Posts for 'Deals & Financings'

Google and Apple both unveiled key mobile initiatives yesterday, underscoring the collision path the two companies are on, and how long-term, video is poised to benefit from their battle.

First, as you no doubt already know, Google introduced the Nexus One, an Android-powered smartphone that it is selling directly to consumers. It is Google's first foray into consumer devices and many more products sure to follow. Meanwhile, Apple, in a rare significantly-sized deal, acquired Quattro Wireless, a mobile advertising company, for around $300 million. Quattro represents Apple's first real push into advertising, an important shift from its traditional iTunes-driven paid media model.

With its own device, Google is primarily looking to compete against Apple's iPhone, which has practically owned the U.S. smartphone market since its introduction 2 years ago. And Apple, with a toehold in the exploding mobile advertising market, is positioning itself to disrupt Google's planned dominance of mobile advertising through its pending $750 million AdMob acquisition. If Apple were to make additional acquisitions, particularly in the online video advertising space, that would further strengthen its position.

Mobile video is poised to be a real winner in the Google vs. Apple face-off. At a minimum, the two companies' considerable marketing spending (plus those of competitors Palm, RIM, Nokia and others) will mean smartphones in millions more consumers' hands, dramatically expanding the video-ready universe. In addition, the experience of watching mobile video will just keep getting better. For example, the Nexus One's screen resolution (480x800) surpasses the iPhone's (320x480), which only means Apple will need to up the ante even further with its next generation. The range of video applications is sure to surge as more and more players stake out their ground.

Importantly, because there are no powerful incumbent distributors in mobile video - as there are in the living room, with cable/satellite/telco - I believe there is more flexibility in how premium video can be distributed to smartphones. Until recently mobile was an "on-deck" world where everything had to be approved and carried by the wireless carrier. But mobile is quickly evolving to take on open Internet-like characteristics, where applications and services are not gatekeeped by a distributor. In short, mobile looks to be more like online distribution than traditional video distribution. As power in mobile shifts to players like Apple and Google, it should also be a wake-up call to the FCC, whose planned wireless carrier-focused net neutrality paradigm already looks out of date.

While there have been recent rumbles about Apple doing something with subscription video for the living room, instead the company likely has more latitude in mobile to go well beyond the pay-per-use iTunes model, especially if it can also bring in advertising. Meanwhile, by having its own device and operating system, Google is optimizing the YouTube mobile experience. As this YouTube blog post points out, the Nexus One is an improved way to search, view and upload YouTube videos. With YouTube enjoying such benefits not just on Nexus One, but on all Android phones, YouTube becomes an even more valuable partner for premium content providers looking to generate mobile usage.

Google and Apple will be jousting for years to come in the mobile space. The opportunities for growth for both companies are sizable. I fully expect that video is a going to be an increasingly important part of the battle.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

In Q4 '09, private U.S. broadband and mobile video-related companies raised at least $150.1 million according to company news releases I received and public sources I track. At least 21 private companies disclosed financings in the quarter, ranging in size from $1 million each for Howcast and Mochila to $25 million each for Dailymotion and Delivery Agent. Vevo's raise from Abu Dhabi Media Company, which was not disclosed, may well have exceeded these. Companies across the ecosystem, including services, chips, advertising, DRM, content, analytics and platforms were represented.

The quarterly total was the second best of 2009, following Q3 ($180.9 million). When added to Q1 ($74.8 million) and Q2 ($64 million), it brings the 2009 total to just under $470 million, raised by 64 companies. The relative strength of investments in the sector underscores investor enthusiasm broadband and mobile video despite the ongoing recession and credit squeeze. (Note the quarterly total doesn't include the $2 billion+ private placements that Clearwire, the 4G network provider, announced in Q4 or the $40 million raise that Chinese portal Youku just announced yesterday, nor any other international deals).

In addition to private financings, there were noteworthy deals announced in Q4 as well. At the top of the list is of course Comcast-NBCU, valued at $30 billion. Another significant deal announced in the quarter was Cisco's acquisition of Tandberg, a Norwegian videoconferencing company for $3.4 billion. On a smaller scale, there was Limelight's plan to acquire rich media ad firm EyeWonder for $110 million just yesterday, AEG's acquisition of webcaster Incited Media, Adconion buying the remains of Joost and KIT Digital's rollup of competitors The FeedRoom and Nunet.

Following are the investments that I tracked during the quarter, the date disclosed and new investors identified if applicable. Links are provided to the companies' press releases, or to relevant media coverage if none could be found (note that I haven't verified media coverage with companies themselves). If I've missed anything or you find an inaccuracy, please post a comment.

VMIX ($2M) Oct 1 - Existing investors

Delivery Agent ($25M) Oct 1 - Focus Ventures, existing investors

Howcast ($1M) Oct 5 - Undisclosed investors

Visible Measures (Undisclosed) Oct 6 - DAG Ventures

Personal Web Systems ($1.2M) Oct 7 - Undisclosed investors

ViVu ($3M) Oct 13 - Inventus Capital Partners, DFJ, Quest Ventures

Ooyala ($10M) Oct 13 - Rembrandt Venture Partners, existing investors

Vevo (Undisclosed) Oct 19 - Abu Dhabi Media Company

Dailymotion ($25M) - Oct 22 - French Sovereign Fund, existing investors

Dilithium Networks ($10.9M) - Oct 27 - Existing investors

Vdopia ($4M) Oct 28 - Nexus Venture Partners

ScanScout ($8.5M) - Oct 28 - EDB Investments

Sezmi ($25M) Nov 16 - Existing investors

Zorap ($1.4M) Dec 1 - Angel investors

VisibleGains ($2M) Dec 2 - Existing investors

Mochila ($1M) Dec 7 - Existing investors

Widevine ($15M) Dec 14 - Liberty Global, Samsung

Cloud Engines ($3M) Dec 14 - Undisclosed

Ace Metrix ($6M) Dec 16 - Leapfrog Ventures, existing investors

Jinni ($1.6M) Dec 16 - DFJ Tamir Fishman Ventures

Quantenna ($4.5M) Dec 17 - Existing investors

As 2009 winds down, in the spirit of accountability, it's time to take a look back at my 5 predictions for the year and see how they fared. As when I made them, they're listed below in the order of most likely to least likely to pan out.

1. The Syndicated Video Economy Accelerates

My least controversial prediction for 2009 was that video would continue to flow freely among content providers numerous third parties, in what I labeled the "Syndicated Video Economy" back in early 2008. The idea of the SVE is that "destination" sites for online audiences are waning; instead audiences are fragmenting to social networks, mobile devices, micro-blogging sites, etc. As a result, the SVE compels content providers to reach eyeballs wherever they may be, rather than trying to continue driving them to one particular site.

Video syndication continued to gain ground in '09, with a number of the critical building blocks firming up. Participants across the ecosystem such as FreeWheel, 5Min, RAMP, YouTube, Visible Measures, Magnify.net, Grab Networks, blip.TV, Hulu and others were all active in distributing, monetizing and measuring video across the SVE. I heard from many content executives during the year that syndication was now driving their businesses, and that they only expected that to increase in the future. So do I.

2. Mobile Video Takes Off, Finally

When the history of mobile video is written, 2009 will be identified as the year the medium achieved critical mass. I was bullish on mobile video at the end of 2008 primarily due to the iPhone's success and my expectation that other smartphones coming to market would challenge it with ever more innovation. The iPhone has continued its amazing run in '09, on track to sell 20 million+ units. Late in the year the Droid, which Verizon has relentlessly promoted, began making inroads. It also benefitted from Verizon highlighting AT&T's inadequate 3G network. Elsewhere, 4G carrier Clearwire continued its nationwide expansion.

While still behind online video in its development, mobile video is benefiting from comparable characteristics. Handsets are increasingly video capable, just as were computers. Mobile content is flowing freely, leaving the closed "on-deck" only model behind and emulating the open Internet. Carriers are making significant network investments, just as broadband ISPs did. A range of monetization companies have emerged. And so on. As I noted recently, the mobile video ecosystem is healthy and growing. The mobile video story is still in its earliest stages, we'll see much more action in 2010.

3. Net Neutrality Remains Dormant

Given all the problems the Obama administration was inheriting as it prepared to take office a year ago, I predicted that it would not expend energy and political capital trying to restart the net neutrality regulatory process. With broadband ISP misbehavior not factually proven, I also thought Obama's predilection for data in determining government action would prevail. However, I cautioned that politics is a tough business to predict, and so anything can happen.

And indeed, what turned out is that in September, new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski launched a vigorous net neutrality initiative, despite the fact that there was still little data supporting it. With backwards logic, Genachowski said the FCC would be guided by data it would be collecting, though he was already determined to proceed. In "Why the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan Should Go Nowhere" I argued, among other things, that the FCC is way off the mark, and that in the midst of the gripping recession, to risk the unintended consequences that preemptive regulation carries, was foolhardy. Now, with Comcast set to acquire a controlling interest in NBCU, net neutrality advocates will say there's even more to be worried about. It looks like we can expect action in 2010.

4. Ad-Supported Premium Video Aggregators Shakeout

The well-funded category of ad-supported premium video aggregators was due for a shakeout in '09 and sure enough it happened. Players were challenged by little differentiation, hardly any exclusive content and difficulty attracting audiences. The year's biggest casualty was highflying Joost, which made a last ditch attempt to become a white label video platform before being quietly acquired by Adconion. Veoh, another heavily funded player, cut staff and changed its model. TidalTV barely dipped its toe in the aggregation waters before it became an ad network.

On the positive side, Hulu, YouTube and TV.com continued their growth in '09. Hulu benefited from Disney coming on board as both an investor and content partner, while YouTube improved its appeal to premium content partners and brought on Univision and PBS, among others. Aside from these, Fancast and nichier sites like Dailymotion and Babelgum, there isn't much left to the aggregator category. With TV Everywhere services starting to launch, the opportunity for aggregators to get access to cable programming is less likely than ever. And despite their massive traffic, Hulu and YouTube have significant unresolved business model issues.

5. Microsoft Will Acquire Netflix

This was my long ball prediction for '09, and unless something happens in the waning days of the year, I'll have to concede I got this one wrong. Netflix has remained independent and is charging along with its own streaming "Watch Instantly" feature, now used by over half its subscribers, according to recent research. Netflix has also broadened its penetration of 3rd party devices, adding PS3, Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray players, Insignia Blu-ray players this year, in addition to Roku, XBox and others. Netflix is quickly becoming the most sought-after content partner for "over-the-top" device makers.

But as I've previously pointed out, Netflix's number 1 challenge with Watch Instantly is growing its content selection. Though it has a deal with Starz, it is largely boxed out of distributing recent hit movies via Watch Instantly by the premium channels HBO, Showtime and Epix. My rationale for the Microsoft acquisition is that Netflix will need far deeper pockets than it has on its own to crack open the Hollywood-premium channel ecosystem to gain access to prime movies. For its part, Microsoft, locked in a pitched battle with Google and Apple on numerous fronts, could gain advantage with a Netflix deal, positioning it to be the leader in the convergence era. Meanwhile, others like Amazon and YouTube continue to circle this space.

The two big countervailing forces for how premium video gets distributed in the future are TV Everywhere, which seeks to maintain the traditional, closed ecosystem, and the over-the-top consumer device-led approach, which seeks to open it up. It's hard not to see both Netflix and Microsoft playing a major role.

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.

Talk about the big bang theory of PR: Sezmi, the next-gen video provider, is unveiling today a public pilot project in Los Angeles, pricing for its 2 tiers of service, and $25 million in additional financing. Dave Allred, Sezmi's SVP of Marketing and Product Management briefed me on the news last week.

Sezmi hit my radar 2 years ago, when, as "Building B," its co-founders Buno Pati and Phil Wiser began pulling back the curtains on a bold plan to create a full substitute for cable/satellite/telco TV service. Key to the company's plan was its "FlexCast" model for delivering video via digital broadcast and broadband networks, to a proprietary receiver which is packed with a terabyte of storage. Having seen multiple demos of the product, I've been consistently impressed with how it combines traditional linear TV with on-demand, broadband, DVR, personalization, social networking, advanced advertising and sophisticated navigation.

While Sezmi is the sleekest multichannel video experience I've seen, I've continued to be concerned about the following questions: Was the system technically sound and could it scale? Would the company overcome venture capitalists' nuclear winter to satisfy its fund-raising needs? Could it land a full complement of cable programming deals to offer a bona fide alternative to incumbent providers? Would Sezmi's eventual pricing live up to the company's assertions that it would be "substantially less" than today's providers? Today's announcements begin to answer those questions.

The pilot, which Dave says will be open to about a thousand LA-area residents will be the first time Sezmi will go beyond successful friends and family technical trials. The goals of the pilot are to do a final shakedown of the service before broader launch, test marketing collateral and start to scale up in advance of a Q1 rollout. The pilot will also begin a process of close scrutiny by consumers and competitors of how well Sezmi stacks up.

Pilot participants will get their service for free and be offered equipment discounts to continue after the pilot wraps up. Dave explained that going forward Sezmi plans to offer 2 tiers of service, a $24.99/mo "Supreme" option that includes all local broadcast channels in the LA market, many familiar basic cable channels (the pilot includes 23 channels, from Turner, NBCU, Discovery, Viacom and Rainbow), broadband programming from YouTube and others. Premium programming from networks like HBO, Showtime and Starz will be available on a subscription VOD basis (i.e. no linear feed will be available). A "Select" tier for $4.99/mo, which will carry just the broadcast channels. Subscribers to both tiers can either buy the equipment for $299 or lease it for $11-$12/mo (for each TV).

Sezmi's value-pricing will invite immediate comparisons to DISH Network, which has been the low-price leader in video services. On the other hand, Sezmi's next-gen technology approach will resonate most with early adopters. Dave said that the company's research consistently found a sweet spot of consumers interested in having DVR and HD capability, plus an integrated video system, but unhappy about paying $60-$70/mo, which is the typical monthly rate from cable/telco competitors once promotional discounts expire. Sezmi's belief is that people are "over-served" by today's providers and that by focusing on the basics, executing on them with a tech-forward but approachable solution and pricing aggressively the company will gain share. Its marketing strategy feels similar in some ways to what JetBlue has pursued in the airline industry.

Prospective customers will first focus mainly on Sezmi's content. As yet, Sezmi does not have deals with all the major cable programmers. Most prominently missing from the current list are the channels owned by Disney-ABC, Fox, Scripps and A&E. While its likely to assume Sezmi will eventually close those deals, until they do the company is playing with one hand tied behind its back (it's impossible to compete effectively without, for example, ESPN, Fox News or Food Network). The company's goal is to carry channels that account for 80-90% of consumers' actual viewing.

Sezmi will not have the full array of channels now available in HD. Dave explained that Sezmi's bandwidth constraints forced it to make choices. For some viewers that won't matter if the price is right; for others it will be a deal-breaker. Sezmi also will not be carrying linear feeds of premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz, instead focusing on offering them on a subscription VOD basis, plus offering thousands of pay-per-view movie titles. Lastly, Sezmi will have limited appeal for sports fans as it lacks content like NFL Sunday Ticket, RedZone, MLB packages and popular regional sports channels.

Still, Sezmi has a lot going for it. Beyond low price, the personalization features are likely to resonate most. Once Sezmi learns a user's profile, it automatically records programs, and organizes them into each family member's "Zone." Pressing the "mi" button on the remote provides a customized view of that particular content. Sezmi also seamlessly integrates broadband content, today from YouTube, but in the future from many others into the overall experience.

As I've described before, Sezmi's model is to partner with telcos, broadband ISPs and retailers for its go-to-market strategy (there's an unnamed partner involved in the pilot). There will be heavy marketing costs involved to educating the public about Sezmi's benefits, so partnerships are essential. While no names are being cited yet, Dave alluded to a number of key partners, who will be announced in January. I'd bet on AT&T for one, although anyone who wants to be in the video business likely will have a look at Sezmi as well, particularly those seeking to offer a triple play bundle.

Despite all the talk about over-the-top video and cord-cutting, Sezmi is still the only bona fide new competitor I'm aware of that could be a replacement for cable/satellite/telco services. The company still has a long road ahead of it, but today's announcements are solid evidence of its progress.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Adobe launches Flash 10.1 with numerous video enhancements - Adobe kicked off its MAX developer conference with news that Flash 10.1 will be available for virtually all smartphones, in connection with the Open Screen Project initiative, will support HTTP streaming for the first time, and with Flash Professional CS5, will enable developers to build Flash-based apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch. All of this is part of the battle Adobe is waging to maintain Flash's lead position on the desktop and extend it to mobile devices. The HTTP streaming piece means CDNs will be able to leverage their HTTP infrastructure as an alternative to buying Flash Media Server 3.5. Meanwhile Apple is showing no hints yet of supporting Flash streaming on the iPhone, making it the lone smartphone holdout.

Hulu gets Mediavest multi-million dollar buy - Hulu got a shot in the arm as Mediaweek reported that the Publicis agency Mediavest has committed several million dollars from 6 clients to Hulu in an upfront buy. Hulu has been flogged recently by other media executives for its lightweight ad model, so the deal is a well-timed confidence booster, though it is still just a drop in the bucket in overall ad spending.

IAB ad spending research reports mixed results - Speaking of ad spending, the IAB and PriceWaterhouseCoopers released data yesterday showing overall Internet ad spending declined by 5.3% to $10.9B in 1H '09 vs. 1H '08. Some categories were actually up though, and online video advertising turned in a solid performance, up 38% from $345M in 1H '08 to $477M in 1H '09. Though still a small part of the overall pie, online video advertising's resiliency in the face of the recession is a real positive.

Yahoo ups its commitment to original video - Yahoo is one of the players relying on advertising to support its online video initiatives, and so Variety's report that Yahoo may as much as double its proportion of originally-produced video demonstrates how strategic video is becoming for the company. Yahoo has of course been all over the map with video in recent years including the short tenure of Lloyd Braun and then the Maven acquisition, which was closed down in short order. Now though, by focusing on short-form video that augments its core content areas, Yahoo seems to have hit on a winning formula. New CEO Carol Bartz is reported to be a big proponent of video.

AEG Acquires Incited Media, KIT Digital Acquires The FeedRoom and Nunet - AEG, the sports/venue operator, ramped up its production capabilities by creating AEG Digital Media and acquiring webcasting expert Incited Media. Company executives told me late last week that when combined with AEG's venues and live production expertise, the company will be able to offer the most comprehensive event management and broadcasting services. Elsewhere, KIT Digital, the acquisitive digital media technology provider picked up two of its competitors, Nunet, a German company focused on mobile devices, and The FeedRoom, an early player in video publishing/management solutions which has recently been focused on the enterprise. KIT has made a slew of deals recently and it will be interesting to watch how they knit all the pieces together.

Product news around video delivery from VBrick, Limelight and Kaltura - Last but not least, there were 3 noteworthy product announcements yesterday. Enterprise video provider VBrick launched "VEMS" - VBrick Enterprise Media System - a hardware/software system for distributing live and on-demand video throughout the enterprise. VEMS is targeted to companies with highly distributed operations looking to use video as a core part of their internal and external communications practices.

Separate, Limelight unveiled "XD" its updated network platform that emphasizes "Adaptive Intelligence," which I interpret as its implementation of adaptive bit rate (ABR) streaming (see Limelight comment below, my bad) that is becoming increasing popular for optimizing video delivery (Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Apple, Akamai, Move Networks and others are all active in ABR too). And Kaltura, the open source video delivery company I wrote about here, launched a new offering to support diverse video use cases by educational institutions. Education has vast potential for video, yet I'm not aware of many dedicated services. I expect this will change.

The quarterly total blew away each of the past 3 quarters I've tracked (Q2 '09 - $64M, Q1 '09 - $74.8M and Q4 '08 - $78M. In summary, over the last 4 quarters, at least 47 different broadband and mobile video-related companies have raised a total of at least $397M, a stellar performance under any circumstances, but all the more so given the down economy, frozen credit markets and nearly closed window for initial public offerings.

In addition to the venture financings, there were at least 3 video-related acquisitions announced in the quarter including Adobe-Omniture for $1.8B (noteworthy due to Flash's leading market position), Google-On2 Technologies for $106.5M (being challenged by On2 shareholders) and DivX-AnySource for $15M. Elsewhere during the quarter, KIT Digital began trading on the NASDAQ, and Paltalk bought back $6M of its shares from investor Softbank Capital Partners. Lastly, Calix raised $100M, however I haven't included them on the list below because their broadband equipment is used for much more than just video delivery.

Q3 '09 activity underscores investor enthusiasm for the opportunities broadband and mobile video-related companies are opening up and the value chain disruption many are causing. The financing momentum also puts an exclamation mark on my post from last week, "Why the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan Should Go Nowhere." Industry investors and entrepreneurs very clearly do not need the government issuing new Internet regulations to give them confidence to do deals.

VuClip has an ambitious goal of making video search available to all video-enabled mobile handsets. Yesterday the company announced a $6 million Series B round, led by Jafco Ventures, with participation by prior investor NEA. The round brings to $14.2 million the total amount raised to date. I caught up with Craig Gatarz, VuClip's Chief Administrative Officer yesterday to learn more.

VuClip offers a direct-to-consumer search portal, which the company plans to have account for 60-70% of its business, and a white-label solution to power video search for content provider partners' WAP sites which will account for the remainder. VuClip brings a couple of differentiators to the market. First is an ability to detect the type of handset you're using and its specific multimedia capabilities. This allows VuClip to serve video in a format compatible with and optimized for 3,000 different handsets in 150 different countries.

VuClip does this by keeping a database of User Agent Profiles ("UAProf") which most handset manufacturers offer. But with this data scattered about, it isn't trivial to build a database like VuClip's (which it calls "Devicepedia"). Once the handset type is detected and the video selected from among the search results, VuClip then does an on-the-fly transcode to suit that phone's particular capabilities.

I did a little test and VuClip passed. I have a Blackberry Pearl, which does not support Flash, from Verizon Wireless. I did a search on VuClip on my BlackBerry for "David Pogue" and found a result at Metacafe. Separately I found the same result online at Metacafe.com and verified it was in Flash. I clicked play on the VuClip result, and sure enough, the same original Flash video played out. It took a few seconds for it to start and though it wasn't full-screen, it worked.

While VuClip appears to succeed on the technical side, its business approach is still confusing to me. For the portal, Craig said VuClip has indexed over 100 million videos. But an important caveat is that VuClip has not indexed any content from any premium providers unless it has a partnership deal with them. In India and China, where VuClip's main focus has been, it has signed a number of the major providers (plus wireless carriers for promotion). But in the U.S. where it is less used, Craig identified only CBS and Versaly Entertainment as current partners, with others in the hopper. This explains why when I searched for David Pogue I didn't get any results at NYTimes.com, which would have been most logical.

You might ask why a company positioning itself to be a search leader would proactively decide not to index all video content that's available, since doing so inevitably creates a highly incomplete search experience for users? As best I understood, it's because VuClip wants to be part of the ad revenue stream associated with the video view. It has developed something it calls "Dynamic ad stitching" which allows it to pull ads from different ad servers and properly transcode those as well. Absent this step, if the content provider has an existing pre-roll ad it has a hit-or-miss chance of being viewable on that particular handset. Dynamic ad stitching allows VuClip to approach content partners with the proposition that it can not only enhance viewership of their videos, but also help monetize them.

While it will take VuClip time to build its U.S. content partnerships, the company seems to address well the thorny problems of the highly heterogeneous mobile video market (different handset capabilities, browsers, operating systems, wireless networks, etc.) which have handicapped video's growth. Conversely, on the wired broadband side, these things have been largely non-issues, significantly contributing to the market's strong growth.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Late yesterday Adobe surprised the market by unveiling a $1.8 billion cash acquisition of Omniture, the web analytics and optimization company. With Omniture's trailing 4 quarter revenues of $335 million, the deal was done at a little over 5x revenues and a 45% premium to Omniture's average stock price over the last 30 days - not ridiculous bubble-era terms by any stretch, but still plenty rich in this down economy.

I listened to yesterday's investor relations call explaining the rationale for the deal, talked to a number of industry executives for their reactions, and read some of the online coverage. My takeaway is that while the deal could work out, I'm somewhat skeptical until I see actual proof.

First, when I look at Adobe, I'm focused narrowly on its video-oriented products and strategy (Flash, Flash Media Server, Strobe its open player framework, etc). While a leader currently, Adobe has significant challenges ahead in the video space. It faces major competitive threats from Microsoft, which is ramping up a Silverlight and Smooth Streaming onslaught (we've seen this movie before and know how it ends) and Apple, which has frozen Flash out of its world-beating iPhones in an attempt to thwart the advance of Flash's desktop hegemony to mobile devices. From my perspective, an acquisition the size of Omniture must provide specific differentiated value to Flash, in order to help Adobe compete in the video space.

I hear the top-line rationale being provided for the acquisition: that integrating Omniture's measurement and analysis tools into the front-end creative process will help digital media executives more effectively monetize content and improve advertising ROIs. In Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen's words, the deal "completes the loop of content creation, delivery and optimization." Omniture's CEO Josh James put the goal simply: "to drive ad dollars from offline to online."

That's an incredibly important goal; I have written many times that advertising, particularly for long-form online video, is not remotely close yet to supporting the high cost of creating premium-quality programs. To the extent that eyeballs shift from offline to online without a parity (or better) economic model, content providers will be in a death spiral - racking up profitless online viewership.

While the deal's high-level rational makes some sense, I have 3 concerns about whether it's robust enough to ultimately pay off for Adobe, and more specifically strengthen their hand in the video space: (1) Are there actually incremental product integration opportunities beyond those already being pursued through the companies' existing partnership? (2) Are there actually incremental sales to be gained (and for which products), by putting the companies together? (3) Is this the optimal use of Adobe's resources given current and future market conditions for video?

The product integration issue received a lot of attention in the analyst Q&A portion of the investor call. Yet, despite the number of times both CEOs answered it, few specifics were ever revealed, leaving what I perceived as a sense among the analysts and me (manifested by repeated similar questions), that the product benefits might not be well-understood, or worse, overblown.

In my mind optimal product integration requires that the same person or team in an organization gets value from the 2 products being put together. Yet today the creative people using Flash are different from the marketing people using Omniture. In the organizations I've worked with there's already significant interaction between these groups as they continually modify apps to enhance user engagement and monetization. Maybe more can be achieved here, but with different audiences for the respective products, I'd want to see evidence.

Incremental sales were another area of intense analyst interest. Typically in acquisitions a key deal driver is that one (or both) of the companies' products can be put through the others' sales channels to increase volume. Yet, per the above, Adobe's creative tools are typically purchased in the creative group, not the marketing organization (sometimes it's even more complicated as a whole different entity is the buyer, as with CDNs and Flash Media Server). However there is a case to be made that as digital revenues become more important to companies, marketing will exert more influence.

But still, is it likely that notoriously autonomous creative types are going to be swayed to use Adobe's tools because marketing types say that improved integration with Omniture makes analysis/tracking better? Conversely, is a marketing executive going to be persuaded to use Omniture because the creative group insists it must use Flash? Looming also is the question of whether one sales team and channel versed in selling packaged software (Adobe) can effectively help sell SaaS analytics (Omniture) and vice versa.

These questions ultimately raise the final one - is this the best use of Adobe's resources? On the one hand, Omniture helps diversify Adobe's revenue and product base, opening up new markets for it. Diversification isn't a bad thing per se, but if the acquired products don't help the core business, it can quickly turn into a distraction, changing the organization into cluster of silos. Plus, while Omniture's revenues have quadrupled in 3 years, it has already forecast slowing growth. Generally I'm very skeptical of big acquisitions. Evidence has shown they rarely deliver the intended results, and often (as in the case of Ebay-Skype) they can actually be a value destroyer.

My guess is that much of what Adobe will eventually achieve with Omniture could have likely been achieved through expanding its current partnership. But I stand ready to be proven wrong as it's quite possible I just don't get it. Both leadership teams are intelligent and savvy about the market. They obviously see the benefits of the deal. We'll eagerly await the proof.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of August 31st:

1. Nielsen "Three Screen Report" shows no TV viewing erosion - I was intrigued by Nielsen's new data out this week that showed no erosion in TV viewership year over year. In Q2 '08 TV usage was 139 hours/mo. In Q2 '09 it actually ticked up a bit to 141 hours 3 minutes/mo. Nielsen shows an almost 50% increase in time spent watching video on the Internet, from 2 hours 12 minutes in Q2 '08 to 3 hours 11 minutes in Q2 '09 (it's worth noting that recently comScore pegged online video usage at a far higher level of 8.3 hours/mo raising the question of how to reconcile the two firms' methodologies).

I find it slightly amazing that we still aren't seeing any drop off in TV viewership. Are people really able to expand their media behavior to accommodate all this? Are they multi-tasking more? Is the data incorrect? Who knows. I for one believe that it's practically inevitable that TV viewership numbers are going to come down at some point. We'll see.

2. DivX acquires AnySource - Though relatively small at about $15M, this week's acquisition by DivX of AnySource Media is important and further proof of the jostling for position underway in the "broadband video-to-the-TV" convergence battle (see this week's "First Intel-Powered Convergence Device Being Unveiled in Europe" for more). I wrote about AnySource earlier this year, noting that its "Internet Video Navigator" looked like a content-friendly approach that would be highly beneficial to CE companies launching Internet-enabled TVs. I'm guessing that DivX will seek to license IVN to CE companies as part of a DivX bundle, moving AnySource away from its current ad-based model. With the IBC show starting late next week, I'm anticipating a number of convergence-oriented announcements.

3. iPhone usage swamps AT&T's wireless network - The NY Times carried a great story this week about the frustration some AT&T subscribers are experiencing these days, as data-centric iPhone usage crushes AT&T's network (video is no doubt the biggest culprit). This was entirely predictable and now AT&T is scrambling to upgrade its network to keep up with demand. But with upgrades not planned to be completed until next year, further pain can be expected. I've been enthusiastic about both live and on-demand video applications on the iPhone (and other smartphones as well), but I'm sobered by the reality that these mobile video apps will be for naught if the underlying networks can't handle them.

4. Another great Netflix streaming experience for me, this time in Quechee VT courtesy of Verizon Wireless - Speaking of taxing the network, I was a prime offender of Verizon's wireless network last weekend. While in Quechee, VT (a pretty remote town about 130 miles from Boston) for a friend's wedding, I tethered my Blackberry during downtime and streamed "The Shawshank Redemption" (the best movie ever made) to my PC using Netflix's Watch Instantly. I'm happy to report that it came through without a single hiccup. Beautiful full-screen video quality, audio and video in synch, and totally responsive fast-forwarding and rewinding. I've been very bullish on Netflix's Watch Instantly, and this experience made me even more so.

Per the AT&T issue above, it's quite possible that occupants of neighboring rooms in the inn who were trying to make calls on their Verizon phones while I was watching weren't able to do so. But hey, that was their problem, not mine!

Enjoy the weekend (especially if you're in the U.S. and have Monday off too)!

When boxee announced it raised a $6M second round last week it caught my attention for two reasons. First, it was further evidence that broadband video-related companies are continuing to raise money right through the current economic meltdown (industry companies raised at least $64M in Q2 '09, $75M in Q1 '09 and $78M in Q4 '08).

Second, and more noteworthy to me was how much industry experience and insight now backs boxee. The new lead investor in the round was Boston venture firm General Catalyst Partners (joining prior investors Spark Capital and Union Square Ventures), whose portfolio includes broadband video companies like Brightcove, DECA, EveryZing, Maven Networks (acquired by Yahoo), ScanScout, ViTrue and Visible Measures.

Spark also has many investments in the industry, including 5Min, Adap.tv, EQAL, KickApps, Next New Networks, thePlatform (acquired by Comcast) and Veoh. And Union Square is one of the most active firms in the online media/advertising industry with stakes in MeetUp, OddCast, Twitter (with Spark), Tacoda (acquired by AOL) and others.

Beyond the firms themselves are the individuals helping steer boxee. Joining its board from GC is Neil Sequeira, a veteran of the cable industry, who was most recently Managing Director, Technology of AOL Time Warner Ventures. Already on the board is Spark's Bijan Sabet who knows the cable/satellite ecosystem equally well, having done stints at Moxi, WebTV and Apple and Union Square's Fred Wilson, who is deeply immersed in online media and writes a hugely popular blog.

I corralled Neil and Bijan (two old friends) for a phone interview late last week to explain boxee's future and where it fits into the current video ecosystem. Following is an edited transcript.

VideoNuze: What attracted you to invest in boxee?

Neil Sequeira: Three things. The boxee team, the market opportunity and our ability to be a great partner. We think boxee has the potential to be the next generation "Firefox for media," a widely- used consumer platform. That's incredibly exciting to us.

Bijan Sabet: We've been involved with boxee for a while now, and we're convinced the time is right for something like this. boxee has the right ingredients: it is open source and includes social media capabilities, an app store and a huge community of users/developers.

VideoNuze: boxee has gained a loyal following, but it doesn't have a business model yet. What do you see as boxee's business model and it what time frame must it develop it in order to succeed?

BS: boxee's still a very young company, but we have a number of ideas around business models. But the key is patience. The company has a very low burn rate, with around 16 people or so , most of whom are in Israel. The focus for now is building the product and the user base. And the company's been very successful doing that. Last year boxee had 10,000 users, now it has 600,000.

NS: It also has a very excited developer community. But I agree - patience is needed here. Too often companies can get themselves focused to early on a specific business model, which then constrains them. With the new funding, box has room to see how things evolve.

VideoNuze: Hulu recently told boxee to remove its content. What do you think boxee needs to do to win Hulu (and others) onto its platform?

NS: At a high level boxee we believe boxee is an incredible friend to content providers, and we want to work with everyone. We're big believers that consumers want access to everything and that's where the market will go over time.

BS: All of us are Hulu fans and of course would love to have Hulu on boxee. But each content provider has its own business model, and has to decide what works best for them. boxee will continue to be a content provider-friendly platform, where different business models can be used and different technologies integrated. We think that's powerful.

VideoNuze: How should established video service providers (i.e. cable/satellite/telco) regard boxee - as friend, foe, or something else?

NS: We want boxee to be regarded as friend and we think boxee can add a lot of value to the ecosystem. Consider for example, the case of TiVo. Early on it looked like a foe. But now see how Comcast is integrating TiVo into its set-top boxes and driving incremental revenue. boxee brings great search, apps and context to the broadband viewing experience. All that will drive usage of broadband Internet connections, which in turn helps "fill the pipe" making cable and telco Internet access services that much more valuable to users - and to their providers.

BS: Agreed. We believe that in an IP world, these things aren't either/or, mutually exclusive. Again look at Comcast, which has great assets like Fancast, and is now working on entitlements with TV Everywhere. boxee can help drive more value from them. This is especially true for certain user segments, like new college grads, for whom the Internet is now far more important than is traditional TV. The point is traditional service providers need to figure out how to delight a variety of user segments. We believe boxee can help.

VideoNuze: You guys and your firms have deep relationships in the cable/satellite/telco industries. How are those folks reacting to boxee?

NS: People in the ecosystem are taking a "wait-and-see" approach. There's a certain amount of fascination, and though we don't see any impending deals, Avner (Ronen, boxee's founder/CEO) has multiple conversations ongoing with the industry.

VideoNuze: Who are boxee's primary competitors?

BS: What Apple and Microsoft are doing is most competitive, though their approaches include both hardware and software. We think of boxee like Android (Google's mobile OS), sort of the "inside-out" version of Apple TV. And we believe convergence device/hardware providers want alternatives.

VideoNuze: How about Roku?

NS: We believe Roku should be partners with boxee. Hardware companies have core competencies and typically those don't include open source media platforms. So boxee can help devices like Roku be even better. We'll have a number of device deals to announce soon.

VideoNuze: A lot has been written about "over-the-top" services. Are they starting to succeed, and if so, what must happen for them to gain further success?

NS: Well, yes, when we look at what Netflix and others are doing already, we do believe over-the-top services are starting to succeed. And we think this isn't necessarily a bad thing for cable operators for example. That's because the video business has had margin compression due to rising programming costs, whereas broadband Internet service has been incredibly profitable for them.

Consider that that cable operators didn't offer DVR or voice services just 10-11 years ago, but now they are a significant driver of ARPU (average revenue per unit). There's a lot more that cable operators can derive from broadband services than they currently are, considering the IP connection is now - for many - the most important connection they have. Content providers know this and are looking for more, not fewer, ways to distribute their content.

BS: Agreed, look at an example like CNBC, whose ratings are down something like 30% year-over-year. What's causing this? Is there demo changing? Is the web providing alternatives? Some of both? The point is content providers need to figure out how to control their destiny. That doesn't mean they have to give their stuff away for free. But it does mean they need to figure out how to distribute as effectively as possible. We want to help them do that. You can't go backwards here. Broadband is too interesting and too important to too many people.

VideoNuze: Thanks guys.

Following are 4 items worth noting from the week of August 3rd:

1. Research, research, research - For some unknown reason, there was a flurry online video-related research and forecasts released this week. In no particular order:

eMarketer was out with a new forecast indicating 188 million online video viewers in the U.S. in 2013.

Veronis Suhler released its forecast of 2009-2013 communications industry spending, showing advertising shrinking as a percentage of total spending.

PWC's UK office released its 2009-2013 forecast, which also anticipates declines in advertising.

CBS's research head David Poltrack used detailed data to explain the company's online video strategy and buttress its argument that in a TV Everywhere world, it should be compensated for its content (slides are here, via PaidContent).

Ipsos found that Americans streamed a record amount of TV programs and movies, doubling their consumption from Sept '08 to July '09.

Yahoo and a group of research partners released data finding that 70% of online video consumption happens throughout the day and night, as opposed to traditional TV viewing which is concentrated in the prime-time window.

Last but not least, TDG released excerpts of its research on "over-the-top" video services, available for download at VideoNuze.

2. Unicorn Media launches, hires ex-Move Networks executive David Rice - It will be hard for some to believe there's room for yet another white label video publishing and management platform, but startup Unicorn Media is going to try elbowing its way into the crowded space, with a specific focus on large media companies. I spoke with Unicorn's executive team this week, led by Bill Rinehart, who was the founding CEO of Limelight.

Unicorn is positioning itself as the first "enterprise-grade" solution, staking out key differentiators such as enhanced analytics/reporting, faster/easier transcoding, improved APIs for content ingest/management and more flexible monetization/ad queuing. I have not yet seen a demo, but I'm intrigued by what I heard. The company has raised $5M to date from executives/angels and has a staff of 25. David Rice, formerly Move's VP of Marketing has come on board as Chief Strategy Officer. Given the team's industry expertise and relationships, this could be a company to watch.

3. Google acquires On2 Technologies and other encoding-related news - The blogosphere was in a flurry about Google's $106M acquisition of video compression provider On2 Technologies this week. Speculation flew about Google open-sourcing On2 new VP8 codec, which could potentially force a new standard to emerge as a challenge to H.264, today's leading codec. This is important stuff, though a little further down the stack than I usually focus, so I refer you to Dan Rayburn's analysis of the deal's implications, which is the best I've seen.

There was other news in the emerging cloud-based encoding/transcoding/delivery market this week, as Encoding.com announced a new premium service with tighter service level agreements (4 minute max wait time and 50 Gbyte/hour/customer throughput). Encoding.com's Gregg Heil and Jeff Malkin explained the company is using the new SLAs to move upmarket to service tier 1 and 2 media companies. Separate, Encoding.com's competitor mPoint's CEO Chiranjeev Bordoloi told me they're now on a $3M annualized revenue run rate as cloud-based alternatives continue to gain acceptance.

5Min, a video syndication company specializing in "how-to" content, is announcing this morning that it has raised a $7.5 million series B round, led by new investor Globespan Capital Partners with participation from prior investor Spark Capital. The new round comes on top of the $5 million first round the company raised in January '08. I spoke with CEO Ran Harnevo yesterday to learn more about the company's progress.

5Min, which I last wrote about in Dec. '08, is a textbook Syndicated Video Economy company. As Ran explained, its key value proposition is an automated, comprehensive solution for sites seeking to incorporate high-quality relevant video that also offers content providers viewership reach and awareness beyond their own destination sites. There is no cost to either distributors or content providers to participate and resulting ad revenues are split among the parties.

The model is enabled by 5Min's VideoSeed syndication platform, which matches video from 5Min's 100,000+ title catalog to pages that its distribution network's sites specify. The matching is based on the video's metadata which 5Min has assigned and a semantic understanding of the pages themselves. 5Min's video player is embedded on these pages, providing content and ads. The network now consists of hundreds of horizontal (e.g. Answers.com, Wikia, etc.) and vertical sites that reach over 200 million unique visitors/mp generating 14 million unique viewers/mo. This is in addition to the 3.5 million unique visitors to its 5Min.com site. Ran wouldn't specify how many actual video views the network is driving, but said it's in the "tens of millions per month."

5Min focuses on key categories in lifestyle, knowledge and instructional and has built critical mass important for advertisers seeking to contextually target these viewers. 5Min has its own sales team and also uses 3rd party ad networks. Primary units are pre-rolls and overlays. Ran says the company has sold out 100% of its inventory, but would only say CPMs are on the "high end of the market."

5Min continues to aggressively grow its content library, but without producing any of its own content. Ran believes strongly that there's plenty of great content out there already, the challenge producers have is getting it more widely distributed, viewed and monetized (all the things 5Min focuses on).

Historically the company has sourced mainly from DVDs, small-to-medium sized video producers and semi-professionals (all with agreements). 5Min is also starting to offer branded content from partners like UGO Entertainment, Motor Trend, Ford Models, Kiplinger's and others. Ran also alluded to upcoming deals with tier 1 video brands. The how-to category itself is chock full of competitors like Demand Media, Howcast and VideoJug that are producing their own video, but at this point the only how-to specific provider 5Min has a deal with is MonkeySee.com.

I'm not surprised by 5Min's success. It is playing to many of the most important trends in the online video space I've written about repeatedly: fragmentation of audiences, the importance of search and SEO for discovery, higher CPMs through targeted advertising, technology to drive distribution scale and the superior value to consumers in certain categories (especially how-to) of video-based content over traditional text-based alternatives. As more and more sites recognize they need video to stay competitive, but that producing it themselves is an expensive and uneconomic proposition, syndicators like 5Min will enjoy ongoing success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Amid the chatter over the past few days about Amazon possibly buying Netflix, Kara Swisher at All Things Digital today instead suggested that Microsoft would make a better Netflix acquirer. Her sentiments echoed my Dec '08 prediction that Microsoft would acquire Netflix at some point in '09. It was admittedly a "long ball" call on my part (especially since I had zero inside dope), but one which actually makes even more sense 7 months later.

Why? Because Comcast and the cable industry's aggressive new TV Everywhere/On Demand Online initiatives make Netflix more valuable than ever for any company looking to offer a subscription-based, broadband-delivered video service. Outside the cable/satellite/telco industries themselves, Netflix - with its 10 million+ current DVD-by-mail subscribers - is the only serious subscription video provider. Its recent stellar performance shows the durability of its model even in the face of the ongoing recession. And it continues to build out its streaming service with various device partners (including notably Xbox 360).

If Comcast succeeds with On Demand Online (and since the technical trial hasn't even begun yet, that's still a big "if"), and other cable operators quickly follow suit, the broadband video industry is poised for a fundamental shift away from ad-only business models to hybrid models where subscriptions are key. Any current or aspiring premium video provider that does not have an established subscription approach is going to be disadvantaged in its access to high-quality programming and ongoing product development resources. CBS's addition to Comcast's trial shows that even broadcasters are beginning to position themselves in the subscription mix.

My full rationale for why Netflix is so appealing for Microsoft is laid out in the Dec post, so I won't restate it here. Of course nobody outside the companies involved knows if any of the M&A chatter is for real. But if it is, my bet is still that Microsoft is the acquirer to watch, not Amazon. I suspect we'll see other analysts making a similar case if things heat up.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I'm back in the saddle after an amazing 10 day trip to Israel with my family. On the assumption that I wasn't the only one who's been out of the office around the recent July 4th holiday, I've collected a batch of industry news links below so you can quickly get caught up (caveat, I'm sure I've missed some). Daily publication of VideoNuze begins again today.

Hulu plans September bow in U.K.

Rise of Web Video, Beyond 2-Minute Clips

Update on New Channels

ABC Content Now on Hulu

Nielsen Online: Kids Flocking to the Web

Amid Upfronts, Brands Experiment Online

Clippz Launches Mobile Channel for White House Videos

Prepare Yourself for iPod Video

Study: Web Video "Protail" As Entertaining As TV

In-Stat: 15% of Video Downloads are Legal

Kazaa still kicking, bringing HD video to the Pre?

Office Depot's Circuitous Route: Takes "Circular" Online, Launches "Specials" on Hulu

Upload Videos From Your iPhone to Facebook Right Now with VideoUp

Some Claims in YouTube lawsuit dismissed

Concurrent, Clearleap Team on VOD, Advanced Ads

Generating CG Video Submissions

MJ Funeral Drives Live Video Views Online

Qik Raises $5.5 Million

Why Hulu Succeeded as Other Video Sites Failed

YouTube's Pitch to Hollywood

Invodo Secures Series B Funding

Comcast, USOC Eye Dedicated Olympic Service in 2010

Consumer Groups Push FTC For Broader Broadband Oversight

Crackle to Roll Out "Peacock" Promotion

Earlier Tests Hot Trend with "Kideos" Launch

Mobile entertainment seeking players, payment

Netflix Streams Into Sony Bravia HDTVs

Akamai Announces First Quarter 2009 State of the Internet Report

Starz to Join Comcast's On-Demand Online Test

For ManiaTV, a Second Attempt to be the Next Viacom

Feeling Tweety in "Web Side Story"

Most Online Videos Found Via Blogs, Industry Report

Cox to Turn "MyPrimeTime" Dial to 100

How to Start a Company (and Kiss Like Angelina)

Below is the 23rd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for July 2, 2009.

This week Daisy shares additional information about ESPN's Ad Lab for emerging media. The Ad Lab, which was first disclosed by ESPN last year, is intended to various ad formats in the ESPN video player. It is one of many different tests and research projects in the market. As Daisy and I say, everyone's trying to learn how best to monetize the nascent online video; this creates a lot of valuable data, which market participants then need to parse through to fully understand.

I get into further details on my post yesterday, "Video Companies Raised $64M in Q2 '09, Notching Another Stellar Quarter." Despite the recession and the slowdown in venture capital investments, at least 26 industry companies have raised at least $219M over the last 3 quarters, which is impressive by any measure. Still, it hasn't been easy, and one indicator of what investors prefer is that not one of the 26 investments is in a content provider or video aggregator.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 24 seconds)

(Note, with vacations planned, our next podcast will be July 24th)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

• TubeMogul (3M) 4/1 - Trinity Ventures
• ScanScout ($5.1M) 4/13
• FreeWheel ($12M) 4/30 - Foundation Capital
• Azuki Systems ($6M) 5/5
• EveryZing ($8.25M) 5/11 - Peacock Equity
• Grab Networks ($12M) 6/2
• beeTV ($8M) 6/3 - Innogest
• YuMe ($2.9M) 6/12
• Nokeena Networks ($6.5M) 6/25 - Mayfield

(Note that I've included beeTV, which offers a cross-platform TV recommendation system, so isn't a pure broadband or mobile video company. On the other hand, one might argue that Sugar's $16M round should also be included, since the company simultaneously announced the acquisition of video-oriented Shopflick.com and launch of Sugar Digital Entertainment. However, I haven't counted it since Sugar's more of a pure blog network.)

Excluding Sugar, the $64M comes on the heels of approximately $75M raised in Q1 '09 and over $80M raised in Q4 '08. That means over the last 3 quarters - arguably the heart of the current recession - at least 26 companies have raised a total of $219M. To be sure, everyone I've spoken to has told me these rounds have been hard work to raise, but these companies' successes demonstrate the appeal of the broadband video sector to investors and their anticipation for continued rapid growth.

One thing worth noting is that of the 26 companies, not a single one is a video producer itself, or even an aggregator of video. There has been a significant shift in investor sentiment away from content and towards the platforms and tools required to power video. While that's lamentable, it's also completely understandable. The bruising advertising environment, combined with ongoing business model uncertainty and the death of certain independent producers (e.g. 60Frames, Ripe Digital, etc.) has frozen new content investments. Aggregators aren't faring much better. Just today it was reported that Joost CEO Mike Volpi is stepping aside, as the company tries to relaunch itself as a technology provider. Veoh also restructured during the quarter, shedding half its staff and replacing CEO Steve Mitgang (in addition, just yesterday a VideoNuze reader emailed me saying he can't seem to find a working phone number for the company).

Couple all this with the rise of Hulu, the dominance of YouTube, the entry of cable operators and networks with TV Everywhere, and it's clear that on the content side at least, incumbents and earlier market entrants are ascendant, while more recent entrants and startups are having a tough time surviving the downturn. I anticipate this will continue to be the trend, at least until the economy rebounds.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Way back then (!) in 2003 most people in the media business still had a difficult time imagining why broadband video was so strategic and game-changing. Maven's team did a lot of the early spadework in evangelizing broadband's potential and building market momentum. Its reward was being acquired for $160M by Yahoo in February, 2008 in what I believe is still the largest pure play broadband deal.

However, the Yahoo acquisition was never a perfect strategic fit, even before factoring in the well-documented chaotic mess that Yahoo has become in recent years. The problem was that Yahoo is a media company, deriving the majority of its revenue from advertising. On the other hand, Maven was a technology/products company (though some in the industry always questioned the true proprietary value of Maven's technology). The most strategic deal for Maven would have been with a larger technology/products company, where it would have become part of broader suite of video products and services. Yahoo was never really well-suited to support Maven's third party video customers (and in reality it hasn't for a while now), and with all its other troubles, this move was widely expected.

For Maven's founders and investors, the company's acquisition marked a successful exit that others in the industry envy, particularly in this crummy M&A market. Still, the Yahoo-Maven deal is yet another example that when selling a company, price isn't the sole criteria for longer-term success.

Move Networks, the well-funded Internet television technology company which has been virtually silent for the last 60 days since acquiring Inuk Networks and bumping former CEO John Edwards to Executive Chairman, is pursuing a major repositioning. Earlier this week I met with Marcus Liassides, Inuk's former CEO and founder who joined Move's management team, who previewed the company's new strategy to be a wholesale provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks.

Broadband video industry participants know Move best for its proprietary adaptive bit rate (ABR) technology and player, which power super-high quality live and on-demand video streams for broadcasters like ABC and Fox. Move gained a lot of attention by raising over $67M, including a $46M Series C round in April '08 from blue chip investors.

Despite all this, Marcus explained that coming into 2009 Move had at least 3 significant problems, symbolic of how fluid the broadband video market remains.

First, its core business of charging content providers in the range of $.30/GB of video delivered was being pressured by the fact that advertising-only business models couldn't support this pricing. Content providers loved Move's quality; they just couldn't afford it, particularly given the alternative of plunging CDN delivery rates.

Second, Move's pricing and business model were being challenged by both Microsoft and Adobe entering the market with ABR streaming features of their own (I wrote about this here). But because both were enabled on the server side (IIS and FMS respectively), the cost of ABR moved from content providers to CDNs, who might or might not choose to charge extra for these features. Either way, Move's direct cost looked comparatively more expensive, especially as the recession pounded ad spending.

Last, but not least, Marcus explained that Move's product development approach was undisciplined, leading to resources being spread too thin in too many directions. That was reflected by the market's ongoing difficulty in categorizing which business Move was really in.

Meanwhile, U.K.-based Inuk, which had been on its own funding and product development roller-coaster, was delivering its Freewire IPTV service to about 200K university students in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Because Inuk needed to serve these students when they were off campus, it had developed a "virtual set-top box" application that duplicates on the PC the IPTV service that had traditionally been delivered via an expensive IPTV set-top box. Inuk was using Move's ABR technology to power video delivery to the PC. Recognizing potential synergies and trying to address its other issues, Move acquired Inuk in April.

Move's new positioning as a provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks essentially replicates what Inuk has been doing, except that going forward services will be offered wholesale, not retail like with Freewire. Move's strategy starts from the proposition that to get cable TV networks online requires that they be paid consistent with the norms, rather than expecting them to free and ad-supported only. It also anticipates that consumers demand not just VOD offerings, but a full linear lineup as well (as an aside, that aligns with Sezmi's thinking too). While Move will continue supporting existing customers like ABC and others, its new wholesale model is a major shift in that it uses the company's core technology to support packaged multichannel video services, instead of a la carte web-based video.

Marcus explained that Move is targeting 3 verticals: (1) telcos which haven't traditionally offered video services (or have through direct satellite partnerships), (2) broadband ISPs looking to get into the video business, and (3) existing video service providers looking for a lightweight capex approach for extending their service either for remote access (a la "TV Everywhere") or in other rooms in the house (a model which has traditionally required another set-top box and truck roll for installation).

Marcus demo'd the Freewire service to me using his PC and a large monitor, and it looks great. There's instant channel changing, HD (when available), a great looking guide and auto-DVR of every program, all in the cloud. Freewire also offers targeted advertising, and HTML-based apps like Twitter integration, etc. My caveat is that I have no idea how well the service would scale to millions of homes.

Move's new positioning puts it in the middle of tectonic video industry shifts. For example, what's the appetite of 3rd parties like telcos and ISPs for new video solutions? Will other, well-suited consumer brands like Google, Netflix, Yahoo enter the multichannel video business, and if so how? What approach will cable operators like Comcast use for emerging, "TV Everywhere" services that would benefit from Move's lightweight capex model (note Comcast said it was using Move in its 5,000 subscriber technical trial yesterday)? How will major cable TV networks expect to get compensated in the broadband era where individuals, not homes, are the new unit of measurement? How will local ISPs, over whose networks remotely-accessed video will run, expect to be compensated? It's way too early to know the answers, but if Move's technology works as intended, and its costs are reasonable, it will likely find itself in the middle of a lot of very strategic industry discussions.

Another big change is that Marcus said the company's messaging will be focused more around business cases and services than its specific technologies. That seems smart given giants like Microsoft and Adobe are closely circling these waters with lots of their own technology, which could easily swamp Move. If all this wasn't enough, Move is also in the midst of hiring a new CEO and implementing a new management team, all of which will be announced imminently. One thing Move isn't doing for now is raising additional capital, which Marcus said is not needed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Move Networks is a current sponsor of VideoNuze)