Posts for 'Aggregators'

Yesterday's announcement by Netflix that it will be adding to its Watch Instantly library past seasons ABC's "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Grey's Anatomy" and "Legend of the Seeker" is another step forward for Netflix in strengthening its online competitiveness.

At a broader level though, I think it's also further evidence that the near-term success of Watch Instantly and other "over-the-top" broadband video services is going to be tied largely to deals with broadcast TV networks, rather than film studios, cable TV networks or independently-produced video sources.

Key fault lines are beginning to develop in how premium programming will be distributed in the broadband era. Content providers who have traditionally been paid by consumers or distributors in one way or another are redoubling their determination to preserve these models. Examples abound: the TV Everywhere initiative Comcast/Time Warner are espousing that now has 20+ other networks involved; Epix, the new premium movie service backed by Viacom, Lionsgate and MGM; new distribution deals by the premium online service ESPN360.com, bringing its reach to 41 million homes; MLB's MLB.TV and At Bat subscription offerings; and Disney's planned subscription services. As I wrote last week in "Subscription Overload is On the Horizon," I expect these trends will only accelerate (though whether they'll succeed is another question).

On the other hand, broadcast TV networks, who have traditionally relied on advertising, continue mainly to do so in the broadband world, whether through aggregators like Hulu, or through their own web sites. However, ABC's deal with Netflix, coming on top of its prior deals with CBS and NBC, shows that broadcast networks are both motivated and flexible to mine new opportunites with those willing to pay.

That's a good thing, because as Netflix tries to build out its Watch Instantly library beyond the current 12,000 titles, it is bumping up against two powerful forces. First, in the film business, well-defined "windows" significantly curtail distribution of new films to outlets trying to elbow their way in. And second, in the cable business, well-entrenched business relationships exist that disincent cable networks from offering programs outside the traditional linear channel affiliate model to new players like Netflix. These disincentives are poised to strengthen with the advent of TV Everywhere.

In this context, broadcast networks represent Netflix's best opportunity to grow and differentiate Watch Instantly. Last November in "Netflix Should be Aggressively Pursuing Broadcast Networks for Watch Instantly Service," I outlined all the reasons why. The ABC deal announced yesterday gives Netflix a library of past seasons' episodes, which is great. But it doesn't address where Netflix could create the most value for itself: as commercial-free subscription option for next-day (or even "next-hour") viewing of all prime-time broadcast programs. That is the end-state Netflix should be striving for.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will be easy to accomplish. But if it could, Netflix would really enhance the competitiveness of Watch Instantly and its underlying subscription services. It would obviate the need for Netflix subscribers to record broadcast programs, making their lives simpler and freeing up room on their DVRs. It would be jab at both traditional VOD services and new "network DVR" service from Cablevision. It would also be a strong competitor to sites like Hulu, where comparable broadcast programs are available, but only with commercial interruptions. And Hulu still has limited options for viewing on TVs, whereas Netflix's Watch Instantly options for viewing on TVs includes Roku, Xbox, Blu-ray players, etc. Last but not least, it would also be a powerful marketing hook for Netflix to use to bulk up its underlying subscription base that it intends to transition to online-only in the future.

Beyond next-day or next-hour availability, Netflix could also offer things like higher-quality full HD delivery or download options for offline consumption. Broadcasters, who continue to be pinched on the ad side, should be plenty open to all of the above, assuming Netflix is willing to pay.

I continue to believe Netflix is one of the strongest positions to create a compelling over-the-top service offering. But with numerous barriers in its way to gain online distribution rights to films and cable programs, broadcast networks remain its key source of premium content. So keep an eye for more deals like the one announced with ABC yesterday, hopefully including fast availability of current, in-season episodes.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Broadband-only producers got a boost yesterday as blip.tv, which provides technology, ad sales and distribution for thousands of online shows, announced a variety of new deals as well as product improvements. The deals offer blip's producers new distribution, new monetization and new access to TVs. In order:

Distribution: blip's new deal with YouTube means that producers using blip can deliver their episodes directly to their YouTube accounts, eliminating the two step process. With YouTube's massive traffic, getting in front of this audience is critical to any independent producer. Since my first conversation with blip's co-founder Mike Hudack several years ago, the company's mantra has been widespread syndication. Blip already distributed its producers' shows to iTunes, AOL Video, MSN Video, Facebook, Twitter, and others. Vimeo is another new distribution partner announced yesterday.

Monetization: A new integration with FreeWheel means that ads blip sells can follow the programs it distributes wherever they may be viewed. I've written about FreeWheel in the past, which offers essential monetization capability for the Syndicated Video Economy. With the blip deal, FreeWheel delivered ads can be inserted on YouTube. This follows news earlier this week that YouTube and FreeWheel had struck an agreement which allows content providers that use FreeWheel and distribute their video on YouTube can have FreeWheel insert their ads on YouTube (slowly but surely YouTube is opening itself up to 3rd parties).

Access to TVs - Last but not least is blip's integration with the Roku player which will help bring blip's shows directly to TVs (adding to deals blip already had with TiVo, Sony Bravia, Verizon FiOS, Boxee and Apple TV). While Roku's footprint is still modest, it is positioned for major growth given current deals with Netflix and Amazon, and others no doubt pending. At $100, Roku is an inexpensive and easy-to-operate convergence device that is a great option for consumers trying to gain broadband access on their TVs. Gaining parity access to TV audiences for its broadband producers is a key value proposition for blip.

In addition to the above, blip also redesigned its dashboard and work flow, making it easier for producers to manage their shows along with their distribution and monetization. An additional deal with TubeMogul announced yesterday allows second by second viewer tracking, providing more insight on engagement.

Taken together the new deals help blip further realize its vision of being a "next generation TV network" and provide much-needed services to broadband-only producers. This group has taken a hit this year, given the tough ad sales and funding environments, so they need every advantage they can get.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

After several weeks of holidays and vacations, Daisy Whitney and I are back on track this week with our 24th podcast of the year, for July 24, 2009.

This week Daisy and I dig into YouTube from two different angles. Daisy picks up on a piece she wrote that explains the success YouTube is having attracting brands to set up their own channels within the site. These channels can cost up to $200K or more per year. However, there are lots of less expensive ways to work with YouTube, and as Daisy explains, with video helping drive purchase intent, it's a prerequisite that every brand should now have some type of a video presence there.

Despite this, as I wrote earlier this week in "Google is Being Clumsy in Explaining YouTube's Performance," I think YouTube's progress isn't being messaged very well to the market. In its recent Q2 earnings call, a supplementary analyst call and a blog post earlier this week, Google executives sent confusing and sometimes unsupported messages about how far along they are in figuring out to monetize YouTube's premium content-oriented traffic. Given YouTube's bellwether status in the industry, it is being closely watched by many for signs of success or failure.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 6 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Yesterday's "YouTube myth busting" post on its YouTube Biz Blog had the opposite of its intended effect: rather than providing more transparency about YouTube's performance as it hoped to do, it only set off another round of frustrated posts in the blogosphere imploring Google to release actual YouTube numbers.

The post came on the heels of last week's Q2 '09 earnings call and supplementary briefing call (transcripts here and here) which were full of optimistic, yet confusing comments about YouTube's "trajectory" from a handful of Google's senior executives.

Here's what CFO Patrick Pichette said on the supplementary call: "I think that it is true that we are pleased with YouTube's trajectory. And in part the reason why we're communicating it to the Street is there's been so much press over the last quarter with all of these documentations of, you know, massive cost and no business models and all kind of negative press that we've read a lot about. And we just wanted to kind of reaffirm to the Street that this is a very credible business model and it's one that's got trajectory. So in that sense it's just to kind of tell everybody that we're on progress on the plan that we had made for it."

But what plan is he referring to? In almost 3 years of owning YouTube, Google has never publicly disclosed a specific plan for YouTube or laid out its business model, so attempts at reaffirming it fall flat because there's nothing against which progress can be judged. Here are other comments, with my reactions in parentheses.

Pichette on the earnings call: "We are really pleased both in terms of its (YouTube's) revenue growth, which is really material to YouTube and in the not long, too long distance future, we actually see a very profitable and good business for us, so from that perspective, we are really pleased with the trajectory." (WR: that sounds pretty bullish)

Jonathan Rosenberg, SVP of Product Management on the earnings call: "I think what I said - or what I meant to say was that monetizable views have tripled in the last year and that we are monetizing billions of views every month." (WR: that sounds bullish too, but wouldn't some actual numbers really bolster this point?)

Rosenberg on the supplementary call: "And that's part of why I think it's taken us time to kind of triangulate toward what works, and I think some of the things that we have now are still in the pretty nascent stages..." (WR: nonetheless, per earlier comment, profitability can already be forecast in the not too distant future?)

Nikesh Arora, President of Global Sales Operations and Business Development on the earnings call: "So we are seeing significant sell-through in most of our major markets where we have YouTube homepage for sale." (WR: of what ad unit - pre-rolls or display?)

Arora on the earnings call: "So I think the next phase of YouTube is going to be toward pre-roll video on short clips and long form video (which we are in the process of doing) various deals in, which we've announced in the past." (WR: that's new news, YouTube's spoken primarily of overlays in the past)

Rosenberg on the supplementary call: "I would not say our overall optimism that we expressed with respect to YouTube is primarily a function of one specific format. We've actually been testing pre-rolls, I think, for quite a while. So if you interpret that one single comment to pre-rolls to imply the broad conclusion with respect to optimism on YouTube, I think that's probably a mistake." (WR: so maybe pre-rolls aren't actually the next big thing?)

Yesterday's post: "Myth 5 YouTube is only monetizing 3-5% of the site. This oft-cited statistic is old and wrong, and continues to raise much speculation." (WR: what is the percentage then?)

CEO Eric Schmidt on the earnings call: "The majority of YouTube views are not professional content. They are user generated content because that's the majority of what people are watching." In response to whether YouTube is able to monetize user-generated content: "Has not been our focus." (WR: again, letting us know what percentage is professional and the focus of monetization would be very helpful)

These comments raise lots of questions about how far along Google actually is in understanding YouTube's traffic and its ability/plan to monetize it. I think Google is being clumsy in explaining YouTube's performance because it got nervous about the eye-popping estimates that have been floating around lately about how much money YouTube is losing and rushed to try to mitigate this perception, but without being ready to present real numbers as backup. Further, I don't think it rehearsed its executives very well about what to say or how to say it, so the improvised comments did not convey a clear consistent message.

As someone who believes YouTube has enormous long-term value for Google, my advice is that its executives should just stay mum on YouTube until they're ready to make a logical case backed by facts and data. That may take longer than Google or the market hoped, allowing the rumor mill to continue to churn. But continuing to make unsupported statements will only rile YouTube followers further, and eventually sap Google's credibility.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Paid video forecast to surpass free - A Strategy Analytics forecast that got attention this week says that the global paid online video market will be worth $3.8B in 2009, exceeding the global free online video segment which will total $3.5B. I haven't seen the details of the forecast, but I'm very curious what's being included in each of these numbers as both seem way too high to me. The firm forecasts the two segments to grow at comparable rates (37% and 39%), suggesting that their size will remain relatively even. I suspect we're going to be seeing a lot of other research suggesting the paid market is going to be far larger than the ad-supported market as sentiment seems to be shifting toward subscriptions and paid downloads.

Consumer generated video contests remain popular - VideoNuze readers know I've been intrigued for a while now about contests that brands are regularly running which incent consumers to create and submit their own videos. Just this week I read about two more brands jumping on the bandwagon: Levi's and Daffy's retail stores. NewTeeVee had a good write-up on the subject, citing new research from Forrester which reviewed 102 different contests and found the average prize valued at $4,505. I see no end in sight for these campaigns as the YouTube generation realizes it's more lucrative to pour their time into these contests than training their cats to skateboard. Brands too are recognizing the wealth of amateur (read cheap!) talent out there and are moving to harness it.

MySpace has lots of work ahead to become a meaningful entertainment portal - The WSJ ran a piece on Monday based on an interview with Rupert Murdoch in which he was quoted as saying MySpace will be refocused "as an entertainment portal." That may be the winning ticket for MySpace, but I'm not totally convinced. MySpace has been in a downward spiral lately, with a 5% decline in audience over the past year, a 30% headcount reduction and an executive suite housecleaning. While always strong in music, according to comScore, its 48 million video viewers in April '09 were less than half YouTube's 108 million, while its 387 million video views were about 5% of YouTube's 6.8 billion. Clearly MySpace has a very long way to go to give YouTube serious competition. It will be interesting to see if the new management team Murdoch has installed at MySpace can pull off this transition.

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)

Clearleap announces Atlantic Broadband as first public customer - Clearleap, the Internet-based technology firm I wrote about here, announced Atlantic Broadband as its first public customer. Atlantic is the 15th largest cable operator in the U.S. I spoke with David Isenberg, Atlantic's VP of Products, who explained that Clearleap was the first packaged solution he's seen that allows broadband video to be inserted into VOD menus without the need for IT resources to be involved. Atlantic initially plans to use Clearleap to insert locally-oriented videos into its local programming lineup. It also has special events planned like "Operation Mail Call." which allows veterans' families to upload videos, plus coverage of local sports, and eventually filtered UGC. By blending broadband with VOD, Isenberg thinks Clearleap gives him a "giant marketing tool" to raise VOD's visibility. As I've said in the past, VOD and broadband are close cousins which can be mutually reinforcing; Clearleap facilitates this relationship.

New Balance's "Made in USA" video - Have you seen the new 3 minute video from athletic shoemaker New Balance? Yesterday I noticed a skyscraper ad for it at NYTimes.com and a full back-page ad in the print version of the Boston Globe. New Balance's video promotes the fact that it's the only athletic shoemaker still manufacturing in the U.S. (though it says only 25% of its shoes are made here). There's also a fundraising contest to win a trip to one of its manufacturing facilities. Taking ads in online and offline media to drive viewership of a brand's original video is another way that advertising is being reimagined and customers are being engaged.

Joost - R.I.P.-in-Waiting - There's been a lot written this week about Joost's decision to switch business models from content aggregation to white label video platform provider. Regrettably, I think this is Joost's last gasp and they are in "R.I.P.-in-waiting" mode. Joost, which started off with lots of buzz and financing ($45M) by the co-founders of Skype and Kazaa, is a cautionary tale of how quickly the broadband video market is moving, and how those out of step can get shoved aside. Joost made a critical strategic blunder insisting on a client download based on P2P delivery when the market was already moving solidly in the direction of browser-based streaming. It never recovered. Given how crowded the video platform space is, I'm hard-pressed to see how Joost will carve out a substantial role.

Cablevision wins its network DVR case - Not to be missed this week was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to refuse to hear an appeal from programmers regarding cable operator Cablevision's "network DVR" plan. The decision means Cablevision can now deploy a service that allows subscribers to record programs in a central data center, rather than in their set-top boxes. This leads to lower capex, fewer truckrolls, and more storage capacity for consumers. There's also an intersection point with "TV Everywhere," as cable subscribers will potentially have yet another remote viewing option available to them. Content is increasingly becoming untethered to any specific box.

YouTube mobile video uploads exploding; iPhones are a key contributor - The folks at YouTube revealed that in the last 6 months, uploads from mobile phones to YouTube have jumped 1,700%, while in the last week, since the new iPhone GS was released, uploads increased by 400% per day. I didn't have access to these stats when I wrote on Monday "iPhone 3GS Poised to Drive User-Generated Mobile Video," but I was glad to see some validation. The iPhone 3GS - and other smartphone devices - will further solidify YouTube as the world's central video hub. I stirred some controversy last week with my "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube is Losing?" post, yet I think the mobile video upload explosion reinforces the power of the YouTube franchise. Google will figure out how to monetize this over time; meanwhile YouTube's pervasiveness in society continues to grow.

Nielsen study debunks mythology around teens' media usage - Nielsen released a new report this week "How Teens Use Media" which tries to correct misperceptions about teens' use of online and offline media. The report is available here. On the one hand, the report underscores prior research from Nielsen, but on the other it reveals some surprising data. For example, more than a quarter of teens read a daily newspaper? Also, 77% of teens use just one form of media at one time (note, data from 2007)? I'm not questioning the Nielsen numbers, but they do seem out of synch with everything I hear from parents of teens.

Paid business models resurfacing - There's been a lot of talk from media executives about the revival of paid business models in the wake of the recession's ad spending slowdown and also the newspaper industry's financial calamity. For those who have been offering their content for free for so long, putting the genie back in the bottle is going to be tough. Conversely for others, like those in the cable TV industry, who have resisted releasing much content for free, their durable paid models now look even more attractive.

Broadcast TV networks diverge on strategy - Ad Age had a good piece this week on the divergence of strategy between NBC and CBS. The former is breaking industry norms by putting Leno on at 10pm, emphasizing cable and avidly pursuing new technologies. Meanwhile CBS is focused on traditional broadcast network objectives like launching hit shows and amassing audience (though to be fair it is pursuing online distribution as well with TV.com). Both strategies make sense in the context of their respective ratings' situations. Regardless, broadcasters need to eventually figure out how to successfully transition to online distribution, something that is still unproven (as I wrote here).

Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings are profiled in today's WSJ ("Netflix Boss Plots Life After the DVD"). Hastings offers a frank assessment of the where the DVD business stands, suggesting that as soon as four years from now DVDs-by-mail will start to decline. He notes however that DVDs will still be around in 20 years.

The article underscores Netflix's challenges in obtaining Hollywood movies for its Watch Instantly service. This is no surprise given the strict "windowing" business model Hollywood employs, along with its desire to preserve its DVD revenues as long as possible. In fact, last November, in this post, I acknowledged this as an obstacle unlikely to be resolved any time soon, and instead recommended that Netflix beef up its network TV offerings. Doing so would have a lot of upside as a high-quality VOD service that would generate immediate revenues for broadcasters.

The article also explores Netflix's aborted effort to build its own set-top box for its subscribers to receive streaming video. Hastings admits that he "fell in love with building boxes" in an attempt to emulate Apple's hardware-content delivery model. Eventually logic prevailed and practically on the eve of the box's launch Netflix pulled the plug and spun the project off to Roku, in which it made a $6M investment. While it was confusing to outsiders, it was the right move. Going into the box business seems like it would have been an example of "undisciplined pursuit of more," the second stage of the framework Jim Collins outlines in his new book, "How the Mighty Fall."

Netflix has an interesting road ahead of it, as it tries to transform itself from a hugely successful DVD rent-by mail company to an online deliverer of digital media. Hastings sizes up Netflix's odds saying "Almost no companies succeed at what we're doing." Despite his sobering tone, it's encouraging that he understands the significance of the challenges ahead. The question I continue to have is whether Netflix will ultimately tackle these challenges independently or as part of a larger entity (VideoNuze readers will recall my final prediction for 2009 - that Microsoft will acquire Netflix). One way or another Netflix is going to be a key player for some time to come.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 21st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 19, 2009.

Daisy discusses highlights from the OMMA Video conference that she organized in NYC this week. Daisy recaps the keynote from Eileen Naughton, Google's director of media platforms in which she said that child YouTube sensation "Fred" is pulling down a six-figure income. She also reviews comments by Andy Markovitz, Kraft's digital marketing and media director who recommended the online video ad industry needs more scale, better targeting and more format choices. Those sentiments were echoed by other speakers. Daisy has more details here.

This week I discuss my post from yesterday, "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube is Losing?" I recognize I took a somewhat contrarian standpoint here, and admit it feels a bit irresponsible to suggest that YouTube's losses don't matter much (except to Google of course). It's always been great sport to debate how much money YouTube is losing. But the fact is, as long as Google has the financial wherewithal to sustain YouTube's losses (whatever they actually are), and deems the site strategic in the long run (which I strongly believe it is), then the size of its losses is really pretty much irrelevant. I know lots of you disagree with my assessment; feel free to post a comment and explain why!

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 40 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Guestimating how much money YouTube loses has been heavily debated since the company first burst on the scene. And even though YouTube has been part of Google for close to three years now, there are no signs the debate is letting up.

For example, this past April, Credit Suisse analyst Spencer Wang got a lot of attention asserting YouTube might lose $470M in 2009. Using these numbers, Fliqz CEO Benjamin Wayne generated a lot of buzz for his Business Insider post "YouTube is Doomed." Then earlier this week, in a much-noticed white paper, the IT outsourcing firm RampRate said the company's annual loss is closer to $174M, given a more accurate analysis of YouTube's true bandwidth costs.

No doubt the debate will continue to rage on. But does it really matter how much money YouTube is losing? I'd argue the answer is mainly no, with two caveats: first, that Google has the financial wherewithal to sustain YouTube's losses (whatever they may be), and second, that Google believes in YouTube's long-term strategic value.

With respect to Google's financial wherewithal, I think it's pretty much indisputable that Google can afford YouTube's losses, even if they exceeded Credit Suisse's estimate. In 2008 Google generated almost $8B in cash flow from operations, 36% more than in 2007. It currently has over $17B in cash. Its stock has bounced back from its $257/share low in the dark days of Dec. '08 to $415/share as of yesterday, translating to a market cap of over $130 billion and a P/E just north of 30. To be sure, Google is still a one-trick pony, relying on advertising alone to power its business model. But that pony has proven itself durable in the down economy and in the face of competitors, and the market has justifiably rewarded Google. If anyone thinks Google is being penalized for YouTube's estimated losses, I ask, where's the evidence?

Google's financial prowess gives it license to do what very few public companies are able to do: focus on the long-term. And that brings us to the second caveat, Google's belief in YouTube's long-term strategic value. Of course, none of us is privy to exactly what Google's executives believe on this front, but for my part, there's ample reason Google should be bullish, notwithstanding YouTube's current financial challenges.

First, and most important, YouTube maintains a dominant 40%+ share of online video viewership month in and month out, according to comScore. As I said in this recent post, YouTube has the best-known brand-name, deepest catalog, and best promotional reach of any online video site. In UGC it is in a rare "winner-take-all" position (even deep-pocketed Microsoft this week threw in the towel on Soapbox, its YouTube competitor). It would be unthinkable for anyone looking to upload video to not upload to YouTube, which is why the site gets an incredible 20 hours of video uploaded every minute.

What are these all worth in a market growing as fast as online video, where significant business model disruption lies ahead? A lot. YouTube would be the first partner of choice for any number of consumer and technology heavyweights now starting to slug it out for market share in the broadband era. Meanwhile, YouTube is well-entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist. It is the go to resource for presidential candidates, community organizers and lately, Iranian election protesters.

Sure, YouTube has its challenges. Hulu is crowding it out for access to premium content. UGC is a monetization drag (though a significant traffic driver). It doesn't have a bona fide or clearly articulated convergence strategy, as its recent YouTube XL initiative underscored. And it hasn't settled on an ad format that works. Regardless, YouTube has massive long-term strategic value. As long as Google recognizes this and has the financials to support it, then even in these recessionary times, how much money YouTube loses is largely irrelevant.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 19th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 5, 2009.

Daisy was in New York this week for the "NewFronts," a day-long meeting that Digitas sponsored, mainly for independent online video creators and media buyers/agencies. The goals were to educate the market and fuel advertiser interest. Daisy reports that despite the mixed news coming out of the independent video world this year, it was an upbeat gathering.

I provide additional detail on Microsoft's announcement this year of new entertainment-oriented features for XBox 360. The gaming console continues to take on more of a convergence positioning, with new instant-on 1080p video, live streams, Zune integration, etc. With an installed base of 30 million users, Microsoft has a prime opportunity to drive convergence and get a video foothold. The new Xbox 360 features coincide with last week's Hulu Desktop announcement and this week's YouTube XL unveiling.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 47 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

YouTube's announcement this week of "YouTube XL," an optimized version of its site meant for viewing on larger screens caught my attention as it appeared to be another building block in broadband-to-the-TV convergence. I spoke with Chris Dale, a YouTube spokesman to learn more.

On the other hand, long-term, XL is a limited-appeal offering, because it reflects Google's browser-centric worldview. As Chris explained, from CEO Eric Schmidt on down, there's a conviction that the "browser as the platform" is going to dominate entertainment and information distribution. This is certainly the way the online world works today, as practically all of broadband-delivered video is consumed within a browser context. (In fact, this is one of the things that made last week's Hulu Desktop announcement so noteworthy, a large aggregator introducing an app that breaks the browser-only paradigm.)

The problem is that historically at least, the non-online, TV world hasn't been browser-based. Instead, various set top boxes (whether from cable/satellite/telco or from newer convergence players) rely on their own applications to present and manage video. Given this disconnect, new convergence devices and services will instead need to rely on YouTube APIs if they want to access YouTube's vast trove of content, unless they start building in browsers. This is how AppleTV, Sony Bravia, TiVo and others have worked with YouTube in the past. My concern is how much investment attention will convergence-oriented APIs be getting from YouTube when the company's emphasis is clearly on the browser.

Back in March '08, I wrote, "YouTube: Over-the-Top's Best Friend" in which I asserted that for emerging convergence devices and video service providers, YouTube would be the perfect partner. It has the best-known video brand, the largest catalog and the best promotional reach. I still believe that. YouTube could be a formidable disruptive force in over the top if it had a strategy to do so. With its browser focus though, it's hard to see that happening.

In these tough economic times, I don't blame YouTube, or others, from prioritizing. However, my sense is that by taking a more passive approach to convergence, YouTube is opening the door a little wider for others like Netflix who are more aggressively pursuing convergence opportunities, as well as incumbents like Comcast and Time Warner Cable who are just getting going on bridging broadband video to their set-top boxes. As the clear online video market share leader, YouTube has a pretty golden opportunity to aggressively chart new ground and cause likely market disruption. That it's choosing not to means others have a little less pressure on them.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in May:

1. Hulu Moves to Center Stage

Already on a roll, Hulu gained lots of mind share in May. After YouTube it is clearly the most-buzzed about video site - not a bad accomplishment for a site that just celebrated its one year anniversary.

The month began with the announcement that Disney would invest in Hulu, at last making available ABC and other programs in Hulu's ever-growing portal. Hulu gained stature during the month as the statistic from comScore released in late April - that Hulu was now the #3 most-popular video site, with 380 million video views in March - was repeatedly recirculated. (Hulu was separately disputing data released from Nielsen showing a far-smaller audience.)

In addition to the Disney content, Hulu also announced its first live event, tonight's concert from the Dave Matthews Band. Capping the month was last week's Hulu Labs announcement, showcasing the desktop app that moves Hulu one step closer to being TV-ready.

Hulu's growth and top-notch user experience continue to set the pace in the online video world. Still, as I noted in my post about the Disney deal, what's still unproven is the Hulu business model and how it plans to navigate the convergence of broadband and TV. The spin coming from its owners is that financial progress is being made, yet Hulu's per program viewed revenues continue to be a fraction of those derived from on-air viewership. Sooner than later, I predict the Hulu growth story is going to start to give way to the Hulu financial story, which may yet include subscriptions.

2. Susan Boyle Shows Power and Conundrum of Viral Video

It was hard to miss the Susan Boyle phenomenon in May. As of last Thursday (before the finale of "Britain's Got Talent" in which she placed second) her original video had generated over 235 million views, according to tracking firm Visible Measures. Ms. Boyle's sensational performance has mainstreamed the term "viral video." The idea that you can become a worldwide personality is truly a broadband-only invention.

Yet 3 1/2 years after SNL's "Lazy Sunday" video became the first bona fide big media YouTube hit (despite NBC's efforts), the process for copyright holders and distributors to monetize these viral wonders remains immature. The NY Times described the interplay over the Boyle viral videos between YouTube, Fremantle, ITV and others, and why those hundreds of millions of views are still under-monetized. But with broadband distribution's increasing importance, this won't last; viral monetization rights are inevitably going to become a key part of the upfront negotiating mix.

3. Mobile video growth

Mobile video continued to get a lot of attention from content providers, service providers and handset makers in May, with initiatives from NBC, NBA, E!, Samsung, Sling, among others (a full listing of mobile video news is here). The mobile video ecosystem is responding to data indicating surging consumer acceptance, primarily driven by the iPhone. In May Nielsen released a report indicating mobile user growth from Feb '07 to Feb '09 was 74%, and that iPhone users are 6 times more likely to consume mobile video. The crush of new smartphones coming in the 2nd half of '09 promises that mobile video usage is going to continue growing rapidly. Limelight's acquisition of mobile ad insertion company Kiptronic is likely the tip of the deal iceberg as companies position themselves for mobile.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Yesterday Hulu announced Hulu Labs - "a place to try out experimental projects from Hulu and share your feedback while they're still in development." Four current projects are listed, "Hulu Desktop," "Video Panel Designer," "Recommendations" and "Time-Based Browsing."

Hulu Desktop, a browser-less app for surfing videos with a Windows Media Center or Apple remote controls moves Hulu yet another step closer to the proverbial "10 foot" or TV-like experience. Yet as Peter Kafka at AllThingsD rightly notes, Hulu continues to draw a seemingly arbitrary distinction between screens. It's fine with the Hulu folks to use Desktop to watch on a large monitor connected to your computer. But if you want to watch on an actual TV (via Boxeee, for example) that's a no-no.

So even as Hulu admiringly pushes the bounds to improve its users' experiences, it is going to continue to find itself in wrapped around the axle trying to explain itself. What would change all this and make Hulu's owners agnostic to whether you watch Hulu's programs on PCs or TVs? Simple: Hulu demonstrating it can generate ad revenue at parity (or better) with traditional on-air delivery. Once it can do that, then these distinctions will melt away. Problem is, despite Jeff Zucker asserting that Hulu is ahead of plan, the reality is that Hulu is nowhere close to achieving parity (nor has it shared a roadmap for doing so).

Until this happens, things like Hulu Desktop are neat, but will only cause more head-scratching among Hulu's tech-savvy early-adopter audiences.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I have to say, I chuckled a little when I read this morning's Online Media Daily story, "Opening a Pandora's Boxee" about a new report from Laura Martin at Soleil Securities titled "Content's $300B Gamble." I haven't read the report, but the article says that it expresses concern that ad revenues for programs watched online could be 60% lower than when watched on-air, "threatening TV's the TV platform's price umbrella."

The reason I chuckled is because I've been saying the same things for months now (for example, see "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband is Accelerating Demise of Their Business Model" and "OK, Hulu Now Has ABC. But When Will It Prove Its Business Model?") It's nice to see others starting to understand these important issues as well.

Recently I've had a number of conversations with TV and broadband executives who are similarly concerned about what role Hulu is going to play longer term for the broadcast industry, given the current absence of a proven business model for the site. There are some pretty strong feelings out there, ranging from "Hulu is totally misguided and will be the downfall of the broadcast industry" to "the Hulu team is so smart, they're bound to figure it out." One way or the other, with Hulu's growing popularity, I continue to believe that the broadcast industry's fortunes are increasingly tied to Hulu's financial success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

As the annual "upfronts" - the TV industry's program preview and ad sales extravaganza - kick off today, the recent financial performance of the network TV industry and the cable TV industry continue to diverge. The cable network model, powered by both ad sales and monthly affiliate fees, is proving very durable in the Great Recession, while the ad-only network TV model has been hammered. One conclusion from these numbers is that Hulu's owners must be pushing to figure out how the site can introduce a paid subscription model.

I pulled together financial information for a select group of companies comparing performance for the recently concluded March 31 quarter vs. a year ago.

As the chart shows, operating income increased for all the cable networks and revenue was up for all of them as well, except Scripps Networks, where it was flat. The press release commentary from these cable networks was the same: affiliate revenues are up, with ad sales soft, but not disastrous. Cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable also fared well in the quarter with both revenue and operating income/cash flow increasing.

Contrast this with the broadcast TV numbers for Disney, Fox and CBS, all of which operate both TV networks and own local TV stations. Disney fared the best, with revenues down 2% and operating income down 38%. CBS followed with revenues down 12% and operating income down 49%. Fox was affected the worst, with revenues down 29% and operating income down 99%. As two examples of purely local station performance, Gannett's broadcasting segment revenues were down 16% and operating income down 24%, with Sinclair's revenues down 19% and operating income down 43% (before an impairment charge). The commentary from all the broadcasters was the same: the ad market is terrible, and they're doing their best to contain costs (meaning laying off staff).

As the TV industry gears up to sell billions of dollars of ad time this week, a clear lesson from the above financial performance is that it is essential to diversify into the paid subscription ecosystem instead of relying on advertising alone. Disney, Fox and NBCU have recognized this for a while and have strongly built up their portfolio of cable networks.

With ad sales in the doldrums, it's hard not to wonder what Disney, Fox and NBCU, the three major owners of Hulu, are thinking about with respect to Hulu's own business model, which is of course currently 100% reliant on ads. I mean, if your incumbent business model is frayed, wouldn't it make sense, when essentially "starting over" online, to aggressively pursue the one that is resilient even in the recession?

Hulu's exclusive online lock on high-quality programming from 3 of the 4 broadcast networks would seem to position the company perfectly for a subscription play. If its owners looked hard at the divergent fortunes of cable vs. broadcast, it seems inevitable we'll see some type of paid subscription offering from Hulu - either directly or through distributors - sometime in the near future.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Looking over last month's posts with an eye for 2-3 themes to extract for my recap post today, I was instead struck by one overarching theme: innovation is alive and well in the broadband video space. Other sectors of the economy may have ground to a halt in the current recession, but whether it's new technologies, new service models or new approaches by traditional media companies, the pace of innovation in all things related to broadband video seems only to be accelerating.

Here are some of the examples from last month's posts:

New technologies

• SundaySky - a new approach to dynamically generate videos out of web site content
• HD Cloud - cloud-based encoding and transcoding plus 3rd party syndication
• Market7 - web-based platform for collaboratively creating and producing video
• FreeWheel - ad management/distribution company raises another $12M

New service models

• Sezmi - next-gen video service provider aiming to replace cable/satellite/telco
• TurnHere - distributed video production services for the corporate market
• Babelgum - premium-quality content destination for independent producers
• YuMe Mindshare iGRP - new measurement unit to compare on-air and online ad performance
• YouTube-Disney - short-form promotional deal

New approaches by traditional media companies

• Disney-Hulu - Exclusive 3rd party online distribution for established broadcast network
• Cable networks launching webisodes - online initiatives to attract and retain new online audiences
• New York magazine video re-launch - emphasis on curating best-of-the web videos with brand
• WWE Smashup - fan-submitted video mashup content driving awareness of on-air special

Now granted I have an eye out for broadband innovations so this list is somewhat self-serving. But remember that for every item above I was probably pitched on 2-3 others that I didn't write about due to time limitations. Some of these other items may have been picked up by other news outlets and captured in the news aggregation side of VideoNuze, while plenty of them likely received little attention.

My point is that throughout the whole broadband video ecosystem there is a vibrant sense of entrepreneurialism that is slowly but surely remaking the traditional video landscape. To be sure, not all of this stuff is going to work out; either business models will be faulty, technologies won't deliver as promised or consumers will reject what they're being offered. Nonetheless, from my vantage point, the wheels of innovation continue to spin faster. That makes it a very exciting time to be part of the industry.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

OK, Hulu now has ABC in its corner for the next 2 years, along with a re-upped program exclusivity commitment from NBC and Fox. But the nagging question remains: even with all its premium content, fabulous user experience and surging traffic, when will Hulu prove its business model? How that question gets answered will be the real test of Hulu's ultimate success. And with 3 of the 4 broadcast networks now hitching themselves to the Hulu locomotive, the answer is also going to be pivotal to how the industry navigates the broadband video era.

To be clear, VideoNuze readers know that I've been a big fan of Hulu from Day 1. The site has only gotten better over time, not only with more content added, but by continued improvements in the user experience. All of this has no doubt contributed to Hulu's rapid rise up the usage rankings, landing it in the top 3 for the first time in March, with 380M views, according to comScore.

A source familiar with the Disney deal told me the deal was entirely predicated on Disney's desire to tap into Hulu's audience in order to increase ABC's online reach. Among other evidence indicating Hulu's upside potential, comScore data apparently showed that only 8% of the ABC.com audience visits Hulu and only 13% of the Hulu audience visits ABC.com.

To me, three indicators of how much the Hulu deal meant to ABC are the 2 year exclusivity commitment, the redistribution rights for ABC programs to 3rd parties Hulu gained (except for grandfathered ABC partners), and that ABC will allow its programs to be viewed outside of its much-celebrated video player for the first time.

Importantly, the former two terms effectively foreclose any full-length program distribution deal with YouTube and others. For now at least, ABC will limit its relationship with YouTube to clips only. That's a pretty big call; remember YouTube is the category leader that not only has a 40% share of the market, but is also currently over 15 times the size (in streams) of Hulu. There's also YouTube's relationship with Google, which of course has the most formidable online monetization engine (albeit one that hasn't been fully leveraged by YouTube as yet).

The YouTube decision underscores my ambivalence about the broadcast networks' singular embrace of Hulu because there's little evidence that Hulu has yet developed a profitable or sustainable business model. I've written previously about the paucity of ads in Hulu (and broadcasters' own sites for that matter) and how this is creating user expectations that are going to be hard to reset when more ads are inevitably loaded in. One of the reasons users love Hulu is because it is so light on ads. But will Hulu's traffic flatten or decline when the non-skipppable ad load is 2x, 3x or 4x what it is currently?

Further, there was no evidence of customized ad creative or formats meant to incent deeper engagement (unless you count the companion banners prompting users to click to learn more). Deeper engagement and interactivity are supposed to be the calling cards of broadband video advertising. But the ads on Hulu appear to be the same as seen on-air, suggesting Hulu hasn't been able to persuade its brand advertisers to invest in custom creative to leverage the Hulu environment.

Now I know we're in a recession, but still, over a year since Hulu's official launch, and with its tremendous traffic growth, I think all of this is cause for real concern. Hulu is being embraced by the broadcast industry as its main online video vehicle, yet it isn't close to proving it has a model that can actually make money. I don't have insight as to what's going on here, but I hope the networks that are exclusively entrusting their prized programs to Hulu - and consequently incenting huge real-time shifts in viewer behavior - do.

Longer term of course, the networks' bet on Hulu becomes even more profound. That's because as convergence devices of every stripe bring broadband viewing all the way to users' TVs, there's going to be inevitable cannibalization of viewing traditionally done through linear on-air/cable delivery. (Btw, despite much-heralded research to the contrary, anecdotal evidence suggests this is happening already. Just go ask any college student about their viewing behavior.)

Down the road, networks are going to be increasingly reliant on broadband-based ad revenue as their main meal ticket. And if all that's being served up are digital pennies, nickels or dimes - as I believe Hulu is delivering today - then even all the usage in the world will still leave the networks very hungry indeed.

Now that ABC has thrown in with Hulu, you have to believe CBS will as well. With all of the networks on board, they're increasingly betting the industry on the hope that Hulu can figure out its business model. For their sake, let's hope it can.

What do you think? Post a comment now.