Posts for 'Deals & Financings'

Late last week, news broke that Heavy Media, which operates Heavy.com, one of the leading destination sites for men 18-34 was spinning off its Husky Media unit as a standalone ad management and network company. I found the deal intriguing and followed up with David Carson, co-CEO to learn more and see how it plays into larger trends I've been tracking.

Broadband ad networks already compete vigorously with each other to build out their publisher networks and cultivate brands and agencies to obtain a share of their spending. The networks are continuously enhancing their technology and trying to optimize their various ad units to demonstrate the superiority of their approach. And as I recently wrote in "Tremor, Adap.tv Introduce New Ad Platforms," some firms are now enabling ad aggregation in an effort to improve their publishers' effective CPMs.

With this context in mind, a key question is "does the world really need another video ad management and network?" David patiently explained that they've received a lot of outside interest in their units, namely the "barn doors" that are shown before the video plays, the subsequent skin that remains on the sides while the video plays, and the playlist-like queuing of video with ads judiciously interspersed (which Heavy calls its Video Guide). Heavy has avoided pre-rolls entirely. This interest spurred them to separate Husky.

David believes that each of these units offers superior value. As compared with pre-rolls, where David said "bounce" or early termination rates can be 50% (resulting in the actual content never being seen), with Husky's approach, there's a 90% completion rate, and particularly when users come through the Husky "Video Guide", the number of videos consumed can be 3-6 times greater. David also said they're seeing click-throughs averaging 1.6%, above industry norms.

So of course the next question is, if these units perform so well, what's to stop others from introducing them as well? In fact, David would encourage this, as he believes it would help educate the market and maybe help establish these as preferred units. As long as Husky continues to get its fair share that would be a win. Husky has patents on the skin, and how it works with various video players.

David said investor meetings are underway and he anticipates the company completing its own financing. Husky will have its own separate management team. Heavy also announced last week a syndication deal for its Burly Sports show to CBSSports.com, and, no surprise, Husky will be the ad platform. To the extent that Heavy can do other syndication deals where Husky gets included, that will help it gain market share.

Clearly there continues to be a huge amount of experimentation in the broadband video ad market. The Husky deal further shows that sometimes developing technology for your a site's own use can, if successful, end up creating larger financial value.

Though I've been predicting a wave of consolidation among broadband vendors for a while, deals in the space have only been sporadic. I think that's been due to investors continuing to fund independent companies and a sufficient amount of business to go around for most everyone.

One deal that did close in the last few months was Entriq's acquisition of DayPort. I recently had a briefing with Guy Tennant, Entriq's COO and Cory Factor, DayPort's former CEO and now CTO of the combined entity to understand their joint strategy and a recently-expanded deal with Inergize Digital Media.

I've been familiar with Entriq for a while as it was primarily focused on enabling media companies to support paid business models. It specialized in things like rights management, DRM, security, business rules and the like. Yet as advertising as emerged as the business model of choice for many, Entriq has been on a bit of a roller-coaster; there has been some senior management turnover and also I've heard of layoffs.

By acquiring DayPort, which supports advertising, Entriq expands its capabilities, allowing it to serve customers regardless of business model choice. This would also include hybrid pay/ad-supported models, which I continue to hear more and more about. The combined company is focusing on verticals like broadcasting (where DayPort always had a presence), independent producers and long-form content, particularly sports. Syndication is another key focus of the combined companies, mirroring the trend that I've written about in the past.

The recently-expanded deal with Inergize builds on a prior relationship DayPort had with the company. Inergize itself provides online solutions to broadcasters and Entriq has now integrated its combined capabilities more deeply with Inergize to serve the market. The two companies are also trying to deeply tie in to existing broadcast work-flow and production operations. One joint customer Guy and Cory cited was Newport Television, which recently acquired the Clear Channel TV stations which as deployed the Inergize/Entriq products.

Entriq-DayPort is competing in the very crowded broadband video content management/publishing space, which I've described previously. Yet by combining, the two companies have certainly strengthened their hand. As the market continues to evolve, they'll be fighting for their share.

With this week's news that Veoh has garnered another $30 million in financing, by my count the total amount raised by the top broadband video aggregators now exceeds $366 million. The breakdown is below, according to publicly available data I've pulled together.

While definitions of who should be included in this category are admittedly fuzzy, I consider broadband aggregators to be companies that are providing a broad-based destination site that focuses mainly on professionally-created video. Often these sites include broadcast network and cable TV programming, but they don't have to. I'm sure plenty of readers have their own definitions and that I've overlooked some, so feel free to post a comment to add others to the list.

Savvy investors seem to have an enormous appetite for these kinds of companies. Veoh, with 28 million monthly unique visitors, and others have demonstrated their ability to attract lots of eyeballs. Yet all of these companies are solely reliant on advertising, and that of course makes begs the question how well these companies can convert their traffic to real revenue and therefore become profitable, sustainable businesses?

Since all of these companies are private it is hard to assess their momentum. Yet in a recent panel I moderated at Streaming Media East, Mike Henry, SVP of Ad Sales for Veoh explained the range of current challenges. Chief among them is getting traditional TV media buyers to clearly understand the broadband medium, how to buy into it and how to measure its performance. These are crucial matters since the biggest source of broadband ad dollars will no doubt come from brands shifting their TV spending to broadband.

Of course, to the extent that these companies can continue raising big money, they're buying themselves more runway. Complicating matters is that all of these sites live in the long shadow of YouTube, which alone still accounts for around 40% of all video views per month. Then there are big players like Yahoo, MSN and AOL and recent entrants like Adobe which are vying for their share of the video pie. But at some point these companies will have to show they can make money and survive.

With all these crosscurrents, it will be interesting to see how these companies' stories unfold.

The rumor mill of the past 2 weeks proved correct, as Yahoo announced this morning that it has acquired Maven Networks for $160M. By my count this is the biggest pure-play broadband video deal to date, and is an excellent validation of broadband video's growing importance in the media and technology landscape.

Hilmi Ozguc, Maven's CEO and co-founder, provided me with an exclusive briefing about the deal, his first comments following the announcement this morning. (As a quick disclaimer, I did some business development and product strategy consulting work for Maven and Hilmi in the company's early days. I didn't have any current financial relationship with Maven.)

As Hilmi says below, and as I've said before (most recently in "My Rant About Super Bowl Ads"), broadband video is increasingly becoming the terrain of the big guys - the biggest brands, publishers, technology providers, networks, etc. As the broadband medium continues to mature, its ability to attract ad dollars from incumbent media, particularly TV, is going to strengthen. This process will be accelerated by Yahoo as it seeks to drive Maven's capabilities into its customer and partner base.

Following is a summary of my briefing with Hilmi:

Why did you sell the company?

Broadband video is increasingly going to be a game fought between titans because billions of dollars are at stake and the question is how do you get to the top 50 or 100 global media brands and advertisers? We've focused on building tools and technologies that these media companies need. The time to sell was excellent as was the return for our investors.

Can you describe the sale process?

We had several high profile bidders, although I can't identify them. It was gratifying to see multiple companies validate the product initiatives we put in motion 2 to 2 1/2 years ago. Yahoo has the resources to buy anyone. They took a deliberate approach and looked far and wide and concluded that Maven was the right company to buy. The whole process took several months from start to finish. The deal was for $160M, mostly in cash and it officially closed yesterday.

What group will Maven report into?

Maven will be integrated very quickly and deeply into Yahoo because video is so key to what Yahoo is doing in terms of advertising. This will not end up being a little business unit off to the side somewhere. Our engineering team will be part of Yahoo's engineering team. All Maven executives including me will be staying and have similar responsibilities to what we've been doing. A lot of work has already gone into the integration.

Who do you report into?

I'm not sure I'm at liberty to discuss that, as it would be a little too revealing of Yahoo's strategy, but I think it's in the right place to be within the company.

What does Yahoo bring to Maven?

Enormous reach, 500M visitors around the world per month. An incredible roster of advertisers and publishers who are already in their ecosystem. Interesting and complimentary engineering capabilities. A sheer ability to scale this massively. This deal is all about getting our stuff into the hands of the biggest media, publishing and advertising companies and having it exposed to a massive audience. We started as a media technology company, and evolved to mostly an advertising business. So combining with the leader in display advertising was very logical. Being plugged deeply into a company that sells close to $2B of advertising every 90 days is a huge opportunity for us. It's a massive advertising machine.

Does Yahoo-Maven portend more consolidation?

Absolutely. I just don't see how as a small startup you can have a significant enough piece of the pie when all the giants have now woken up and have video as front and center. Other big players are going to come in more aggressively.

What are the implications of Microsoft's takeover bid of Yahoo on Maven?

We need to stay focused at Maven, and as long as we do that I'm not concerned about any distractions. And I shouldn't really talk about the Microsoft deal either!

What are the 2-3 lessons you've learned about the broadband video market in 5 1/2 years since starting Maven?

When we started virtually nobody really believed in video being delivered on the Internet. We had a singular vision that said, look, once broadband is in enough homes, video is going to take off. So that was our first mission: delivery of bits, playback, HD-quality, etc. As the market evolved, the Akamais of the world solved a lot of the delivery problems, so we shifted our focus to publishing and content syndication, advertising and monetization. Basically, how does a media company generate revenue from broadband? So we evolved along with the market. We tried to stay focused on advertising, professional video and largest media companies.

This is your second successful startup - what lessons do you have for entrepreneurs?

1. Focus is the most important thing and ignoring the naysayers. It's natural to want to hedge, but you have to be bold enough to make decisions. Markets do take time to develop. We were early no question, but the market caught up and we were at right place at right time when it did. 2. Agility is also important and being analytical about what the market is saying. So the ability to shoot a direction and switch. And do it fearlessly. Trial and error is key. 3. Bet on the right people. The wrong people can steer you down the wrong path. So you essentially have to be the world's most capable talent scout, to build a team of people at all levels of the organization. A great team will figure it out.

Where's the broadband video market going from here?

Startups got this space going and created a lot of the core technology and innovation, but this is no longer a game of startups. Big media companies want to deal with big technology companies and networks. Big advertisers want to work with biggest publishers. To achieve this scale independently would be very difficult.

What are the key challenges for broadband video market?

I don't want to say the "R" word that everyone's talking about, but if it comes, I hope it's a mild one. As we know, advertisers cut back quickly in difficult economies. Though I don't think this will happen in broadband because it is so promising and it's still pretty small. Another challenge is getting ad agencies and advertisers to think of broadband as being interactive and capable of more than TV ads. You've talked about that a lot at VideoNuze. And finally the need to scale the technology and infrastructure so it's rock-solid and dependable. That's what Yahoo and Maven will focus tightly on. And I think we have all the tools between us to grab the undisputed leadership position in this, if we move fast enough.

So are you going to do startup #3?

My focus for now is on integration and marshalling all these terrific resources. Yahoo has a great team and has been chomping at the bit to have a competitive video offering to sit alongside their display offerings. They have a killer ad sales force, along with great relationships with the biggest publishers. They have mastered how to play on the media company side, and in being a partner to other media companies. We can't wait to get going.

Congrats again.

Well, here I was waiting for news to officially cross the wire that Yahoo was acquiring Maven Networks for $150-$170 million (heavily rumored in the blogosphere yesterday and for weeks now) so that I could weigh in, when instead what emerged this morning was that Microsoft is making an unsolicited offer for Yahoo. Quite a day for Yahoo. (Note, I'll have more on Yahoo-Maven if and when that becomes official).

Today's big news is Microsoft's unsolicited $44.6B offer for Yahoo. Talks between the companies have been off and on for a long time, and it looks like Microsoft finally got fed up with the dithering at Yahoo and decided to make a pre-emptive move. Steve Ballmer's letter to Yahoo's board and today's release is here.

The deal is all about increasing scale to compete more effectively with Google in the online advertising space. Both Microsoft and Yahoo have lagged Google badly and have spent billions in the past year on ad infrastructure acquisitions. Yahoo immediately brings MSN lots of new traffic, which can be monetized with both search and display advertising.

Though Ballmer's letter also highlights "emerging user experiences" such as video, mobile, online commerce, social media and social platforms" down the list, as the fourth area of potential synergies, I would argue that the upside in video is actually the most strategic benefit of the deal. Why?

The concept of scale, i.e. being able to both reach gigantic audiences and drive massive traffic from them, is absolutely essential for broadband video advertising to become core part of the marketing mix for big brands. Unlike search-based advertising, which has been driven by long-tail advertisers, broadband video advertising is going to be driven by big brands. That's because, notwithstanding the growth of overlays and other formats, pre-, mid- and post-roll ads are going to be with us for a while to come, and they are expensive to produce. The average garage-sized business isn't going to be making them.

Big brands spend tens of billions of dollars on TV ads. Shifting a meaningful part of this spending to broadband delivery is essential for broadband's growth. Brands spend on TV because that's been the only way for them to buy enough audience reach. Though they're beginning to trickle some spending over to broadband, the central obstacle to increasing their broadband spending is that there simply is not enough high quality, targeted video inventory for them to buy in order to achieve their reach objectives and therefore materially impact their businesses.

This is a theme I hear all the time, and just heard many times in the ad-related sessions I attended at NATPE earlier this week. Microsoft knows that to tap the long-term broadband ad opportunity in branded video advertising, it must offer advertisers greater reach, along with interactivity, reporting, social features, etc. This is all the more urgent because MSN and Yahoo are already playing catch-up to YouTube which still drive approximately 40% of all video views, a dominant market position.

MSN has worked hard to cross-promote MSN video in the rest of the site, and this has driven improved user experiences and impressive traffic gains. Yahoo, which has been mired down with a dysfunctional and bloated bureaucracy, has been far less coordinated and effective in video, leaving lots of room for MSN to make improvements.

You won't hear much about video as a key motivator for the deal because Wall Street, which is Microsoft's key audience to persuade, doesn't give a whit about long-term strategic positioning. It only cares about short-term financial metrics like dilution, earnings growth, cost-reductions and so forth. But behind the scenes, I'm giving credit to Microsoft. I think it is reading the tea leaves correctly about how the broadband video ad market is going to unfold and how to get MSN positioned properly for long-term success.

What do you think? Post a comment!

This morning Zipidee, a company formed earlier this year, is announcing its acquisition of TotalVid from Landmark Communications. With the deal Zipidee is gunning to become the king of the long tail, enthusiast video, using a strictly paid model. Yesterday I spoke with Zipidee CEO Henry Wong, and TotalVid President Karl Quist about the deal and the opportunity going forward.

Zipidee's strategy is to create a digital marketplace for video, audio and ebooks. As Henry puts it, we're "eBay meets iTunes", enabling content providers to set the business rules around how their content can be accessed. Like TotalVid, Zipidee's intent is to open up the broadband distribution market to the many smaller, independent producers who have traditionally relied on inefficient and hard-to-access DVD distribution channels.

I am very familiar with TotalVid, having worked as a part-time biz dev consultant for them for a while, helping pull together a number of distribution deals. TotalVid started up in the relatively early days of broadband video, almost 4 years ago. Karl and his team did a fabulous job gaining access to specialty video in tons of categories such as action sports, martial arts, instruction, etc, eventually aggregating over 500 different content providers providing over 5,500 different titles. This library is very complimentary to Zipidee, which itself has done hundreds of content deals aggregating a library of over 5,000 titles. As Henry explained it, there is virtually zero duplication.

Henry resolutely believes that the paid approach for accessing this type of longer-form, specialty content is preferable to ad-supported. In general I agree with him - this kind of stuff isn't just random low-quality clips and consumers should expect that it won't come free.

However, as many VideoNuze readers know, I believe there are real challenges succeeding with the paid model right now. Chief among them is that the Internet is awash with free video, continuously raising the bar for how to get users to crack open their wallets and pay for anything, no matter how useful or sought after it might be. So this leads to a real marketing and customer acquisition challenge. Meanwhile DVD is a robust format and few people are yet familiar or comfortable with how a paid download works (e.g. is it portable? how does it get moved to other machines, can it be watched on TV?) So there's a big customer education challenge.

Nonetheless, I'm rooting for Zipidee. If they can surmount these and other challenges, they'll have created a hugely valuable digital distribution franchise.

The past two days have witnessed two very significant cable network-related transactions. First, Discovery announced its acquisition of HowStuffWorks for $250 million, its largest acquisition ever. And second, Scripps announced that it would separate itself into two companies, with its marquee networks, HGTV and Food Network, finally being pried free from the E. W. Scripps's traditional newspaper business.

I interpret these announcements as continued recognition by major cable networks that their futures lie squarely in the interactive and broadband video areas. These networks - and others - are laying the groundwork for an evolution from sole dependence on their traditional business model. That model has been a monster success over the years, built on ever-expanding distribution through cable and other multichannel platforms and annual increases in monthly affiliate fees.

With the advent of the Internet and broadband, the fragmentation of audiences, the proliferation of content startups and the strengthening of online advertising models, all cable networks realize that embracing interactive/broadband opportunities is critical to their future success.

Discovery's acquisition of HSW gives it a trove of broad and deep online content, some developed by HSW and some supplied by third parties, which will now be available to Discovery's multiple properties. In one fell swoop, Discovery gains scale and expertise, which must now be delicately integrated into its current on-air and online brands. If the integration of HSW's content is a success, it will become a template for other deals.

Meanwhile, the Scripps split up follows that of Belo, another lagging newspaper company. The standalone entity, Scripps Networks Interactive, will have a growth focus leveraging strong brands in some of the best lifestyle categories (food, home, luxury, etc.). With its own currency to do deals, I wouldn't be surprised to see Scripps ramp up its acquisition activity as it bolsters its position across all these categories (in fact CEO Ken Lowe said as much in the analyst call). Scripps has been a real leader among cable programmers in building out broadband extensions to its cable networks and I would expect to see that activity grow, accompanied by distribution deals with online distributors which have strong reach.

While the Discovery and Scripps deals are the latest evidence that the traditional cable programming world is undergoing significant change, I expect we'll see plenty more similar moves in the year ahead.

(Note while both Discovery and Scripps are clients, these are my opinions only and no confidential information has been relied upon)

Black Arrow has been around for a while but went under the radar for the past few months. Now it's re-emerging, with new CEO Dean Denhart installed about 6 months ago.

Dean briefed me last week on news the company announced today, which included closing a $12M B round from existing investors Comcast, Cisco, Intel, Mayfield and Polaris and officially launching their ad platform.

The company is trying to differentiate itself from many others serving ads in the broadband video space by tackling the thorny problem of also inserting in both the DVR and VOD environments. DVR insertion today is non-existent and for VOD it's not scalable. To succeed, the company will need to integrate its servers with the service providers, which is no easy feat. As many of you know, the rap on cable operators - and I've experienced this first-hand - is that selling into them wears out early-stage companies, using up precious time and capital in long drawn-out testing, selling and negotiation cycles.

If Black Arrow survives this process and proliferates its gear into headends, it will have a formidable competitive advantage against competitors. And on the encouraging side, in the cable world at least, a nascent set of standards dubbed "DVS 629" governing digital ad insertion is now being worked on. Black Arrow is following these closely. Dean explained that the company has proven in its technology and in 2008 it will be pursuing field trials and initial rollouts with major operators. Certainly having Comcast as a lead investor can't hurt its chances.

Black Arrow's real appeal to content companies will only begin when it has significant deployments. Dean explained that while the cable sell-in process continues to unfold, it will follow a parallel track of managing ads for broadband, with the longer-term value prop of multi-platform support. And it's taking a wait-and-see approach on which business model to use to fund the capex for proliferating its servers. An analogous and interesting approach is the one Akamai has mastered - i.e. not charging ISPs. Instead it positions its gear contributing to top-line growth and opex reductions. This strategy has been a massive success for Akamai, helping it achieve widespread deployments and a huge entry barrier for competitors.

I really like this company's vision; however achieving it in full is going to take tenacity, patient and deep-pocketed investors and a few good breaks.

The news that eBay was going to write a portion of its Skype purchase did not really surprise many people, although its magnitude, $1.4B out of $2.6B paid still felt shocking. At the time of the deal, it seemed the only

Not to take anything away from the potential of Joost, the pair's much-heralded broadband video aggregator, but if you were considering making an investment in the company or any other in the video space, wouldn't this whole eBay-Skype affair make you cautious? Seeing such a gigantic writedown, and now the admission that the projections has to make prospective investors just a little more cautious about Joost, and all other video players as well.

I'm asked frequently, is there a bubble in the video space? I think the answer is that yes, investors are getting too enthusiastic, as they always do when they smell a transformative opportunity. The Skype writedown is a reminder to all investors in the space that being optimistic about broadband's potential is right, but keeping their sanity regarding valuations is critical. eBay just reminded all of us of the cost of not doing so.

Yesterday's news that World Championship Sports Network (WCSN) has sold a majority interest to Leo Hindery's InterMedia Partners shows that the company's success in aggregating the Long Tail of sports is succeeding. In addition, it shows there are slivers of success in paid subscription models. To be sure, WSCN also sells plenty of ads, but the core of the company's model is its $4.95/mo or $49.95/year subscriptions.

Hindery, who in his past life headed former #1 cable operator TCI, knows from TCI's old Liberty Media affiliate, as much as anyone about creating programming value, and this move should certainly be read as a major endorsement of WCSN's strategy. The company has come a long way quickly, I recall speaking to CEO Claude Ruibal about 18 months ago when he was first fleshing out his distribution strategy. Kudos to him and his team for doing deals with many of the majors (MSN, AOL, Yahoo, FoxSports, ESPN.com, etc.) and no doubt driving dramatic traffic gains.

For those not familiar with WCSN, their model has focused on aggregating exclusive Internet rights from key Olympics sports associations, whose sports are generally not well-covered on broadcast or cable TV.

WCSN has been remarkably successful in aggregating these rights. The site lists at least 20 association partners and says "WCSN’s sports coverage includes over 200 live annual events, offering more 2,000 hours of annual original event programming and more than 10,000 hours of archival programming..." One can only imagine the frequent flyer miles that have been racked up by WCSN executives getting these deals done.

A key lesson to WCSN's subscription success is the incredible allure of sports programming. No matter how niche, there seems to always an audience of rabid fans. And their willingness to pay for coverage is insatiable. Now it looks like WCSN is going to ramp up its ad sales as well. In doing the spade work to aggregate this long list broadband rights with clear monetization opportunities, WCSN has created substantial value. No doubt as the business continues to grow it will be an attractive acquisition candidate. If I had to bet, I'd expect an exit to ESPN, the sporting world's 800 pound gorilla, will be in the offing down the road.