including Fox Sports Networks, E!, G4, Style, Comcast Sports Group (a group of regional sports networks), Travel Channel, Big Ten Network and others yet to be named. As TV Everywhere rolls out next year, TV networks will become increasingly interested in offering their programs themselves, in addition to offering access on their distributors' web sites.

Separate, thePlatform is also announcing today that it is working with Rogers, which is Canada's leading multichannel video provider, on an online video initiative. Though details aren't provided, Rogers recently disclosed that is also pursuing TV Everywhere, so it's probably logical to put two and two together. thePlatform also provides video management services to large American operators Cablevision, Cox, Time Warner Cable, in addition to parent company Comcast. Between the video provider deals and the TV networks deals, thePlatform finds itself squarely in the middle of the TV Everywhere action.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 2nd week:

1. Media company and service provider earnings underscore improvements in economy - This was earnings week for the bulk of the publicly-traded media companies and video service providers, and the general theme was modest increases in financial performance, due largely to the rebounding economy. The media companies reporting - CBS, News Corp, Time Warner. Discovery, Viacom and the Rainbow division of Cablevision - showed ongoing strength in their cable networks, with broadcast networks improving somewhat from earlier this year. For ad-supported online video sites, plus anyone else that's ad-supported, indications of a healthier ad climate are obviously very important.

Meanwhile the video service providers reporting - Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable and DirecTV all showed revenue gains, a clear reminder that even in recessionary times, the subscription TV business is quite resilient. Cable operators continued their trend of losing basic subscribers to emerging telco competitors (with evidence that DirecTV might now be as well), though they were able to offset these losses largely through rate increases. Though some people believe "cord-cutting" due to new over-the-top video services is real, this phenomenon hasn't shown up yet in any of the financial results. Nor do I expect it will for some time either, as numerous building blocks still need to fall into place (e.g. better OTT content, mass deployment of convergence devices, ease-of-use, etc.)

2. Blu-ray players could help drive broadband to the TV - Speaking of convergence devices, two articles this week highlighted the role that Blu-ray players are having in bringing broadband video to the living room. The WSJ and Video Business both noted that Blu-ray manufacturers see broadband connectivity as complementary to the disc value proposition, and are moving forward aggressively on integrating this feature. Blu-ray can use all the help it can get. According to statistics I recently pulled from the Digital Entertainment Group, in Q3 '09, DVD players continue to outsell Blu-ray players by an almost 5 to 1 ratio (15 million vs. 3.3 million). Cumulatively there are only 11.2 Blu-ray compatible U.S. homes, vs. 92 million DVD homes.

Still, aggressive price-cutting could change the equation. I recently noticed Best Buy promoting one of its private-label Insignia Blu-ray players, with Netflix Watch Instantly integrated, for just $99. That's a big price drop from even a year ago. Not surprisingly, Netflix's Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandros said "streaming apps are the killer apps for Blu-ray players." Of course, Netflix execs would likely say that streaming apps are also the killer apps for game devices, Internet-connected TVs and every other device it is integrating its Watch Instantly software into. I've been generally pessimistic about Blu-ray's prospects, but price cuts and streaming could finally move the sales needle in a bigger way.

3. Apple lurks, but how long will it stay quiet in video? - The week got off to a bang with a report that Apple is floating a $30/mo subscription idea by TV networks. While I think the price point is far too low for Apple to be able to offer anything close to the comprehensive content lineup current video service providers have, it was another reminder that Apple lurks as a major potential video disruptor. How long will it stay quiet is the key question.

While in my local Apple store yesterday (yes I'm preparing to finally ditch my PC and go Mac), I saw the new 27 inch iMac for the first time. It was a pretty stark reminder that Apple is just a hair's breadth away from making TVs itself. Have you seen this beast yet? It's Hummer-esque as a workstation for all but the creative set, but, stripped of some of its computing power to cost-reduce it, it would be a gorgeous smaller-size TV. Throw in iTunes, a remote, decent content, Apple's vaunted ease-of-use and of course its coolness cachet and the company could fast re-order the subscription TV industry, not to mention the TV OEM industry. The word on the street is that Apple's next big product launch is a "Kindle-killer" tablet/e-reader, so it's unlikely Steve Jobs would steal any of that product's thunder by near-simultaneously introducing a TV. If a TV's coming (and I'm betting it is), it's likely to be 2H '10 at the earliest.

4. Get ready for the "Anywhere" revolution - Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to Emily Green, president and CEO of tech research firm Yankee Group, deliver a keynote in which she previewed themes and data from her forthcoming book, "Anywhere: How Global Connectivity is Revolutionizing the Way We Do Business." Emily is an old friend, and 15 years ago when she was a Forrester analyst and I was VP of Biz Dev at Continental Cablevision (then the 3rd largest cable operator), she was one of the few people I spoke to who got how important high-speed Internet access was, and how strategic it would become for the cable industry. 40 million U.S. cable broadband homes later (and 70 million overall) amply validates both points.

Emily's new book explores how the world will change when both wired and wireless connectivity are as pervasive as electricity is today. No question the Internet and cell phones have already dramatically changed the world, but Emily makes a very strong case that we ain't seen nothing yet. I couldn't help but think that TV Everywhere is arriving just in time for video service providers whose customers increasingly expect their video anywhere, anytime and on any device. "Anywhere" will be a must-read for anyone trying to make sense of how revolutionary pervasive connectivity is.

Enjoy your weekends!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 38th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for October 30th, 2009.

This week Daisy first shares her observations from the recent iMedia Summit, where Julie Roehm, the former CMO of Wal-Mart shared insights about the factors driving brands to shift their ad spending to digital media. Daisy also highlights reasons Roehm gave for why the shift isn't necessarily happening as quickly as it should.

Then I dig into 2 of my posts from earlier this week, "Seeking Cable's Formula for Success in Broadband Video," part 1 and part 2, which were based on panels I moderated at the CTAM Summit (an annual conference of cable industry marketers) in Denver. On the one hand my sense is that the cable industry is trying to get its arms around consumers' shift to broadband video usage, but on the other, I think it is focusing too much on its existing TV platform and not enough on embracing broadband video as a new medium. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 38 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Yesterday I moderated the closing general session panel of the CTAM Summit, which included Paul Bascobert (Chief Marketing Officer, Dow Jones & Company), Matt Bond (EVP, Content Acquisition, Comcast), Andy Heller (Vice Chairman, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.), Jason Kilar (CEO, Hulu), David Preschlack (EVP, Disney and ESPN Networks Affiliate U.S. Sales and Marketing) and Peter Stern (EVP & Chief Strategy Officer, Time Warner Cable). The session offered a prime opportunity to better understand the cable industry's strategy for success in the broadband video era.

In yesterday's post I asserted that the cable industry's main challenge is balancing its desire to preserve its highly successful subscription/ad-supported business model, while meeting consumers' increasing demands for flexibility. At a very high level the two goals are not incompatible; in particular the concept of TV Everywhere could well be a killer app in serving both. Rather, for me, yesterday's session reinforced my concern that the industry is still too focused on the TV platform, and not sufficiently acknowledging consumers' behavioral shifts to online consumption. These are not my sentiments alone; walking the halls of the Colorado Convention Center, various industry participants expressed their concern, in one way or another, that the industry is still not fully in synch with changing times.

On the panel Peter made great points citing data that a very high proportion of online viewing is in the home, and that the amount of time spent viewing online video is still tiny compared to traditional TV viewing. The latter point is one I often make as well, though I believe an equally important point is the remarkable rate at which online video's viewership has grown over the last several years.

On the surface, I agree with Peter's insistence that 80% of the industry's focus should be on improving the TV experience, as that's where consumers primarily watch today, and where the industry has its greatest strength. In fact in yesterday's post, I lamented the industry's underinvestment in VOD as resulting in gaps that competitors are exploiting. These gaps, whether in discoverability, content availability, ease-of-use or monetization desperately need to be closed.

Digging deeper though, a core issue I have with Peter's approach (which is common in the industry btw) is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge that online video is its own medium and should be prioritized as such. Online video is not something that should be thought of as being incorporated into the TV experience. Rather, I believe millions of users see online video as its own medium, with breakthrough benefits such as anywhere access, searchability, sharing, interactivity, personalization and so on.

My conclusion is that the cable industry would be best served by understanding these differences and what they say about consumers' shifting desires and behaviors. Then the industry should aggressively embrace these differences to capitalize on this new medium in ways far beyond just providing the underlying broadband access, as it does today. TV Everywhere, as it is currently conceived, is just a starting point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the industry should not also be optimizing the TV experience. But rather than devoting 80% of its energies to this, it should be equally balancing its investments so that it is concurrently trying to optimize the online (and mobile) video experience as well.

A point that Paul made seemed right on the money to me: when the WSJ thinks of different platforms, "context is key." Trying to serve their users' needs, given what they want at a particular moment and their physical situation drives the WSJ's product strategy. But note, just as the WSJ's online edition is the poster child for success in paid subscriptions (which the WSJ has now extended to paid mobile applications), it is also celebrating this week its new (and first-time) status as America's most widely-circulated newspaper. The takeaway for the cable industry: you can simultaneously invest and succeed in both new and traditional media, they are not mutually exclusive.

Prior to yesterday's panel, in an acceptance speech for receiving CTAM's 'Grand TAM' annual award, Bob Miron, the chairman of cable operator Advance/Newhouse, correctly acknowledged the rise of freely-available broadband video as a significant new challenge to the cable industry's traditional business model. Based on his 50 years in the business, his prescription for success was to remember the "customer is king." In myriad ways - some overt and some subtle - the cable industry's customers are telling it that broadband video is a new medium they highly value. To succeed in the broadband video era the cable industry must fully acknowledge, embrace and capitalize on this.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Against a backdrop of rapidly rising broadband video consumption, cable operators and networks are trying to strike a balance between preserving their traditional, and highly profitable business model, while still keeping pace with consumers' desire for more flexible and on-demand viewing options. A nagging question is whether full-length cable programs should be made available online for free, solely supported by advertising (the Hulu model), or if the cable industry's dual subscription/advertising model should be extended online (the TV Everywhere concept).

On the panel, Rebecca likely reflected many cable networks' current thoughts, saying, "We are in an ecosystem with our distribution partners that works....It (the free model) is going to kill all of our business; it's certainly going to kill our ability to produce high quality programming." These sentiments echo concerns I've raised about the viability of ad-supported long-form video. Even as Rebecca was critical of the free model, she noted that Discovery is taking a measured approach to TV Everywhere.

Chief among Rebecca's concerns regarding TV Everywhere is the need to accurately measure online viewership, crucial for ensuring that if viewership were to shift to online, that Discovery's ratings would not be hurt in the process. As Rebecca further pointed out, measurement issues have limited the appeal of cable operators' Video-on-Demand offerings.

Bruce went a step further to suggest that cable operators should learn from VOD's shortcomings when crafting their TV Everywhere plans. Bruce said that VOD rollouts "were led by engineers on a node-by-node basis" when they should have been led by marketers, and that "some operators introduced VOD only with trepidation." He believes that the problems that VOD had in the early days, "are still impacting consumers' perception of the on-demand platform."

Another VOD lesson I would add is that operators must also make TV Everywhere monetizable for their content partners. VOD has suffered significantly from operators not investing in dynamic ad-insertion capabilities, making VOD a marginal opportunity for ad-supported cable networks. A day earlier on another CTAM Summit panel, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO highlighted the fact that Comcast is now generating 300 million VOD sessions/month. But he also noted that Comcast has only just launched a dynamic ad-insertion capability, and in just one of its operations. It continues to bewilder me why Comcast wasn't investing in dynamic ad insertion when it was doing 10 million VOD sessions/month, years ago. How much further along might the VOD platform be, had robust advertising been possible?

As a result, it's fair to wonder whether operators will invest in TV Everywhere sufficiently to make it attractive as a new distribution platform, or alternatively will leave critical components unresolved as they've done with VOD. The answer could well determine whether TV Everywhere is a killer app (as I believe it has the potential to be) or if just becomes a half-baked nice-to-have for consumers and content providers alike. For Comcast at least, thePlatform and other technologies are important building blocks to success. As Ian pointed out, the key is being able to "quickly ascertain" the networks and programs that subscribers should have access to, a challenge that gets more complicated as content available through TV Everywhere-type offerings grows over time.

If cable doesn't get TV Everywhere quite right another implication is that certain gaps in consumers' experiences will persist - gaps that companies like Roku are seeking to fill with video they're bringing into the home solely over broadband connections. Today the $99 Roku device offers users the ability stream Netflix, Amazon and MLB video. It's tempting to see Roku as a potential cable competitor down the road, yet Chuck was quick to clarify that Roku sees itself as augmenting the cable experience, not supplanting it. In fact, he added that Roku is talking to cable operators about how it can partner with Roku to extend their viewer experiences.

Coming away from the session I'm reminded that while broadband is causing significant shifts in consumer behavior and expectations, fully capitalizing on them will take time as business requirements and technologies evolve.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Steve Donohue contributed to this post.)

Yesterday's WSJ article about Disney's new DRM initiative, dubbed "Keychest" was another sign that in the digital era, Disney keeps walking to the beat of its own drummer. Combine Keychest with Disney CEO Bob Iger's repeated skepticism about TV Everywhere and the need for Disney to receive incremental payments for online distribution and it's not hard to conclude that Disney envisions retaining much more control over how its content is delivered and priced going forward. It's also not hard to conclude that Disney's largest individual shareholder Steve Jobs's influence is being felt in the company's decision-making.

The Keychest DRM initiative in particular shows a real streak of separatism by Disney given the critical mass that DECE (the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem) has gained. DECE counts among its members multiple studios (Sony, Warner Bros., NBCU, Lionsgate, Fox), technology providers (Microsoft, Intel, Dolby, Philips, HP, Cisco, etc.) and delivery outlets (Comcast, Best Buy). Granted, DECE hasn't shown a whole lot of progress yet, but that's pretty much to be expected when you have this many big players at the table. Still, even getting all these companies to join forces is a hopeful sign of inter-industry collaboration.

And as the WSJ article underscores, the need to introduce some form of standardized DRM for movies in particular is growing more urgent. DVD sales, the industry's cash cow for years, are off by 25% at certain studios, yet movie downloads don't yet come close to filling the gap. Downloading is not only still a new experience for many, but it introduces key limitations (lack of portability, non-ubiquitous playback and confusing usage rights) that are significant inhibitors for future growth. Let's face it, not a lot of people are going to invest in building downloaded movie libraries when it's difficult or impossible to do something basic like play a movie on 2 different TV sets in their home. Downloading's issues need to be solved quickly if it is going to take off.

Meanwhile, Disney's posture on TV Everywhere has created real questions about what the company's goals are in online content distribution. VideoNuze readers know that I've been bullish on TV Everywhere because it's a win for the 3 main constituencies - incumbent video providers (cable operators and telcos), cable TV networks and consumers. By forcefully advocating a plan to offer TV Everywhere as a value-add to existing subscribers, with no incremental fees, video providers laid the logical foundation for cable networks not to expect incremental distribution fees ("We're not charging anything extra, so you shouldn't expect to either.").

From my point of view, rationale cable network executives should be excited with the prospect of TV Everywhere, as it provides them an on-ramp to online distribution (which they've been shut out of to date, given the absence of a sound online business model and fearing a backlash from paying distributors if they offered their content for free streaming) while preserving their incumbent dual revenue-stream approach and expanding their advertising potential.

Nonetheless, Disney seems unsatisfied. CEO Iger continues to float the idea of incremental payments for online access, even suggesting it will launch its own subscription services. That could mean consumers face the prospect of paying twice for the same content, which is unrealistic even for ESPN's vaunted sports coverage. Disney has seen success with ESPN 360, its premium online service, but it offers distinct content (supplementary pro-sports coverage and niche sports coverage) from its flagship channels. And it should be noted that broadband ISPs pay for 360, not consumers directly.

I tend to believe we're seeing Steve Jobs's influence behind the scenes with both Keychest and Disney's posture on TV Everywhere. That's pure speculation on my part I'll admit. But "Think Different" is more than a slogan for Jobs and Apple. The company's ability to succeed by pursuing a non-conformist, innovative path (e.g. iPods, iTunes, iPhones, Macs, etc.) in the face of market norms is beyond dispute. Emboldened by Apple's success and understanding the strength of Disney's franchises as an insider suggests Jobs would encourage Disney not to be constrained by nascent industry-wide initiatives. At a minimum Apple provides Disney with a pretty compelling case study of how to succeed by zigging when others are zagging.

No question, Disney has incredible brands, and is probably in the best position among major content providers to influence how things will unfold in the digital era. And its investment in Hulu shows it is willing (albeit belatedly), to align with joint industry initiatives. Still, its Keychest project and resistance to TV Everywhere raise the possibility that in pursuing its own path it could not only miss out on or delay benefiting from the efforts of others in the industry, but could also be over-reaching with the result being consumer confusion and discontent. Disney holds strong cards, but it needs to be careful how it plays them.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Earlier this week when Conde Nast pulled the plug on Gourmet magazine and 3 other titles, there was much hand-wringing about the depressed state of the magazine industry. But while falling ad sales, costs of production, editorial issues and redundancy were all contributors to the 68 year-old Gourmet's ultimate fate, in my view, its failure is part of a much larger story of how much the media business has evolved. More specifically, Gourmet offers abundant lessons for those trying to successfully navigate the broadband era.

The problem is that this model is out of synch with the way many real people actually experience media today. People affiliate with media brands in a more deeply self-identifying way. It's no longer just the information and entertainment that's conveyed, but also about the statement affiliating with that media brand makes and/or the implied trust and comfort that's provided. For better or for worse - depending on your perspective - brand affiliation is now a deeply ingrained part of our cultural landscape.

Smart advertisers know this too. They are not just interested in just reaching their target audience when they pick up a magazine for example. They want to surround consumers with their brand whenever consumers engage with their chosen media. Advertisers continue to grapple with how to optimize their media spending to gain mindshare and drive sales.

Forward-thinking media companies have realized for sometime now that changing consumer and advertiser preferences must drive the way they do business, not the other way around. Two examples I like to cite are ESPN and Food Network, two highly successful cable networks that have built strong media brands and prospered by constantly reinforcing the value of their core franchises.

Among the many non-cable activities each has launched are successful magazines. That may seem ironic given the magazine industry's woes, but in truth each has figured out how to extend their brand, editorial, and importantly, advertiser interest into print. Food Network magazine's recent success is all the more remarkable; while Conde Nast has undergone a wrenching downsizing, Food Network Magazine, which launched in October '08 (in partnership with Hearst), has recently expanded its circulation base to 900,000, nearly on par with what Gourmet achieved after 68 years.

Noteworthy for ESPN and Food Network have been their successful online initiatives and push into broadband video, all reinforcing their core franchises. In addition to its ad and commerce supported web sites, ESPN has rolled out ESPN 360, a subscription online video service available in 41 million U.S. broadband homes for which ISPs pay a monthly fee. Food Network too has been busy expanding its franchise in online video, among other things recently launching Food2, a broadband-only channel catering to younger viewers that cultivates up-and-coming talent. And as I wrote on Monday, Scripps Networks (Food's owner) just announced a deal with 5Min (an online video syndication platform) to proliferate its content across the web while also gaining access to additional targeted ad inventory to sell.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

5Min, the video syndication platform company focused on the instructional and lifestyle categories and Scripps Networks, owner of HGTV, Food Network, DIY, Fine Living and Great American Country, are announcing this morning a content and advertising partnership. 5Min, which I described in December, '08 and again in July when it raised $7.5M, is a classic "Syndicated Video Economy" company. Its VideoSeed syndication tool drives relevant video from its content partners to specific pages within its distribution network's web sites. I talked to 5Min CEO/co-founder Ran Harnevo late last week to learn more about the new Scripps deal.

Scripps will be contributing thousands of clips to 5Min for syndication across 5Min's network, which now generates 22 million unique viewers/mo. This is significant because Scripps owns the premier brands in the food and home & garden categories and so for 5Min the content is an important enhancement to its library. For Scripps, choosing to partner with 5Min is a strong endorsement of the syndication model as a driving force for online video.

I've been saying for a while that to succeed in online video, established media companies need to evolve from being "destination-centric" to being "audience-centric." In other words, instead of solely focusing on attracting users to a specific channel or a web site (the traditional approach), it's becoming as important to proliferate content to the Internet's nooks and crannies, to ensure content is available wherever audiences live (niche sites, social media outlets, portals, etc.).

However, I think a key to content providers' succeeding with this model is retaining control over ad inventory that the syndicator creates, to fully leverage their ad sales capabilities. This is another element of the 5Min-Scripps deal. As Ran explained, Scripps will sell ads against its clips that run in the 5Min network and also against all clips in 5Min's food and home & gardening categories. 5Min will collect a revenue share in exchange. Even though 5Min's own ad sales efforts have been strong, Ran reasoned that with Scripps' reach and relationships, this was a better approach to optimizing the value of the ad inventory.

This model underscores how important the concept of scale is in online video advertising. Ad sales professionals understand that it is not just targeted audiences that appeal to prospective advertisers, it's being able to offer sufficient scale to make them matter. Sub-scale media businesses have a hard time attracting major brand advertisers because their audience sizes are not large enough to meaningfully move the brand's numbers. In other words, no matter how targeted the audience, and how effective the ad campaign, the campaign's results likely will not be sizable enough to register a difference. Scale is not just a problem with niche vertical sites. Larger horizontal sites can have the same problem in certain of their content categories. In fact, whenever you visit a site (or a section of a site) and only see Google AdSense ads, that's likely an example of sub-scale.

The scale issue is particularly relevant in online video and the Internet in general because there's so much audience fragmentation. Barriers to entry for starting a web site are incredibly low, and many sites can obtain some initial traffic flow. But generating ads is another story. Brands and their agencies are not set up to deal with a lot of the Internet's minnows. Their media planning focus is on the whales that have at least reasonable targeting and significant reach. In fact, ad networks often rep smaller sites that don't have their own sales teams (as well as some that do), but even they require some minimal size to ensure they can deliver results.

All of this leads to why smart, automated video syndication is so important for the syndicated video economy to work. High-quality video is still expensive to produce so to really succeed online it needs to drive monetizable views wherever it can, not just at a single destination site. Scripps clearly understands this, and I think others are beginning to as well. Syndication platforms like 5Min's, which allow both content providers and would-be distribution points to be easily and effectively matched, are important glue in this process, which I see only becoming more critical going forward.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The Big Ten Network has selected thePlatform to manage its two main streaming video initiatives - "BigTen Ticket," a live and on-demand package of all televised men's football and basketball games, available exclusively for international (non-US, Canada and Caribbean) audiences, and a package of 200 webcasts of other sports (women's basketball, volleyball, etc), for domestic audiences. Big Ten Ticket is available for single game pay-per-view and for school and conference-based subscriptions.

The Big Ten Network is a joint venture of Fox Cable Networks and subsidiaries of the Big Ten conference. It has been operating since August 2007 and gained carriage into 30 million U.S. homes within 30 days of launch, attesting to the appeal of its big-name conference members. The network's increased commitment to online video delivery is part of a broader trend in major sports to augment broadcast/cable TV rights deals with consumer paid live and on-demand delivery.

Online sports distribution represents a new level of complexity for video publishing and management platforms because they are live, not just on-demand, require multiple monetization paths, involve unpredictable audience sizes and must implement strict access rights, by both geography and package. Sports are on the leading edge of online video with widespread syndication and distribution to multiple mobile devices still ahead.

At VideoSchmooze on Oct 13th, we'll get great insight into online sports from 2 of our 4 panelists, Perkins Miller, SVP, Digital Media and GM, Universal Sports, NBCU Sports and Olympics and George Kliavkoff, EVP & Deputy Group Head, Hearst Entertainment & Syndication (and formerly EVP, Business at Major League Baseball Advanced Media).

Pick your favorite sport - baseball, basketball, football, golf, tennis, auto racing, etc. and it's likely that in 2009 some part of the action has been available via broadband or mobile video. 2009 is looking like the year that sports executives - and the TV network honchos that pay dearly for sports' broadcast rights- concretely realized that broadband and mobile complement traditional sports broadcasting and that they should be embraced, not spurned.

In VideoNuze's News Roundup, I've been keeping track of all the broadband and mobile sports headlines this year. Here's just a partial list of what I've captured, along with links:

- PGATour.com to Offer Live Video Streams of Key Holes for Tour Playoffs (B&C)

- U.S. Open to Stream Almost All Matches Online (PaidContent)

- DirecTV Offers NFL Sunday Ticket via Internet in NY Trial (USA Today)

- "Live at Wimbledon" Streaming Coverage Announced by NBC (Sports Media News)

- Cablevision Subs Will Gain Access to In-Market Streaming of YES's Yankee Telecasts (Multichannel News)

- MLB.com Streams Live Baseball Games to the iPhone (NYTimes Bits)

- NBA Playoffs to Stream on Android App (Online Media Daily)

- Speedtv.com to Stream Part of Le Mans 24 Hours (Multichannel News)

- NHL to Launch Daily Stanley Cup Pre-game Web Series (Mediaweek - reg required)

- Follow the Masters on Your iPhone (Electronic House)

- March Madness! YouTube Gets Live Video via Silverlight (NewTeeVee)

In some cases the initiatives provide specially-produced video, while in other cases they offer streams that are already available on TV. The former type isn't that surprising as supplementary video can add a lot of value to the main event (the analog in entertainment are the popular "behind-the-scenes" extras that come with DVDs).

It's the latter type - where broadcast streams are delivered via broadband or mobile, either live or on-demand - that is much more intriguing as it represents a big step forward in sports and TV network executives' thinking about multi-platform distribution. Traditionally the approach has been to tell fans when the sporting event was on and on which network to find it. But with these broadband and mobile efforts, increasingly we're seeing executives scrap that model and replace it with a more fan-friendly approach that seeks to bring the action to fans, on-demand and wherever they might be.

In my view, this is a welcome change. Regrettably, big-time sports are now all about big-time money. To understand the stakes, I'm fond of reminding people to do the math on what just ESPN rakes in on just its U.S. monthly affiliate fee of approximately $3.75 from cable operators, satellite operators and telcos carrying the channel into 90 million + homes (your calculator may run out of zeros if you try). With that kind of money on the line, it's imperative that networks and sports themselves figure out how to harness new technologies to deliver more value. From the looks of 2009's initiatives, they appear to be well on their way.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of August 24th:

1. Time Warner Cable, Verizon launch TV Everywhere trials - Little surprise that Time Warner Cable announced its own TV Everywhere trial yesterday, given that former sister company Time Warner has been one of its biggest proponents. More interesting was Verizon launching a TV Everywhere initiative, which I regard as a pretty strong indicator that most or all service providers will eventually get on board. (The Hollywood Reporter has a story that DirecTV is in talks too for online distribution of TBS and TNT to start).

I have to give credit to Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, TV Everwhere's key champion, who's clearly generated a groundswell of support. While some critics see TV Everywhere as being at odds with the "open Internet" ethos, I continue to think of it as a big win for consumers eager to get online access to their favorite cable programs. Assuming authentication is proven in during the trials I expect a speedy rollout.

2. Conde Nast distributes through boxee - I was intrigued by news that Conde Nast Digital will begin distributing video from its Wired.com and Style.com sites through boxee. boxee and others who connect broadband to TVs are valuable for magazines and other content providers who have long been shut out of the cable/satellite/telco distribution ecosystem, thereby unable to reach viewers' TVs. Years ago special interest magazines missed big opportunities to get into cable programming, allowing upstart cable networks to grow into far larger businesses (consider ESPN vs. Sports Illustrated, Food Network vs. Gourmet or CNBC vs. Forbes). Broadband gives magazines, belatedly, an opportunity to get back into the game.

3. Amazon announces 5 finalists in UGC ad contest - Have you seen the 5 finalists' ads in Amazon's "Your Amazon Ad" contest, announced this week? They're quite clever, with some amazing special effects. The contest is another great example of how brands are tapping users' talents, posing new competition to ad agencies. I haven't written about this in a while, but I continue to be impressed with how different brands are pursuing this path. Doritos has been the most visible and successful with its user-generated Super Bowl ads.

4. Microprojectors open up mobile video sharing opportunities - Maybe I've been living under a rock because I just read about "microprojectors" for the first time this week (I have a decent excuse since as I non-iPhone owner I wouldn't have a use for one, yet). As the name suggests, these are pocket-size projectors that allow you to output the video from your iPhone to project onto a large surface like a wall or ceiling. According to this NY Times review the quality is quite respectable, and is no doubt only going to improve. The mind boggles at what this could imply for sharing mobile video. Imagine bringing a kit - consisting of an iPhone, portable speakers and microprojector - to your friend's house, then plugging in and projecting either a live stream or an on-demand program for all to see.

Enjoy your weekend!