Posts for 'Advertising'

• Golf Channel “The Drive” Premium Membership - $29.95/year (lots of instructional video – makes sense to charge)
• CourtTV “EXTRA” - $5.95/mo (feeds of multiple trials simultaneously, for the armchair criminologists among you)
• Weather Channel “Desktop Max” $29.99/year – (really the ad-supported Desktop service, but minus the ads, and also more comprehensive than just video)

I was at Streaming Media East today, moderating a session (“Broadband Video: What’s the Formula for Content Success?). First off, kudos to Dan Rayburn and the SM team – there was a ton of energy at the conference, lots of exhibitors and great sessions.

I got a chance to sit in on Martin Niesenholtz’s keynote. As many of you know, Martin’s the longtime SVP, Digital Operations, for the New York Times Company.

• 5M streams/month – up 3x from a year ago
• 20 people dedicated to video
• 100 new video pieces created/month

Martin shared a back-of-the-envelope analysis he’s done to back into how many streams the Times needs to provide to generate $30M in annual revenue from video. His calculation: 60M streams per month, or 12X today’s rate. I didn’t agree with all of his assumptions (for example he assumed $60 CPMs, which is too high, yet only a 1:1 ratio of ads:streams, which I think is too low given the opportunity to surround an in-line video player with display ads), but I did think he was in the ballpark.

Google is finally starting to ramp up the use of its AdSense distribution network to deliver video. As today's NYTimes piece describes, Dow Jones, Conde Nast and others are participating. This follows on previous announcements with MTV, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. As I said in "7 Broadband Video Trends for 2007", Google is extremely well-positioned to lead the nascent video syndication market by leveraging both AdSense and AdWords. Clearly while the major networks grapple with how to deal with Google/YouTube, other media companies seeking to harness Google's distribution might are moving ahead.

Chicago Tribune article suggests that user generated content producers being paid for their works will soon be ubiquitous. Of course Revver and others have been doing this for a while now. Steven Starr from Revver raises the “recognition vs. reward” question that undoubtedly passes through any UGC producer’s mind.

I’ve said for a while that if someone had laid the YouTube business plan next to the Revver business plan back in 2005, logic would have suggested that Revver would have better prospects given its willingness to share revenues with producers (thereby creating more incentive to post there).

However, what would have been missing from that logic would be the 2 things that I believe made YouTube an early (and big) winner – namely its willingness to push the envelope in allowing copyrighted material to be posted on its site and its superior user experience. Having won the first battle, YouTube appears poised to overlay the financial incentive long missing for content producers. If well-executed, this should make the landscape even tougher for all the others to succeed.