Posts for 'Aggregators'

Here I am at BWI airport getting ready to send today's VideoNuze email and in pops the news that Disney is taking an equity stake in Hulu, bringing lots of its prized programming along. The rumor mill has swirled for a while that a deal was forthcoming, now it's here. The press release is not yet up on the Disney site. I'll have more thoughts later.

Late yesterday YouTube announced "a new destination for TV shows and an improved destination for movies," moves that continue the site's evolution from its UGC/video sharing roots to an aggregator of premium-quality video.

The reality is that this evolution has been underway for some time now, and I expect it will only continue. Two weeks ago in "6 Reasons Why the Disney-YouTube Deal Matters" I explained again why, as the 8,000 pound gorilla of the online video market, YouTube is in an excellent position to partner with premium content providers. In a media landscape marked by massive audience fragmentation, the online destination (YouTube) that accounts for 40-50% of all streams and is 15 times as big as the #2 destination (Hulu) is quite simply a must-have promotion and distribution partner.

The new destinations address what has been an ongoing Achilles' heel for the site - enabling users to easily find premium video "needles" in YouTube's user-generated "haystack." YouTube's UI weaknesses for premium video have been highlighted by the gold-plated user experience Hulu - and more recently TV.com and Sling.com - have brought to market. The sites have quickly gained passionate fans, and at least in the case of Hulu, significant viewership.

Possibly more important though, is that for content providers they show how YouTube is serious about addressing their needs for clean, well-lit spaces. Premium content providers want the benefits of being in the massive YouTube site, but without the risk of their brands showing up too close to scruffy UGC material. Being clustered with other premium content is a must.

YouTube's concurrent beta launch of Google TV Ads Online, which allows targeted instream ads, is another positive for premium content providers. Beyond YouTube's massive traffic, Google's potent monetization capabilities are the other reason I've been so bullish on YouTube's prospects for premium content. As I wrote on Monday, with increased DVR penetration driving rampant ad-skipping, broadcast and cable's traditional ad model is looking more and more defunct. Online video ads offer a lot of promise as an even higher value ad medium, but much of it is still unproven. Having large players like Google and YouTube involved is significant for showing online video advertising's true upside.

One last take on this is how YouTube continues to position itself in the "over-the-top" sweepstakes, where multiple competitors are vying to be viewed as bona fide substitutes for cable/satellite/telco subscribers itching to cut the cord. I remain skeptical that the trickle of cord-cutters is going to turn into a gusher any time soon, but I will say that with its move up the content ladder, YouTube continues to burnish its standing as a must-have partner for any convergence device-maker looking to make over-the-top inroads (e.g. Roku, Vudu, AppleTV, etc.). YouTube is the most-recognized online video brand, the most-heavily trafficked, and increasingly a credible alternative to premium aggregators like Hulu and others.

For everyone in the online video ecosystem, YouTube continues to be a key player to watch.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Babelgum, the ad-supported broadband/mobile video aggregator and platform has recently embarked on an expansion into the U.S. market. A discussion I had with Karol Martesko-Fenster, the producer of Babelgum's film channel about the company's recent deal for exclusive worldwide Internet and mobile distribution rights for the new documentary film "The Linguists" reveals how Babelgum is seeking to succeed in an already crowded market, and also provides an outline for how independent content creators can tap the broadband medium.

Karol explained that Babelgum is focusing on premium-only content that fits within its half dozen curated channels. Babelgum's focus is the "Internet Free on Demand" (IFOD) window and it always seeks worldwide distribution rights, since it targets a global audience. A window of exclusive distribution is also important. To find new films, Babelgum has an acquisitions team that scouts film festivals and also works closely with digital rights aggregators such as Cinetic Rights Management, Content Republic, CAA and others. In addition it often deals directly with the content creators.

That was the case with The Linguists, a new documentary film from Ironbound Films which Babelgum spotted at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. Karol noted that the producers had been careful about retaining all of their rights. Babelgum secured a 4 month IFOD exclusive window for The Liguistics in exchange for an advance payment and a 50-50 split of ad/sponsorship revenue. Karol wouldn't specify the size of the advance, but said it's typically in the 4 to 6 figure range and is fully recouped before the splits kick in.

Karol believes Babelgum's willingness to pay advances is a key differentiator relative to competitors who he said are mainly focused on pure revenue-sharing deals. His experience is that for most creators who are even somewhat established, revenue-sharing alone won't be appealing.

Of course to make this model work on ad/sponsorship revenue alone requires Babelgum to be pretty careful about which films it acquires. Karol explained the variables that go into calculating the advance. Among other things, how exposed the film is, the length of exclusivity period and the ad sales team's projections. Then there's the traffic expectations. Babelgum pursues an aggressive online campaign including distributing excerpts to social media sites like Facebook and also distributing the film via an affiliate player to film festival sites and on mobile platforms (iPhone only today).

Karol acknowledges that there's some risk involved here, and that it's still very early days in figuring out the formula for how ad-supported only films will work online. However, Babelgum believes the IFOD window augments other distribution (theatrical, DVD, paid online, TV, etc.) and that the industry has recently begun to understand this. Babelgum's progress will be well worth following.

It's no secret that there's a huge amount of interest among independent content creators to exploit the emerging broadband medium. Karol's advice for independents is to get talks started with online distributors simultaneous with hitting the film festivals, clear all the worldwide rights, and be willing to carve up distribution rights into many different slices (with or without the help of digital rights aggregators).

What do you think? Post a comment now.

In a surprising turn-of-events, VideoNuze has learned that Google will acquire Hulu and merge it with YouTube. The resulting entity will be named either 'YouLu' or 'HuTube.' The merger brings together the two most-trafficked video sites into a powerful new player.

In an interesting twist, the final acquisition price has not yet been determined. Instead, the price will be based on a new algorithm Google is creating to accurately measure just how effective Hulu is at turning its users' brains into 'creamy giggity-goo' as Seth MacFarlane asserts it will in the latest of Hulu's alien-inspired ads. The algorithm will actually be able to count how many more of users' brain cells die as a result of watching shows on Hulu beyond the cells that already died due to regular on-air network TV viewership.

It turns out that Hulu's positioning as an 'evil plot to destroy the world' was considered highly synergistic with Google's longstanding mantra to 'do no evil.' Google CEO Eric Schmidt revealed that the company decided some time ago to move beyond its good-guy image, saying, "Look, we got a lot of mileage out of that 'doing no evil' malarkey, but it's time to get real. We're an avaricious multi-billion company now, and all these wacky tree-hugging green initiatives our engineers keep dreaming up can't hide that." He added, "We really admire the traction Hulu is getting by turning 'evil' into a virtue and want to tap into that concept further. Those Hollywood guys beat us hands-down when it comes to creativity."

For its part, Hulu's owners' decision to merge with YouTube, for a price not yet quantifiable, can only be seen as waiving the white flag of surrender. In an email exchange between Jeff Zucker, NBCU's CEO and Peter Chernin, Fox's former CEO (who made the original Hulu deal), obtained by VideoNuze, Zucker's frustration with Hulu's distant second place status is palpable. Among other things he says, "I thought we had dumbed down our shows as much as possible, but YouTube has clearly tapped into audiences' insatiable appetite for the inane. Who would have thought that skateboard-riding cats crashing into walls would have more audience appeal than our $2 million/episode scripted dramas. There really is no accounting for taste."

In response Chernin is quoted as saying, "Rupert always thought Hulu was a small potatoes deal, not really capable of losing a large, exciting amount of money. On the other hand, YouTube has been a gigantic black hole for Google, so the opportunity to join forces and achieve scale at losing money together was just incredibly compelling." He added, "Plus, you have to remember, Rupert's heart is really in newspapers. He continues to think this whole Internet thing is a fad that will eventually blow over, with people returning to newspapers as their trusted source of news and propaganda. So the company is logically positioning itself to have sizable video losses to offset expected massive gains in newspaper profitability."

Meanwhile, in a meeting with employees, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar reportedly sought to put a positive spin on the merger. Employees who have Twittered the meeting say that to pump up employee enthusiasm he re-told stories of how much fun it was to originally come up with the name 'Hulu,' reportedly saying, "Look how much mileage we got of one ridiculous-sounding made-up name, just imagine the branding possibilities of the even more-ridiculous sounding names YouLu or HuTube..." Negotiations are already underway with the Chinese portal and domain parking company that own the respective URLs.

The merger left many industry analysts scratching their heads. Representative of their reaction, VideoNuze's Will Richmond said, "Geez, I never thought we'd see a more nonsensical media merger than the one between Time Warner and AOL, but I think this YouLu/HuTube thing might just be it. Let's hope it's not for real, and is just some kind of April Fool's Day joke cooked up by an industry analyst to provide some once-per-year, cheap laughs."

Late yesterday's announcement that Disney-ABC and ESPN would launch a number of ad-supported channels focused on short-form content was yet another meaningful step in broadband video's maturation process. Here are 6 reasons why I think the deal matters:

1. It validates YouTube as a must-have promotional and distribution partner

For many content providers it's long since become standard practice to distribute clips, and often full-length content, on YouTube. Yet aside from CBS, no broadcast TV network has seriously leveraged YouTube. That's been a key missed opportunity, as YouTube is simply too big to ignore. It's not just that YouTube notched 100M unique viewers in Feb. '09 according to comScore, it's that the site has achieved dramatically more market share momentum over the past 2 years than anyone else, increasing from 16.2% of all streams to 41% of all streams.

Increasingly, YouTube is not the 800 pound gorilla of the broadband video market; it's the 8,000 pound gorilla. Disney has acknowledged what has long been tacitly understood - as a video content provider, it's impossible to succeed fully without a YouTube relationship.

2. It creates a path for full-length Disney-ABC programming to appear on YouTube and elsewhere

While this deal only contemplates short-form video, and more than likely, mostly promotional clips, it almost certainly creates a path for full-length episodes to appear as well, as the partners build trust in each other and learn how to monetize. Full-length content is most likely to come from ABC, not ESPN (the release pointedly states no long-form content from ESPN's linear networks is included) as part of a newly expanded distribution approach.

For YouTube, which has been aggressively evolving from its UGC roots in its quest to generate revenues, the current clip deal alone is a big win; gaining distribution rights to full-length programs would be an even more significant step. Underscoring YouTube's flexibility, the current deal allows ESPN's player to be embedded, and for Disney-ABC to retain ad sales. YouTube's reported redesign, which places more emphasis on premium content, is yet another way it is getting its house in order for premium content deals.

3. It opens up a new opportunity for original short-form video to flourish

When you think about broadcast TV networks and studios, you immediately think of conventional long-form content. Yet all of these companies have been producing short-form content that either augments their broadcast programs, or is originally produced for broadband, as Disney's own Stage 9 is pursuing. The levels of success of this content have been all over the board.

With YouTube as a formal partner, Disney can aggressively leverage it as its primary distribution platform, gaining more direct access to this vast audience. Facing unremitting market pressures on many fronts, broadcast TV networks themselves need to reinvent their business models. Short-form original content married to strong distribution from YouTube would be a whole new strategic opportunity.

4. It puts pressure on Hulu and other aggregators

It's hard not to see YouTube's gain as Hulu's - and other aggregators' - loss. For sure nothing's exclusive here, and as PaidContent has reported, discussions about Disney distributing full-length programs on Hulu (as well as YouTube) are also underway. But the Disney deal underscores something important that differentiates YouTube from Hulu: YouTube is both a massive promotional vehicle and a potential long-form distributor, while Hulu is really only the latter.

YouTube's benefit derives from its first-mover status. Hulu has done a tremendous job building traffic and credibility in its short life, but it is still distant to YouTube in terms of reach. I continue to believe it is far easier for YouTube to evolve from its UGC roots to become also become a premium outlet than it is for Hulu - or anyone else - to ever compete with YouTube's reach.

5. It raises threat warning to incumbent service providers by another notch

It's also hard not to see the Disney deal moving YouTube's threat level to incumbent video service providers (cable/satellite/telco) up another notch. We discussed YouTube's importance to these companies at the Broadband Video Leadership Evening 2 weeks ago (video here), and I thought the panelists generally did not give YouTube much credit as it deserves.

I continue to believe that of all the various "over-the-top" threats to the current world-order, YouTube is the most meaningful ad-supported one. It has massive audience, a potent monetization engine in Google's AdWords, and with the Disney deal, increased credibility with premium content providers. Especially for younger audiences, the YouTube brand means a lot more than any incumbent service provider's. If I were at Comcast, Verizon or DirecTV, I'd be keeping very close tabs on YouTube's evolution.

6. It exposes the absurdity of the ongoing Viacom-Google litigation

Two weeks ago at the Media Summit I listened to Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman describe the status of his company's $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube. As he talked of mounds of data and reams of documentation being collected and reviewed, I found myself slumping in my chair, thinking about how well all the lawyers involved in the case must be doing, and yet how pointless it all seems.

The old adage "2 wrongs don't make a right" fits this situation perfectly. There is no question that in the past YouTube was lax about enforcing copyright protection on its site and cavalier about how it responded publicly to the concerns of rights-holders. But it has made much progress with its Content ID system and a good faith effort to become a trusted partner. All of this is evidenced by the fact that Disney wouldn't even be talking to YouTube, much less cutting a deal, if it didn't view YouTube as reformed. While the media world is moving on, adapting itself to the new rules of video creation, promotion and distribution, Viacom continues to waste resources and executive attention pursuing this case. To be sure, Viacom has been plenty active on the digital front, but it is long overdue that these companies figure out how to resolve their differences and instead focus on how to work together to generate profits for themselves, not their lawyers.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Blockbuster and TiVo have announced that Blockbuster OnDemand movies will be available on TiVo devices. Though I'm all for creating more choice for viewers to gain access to the content they seek, in this case I don't see the deal creating a ton of new value in the market, as it comes 6 months after Netflix and TiVo announced that Netflix's Watch Instantly service would be available on TiVo devices and nearly 2 years after Amazon and TiVo made Amazon's Unbox titles available for purchase and download to TiVo users. It looks like the main differentiator here is that Blockbuster will begin selling TiVos in their network of physical stores.

The deal underscores the flurry of partnership activity now underway (which I think will accelerate) between aggregators/content providers and companies with some kind of device enabling broadband access to TVs. I believe the key to these deals actually succeeding rests on 2 main factors: the content offering some new consumer value (selection, price, convenience, exclusivity, etc.) and the access device gaining a sufficiently large footprint. Absent both of these, the new deals will likely find only limited success.

Consumers now have no shortage of options to download or stream movies, meaning that announcements along the lines of Blockbuster-TiVo break little new ground. To me, a far more fertile area to create new consumer value is offering online access to cable networks' full-length programs. As I survey the landscape of how premium quality video content has or has not moved online, this is the category that has made the least progress so far. That's one of the reasons I think the recent Comcast/Time Warner Cable plans are so exciting.

With these plans in the works, but no timetables yet announced, non-cable operators need to be thinking about how they too can gain select distribution rights. There's still a lot of new consumer value to be created in this space. Given lucrative existing affiliate deals between cable networks and cable/satellite/telco operators, I admit this won't be easy. However, Hulu's access to Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" does prove it's possible.

We're well into the phase where premium video content is delivered to TVs via broadband. Those that bring distinctive content to large numbers of consumers as easily as possible will be the winners.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Everywhere I look there are companies doing innovative, clever things to bring broadband video to the TV and to mobile devices.

Yesterday brought another great example, from Vuze, a company with roots as a BitTorrent client that has evolved to an aggregator of hi-def niche broadband video using its desktop application for discovery, download and playback. Vuze announced an update that enables users to drag-and-drop downloaded videos for playback on non-PC devices such as Xbox, PS3 and - via an integration with iTunes - to the iPhone, Apple TV and iPods. It's a pretty cool extension of the Vuze client experience and I spoke with Vuze's CEO Gilles BianRosa and Sr. Director of Marketing Chris Thun to learn more.

Without getting too far into the technical details, what Vuze has done is capitalized on hooks that have existed in these various devices, making videos downloaded via Vuze visible in these devices' interfaces. As Gilles explained it, these hooks have been available for a while, but only the super-technical would have invested the time and effort to benefit from them.

The connections to Xbox (installed base of 30M) and PS3 (installed base of 23M) are quite complimentary to Vuze, which has 10M unique visitors/mo and about 50M downloads to date, because its content library is heavily skewed toward SciFi, animation, games and comedy (all HD btw) along with its user base. In other words, there's an affinity audience who will immediately benefit from being able to watch Vuze's content on their big screens and on-the-go. In fact, in a recent survey of its users for how they'd want to connect their PCs to TV and mobile, Vuze got 30K responses with a strong emphasis on gaming and Apple devices.

In prior conversations with Gilles I've raised a concern about the viability of Vuze's (or anyone's) client download model given the ever-increasing quality of browser-based streaming. But these integrations do shed new light on the value proposition of having a desktop presence. With its update, Vuze actually goes one step further by automatically transcoding downloaded videos into the format appropriate for the target device, often in real-time, thus eliminating playback issues.

Gilles noted that this is a beta release however, and that one current limitation is that ads cannot be passed through. This is a not insignificant gap for an ad-supported site. Vuze hopes to have ads up and running within a month or so. It also has its eye on integrating with additional devices. My bet is that TiVo is next up given that TiVo founder Mike Ramsey sits on Vuze's board.

For now Vuze's content is relatively nichey and Gilles concedes that despite ongoing negotiations with major studios and TV networks, they're still getting comfortable with Vuze's P2P platform. Given the crowded video aggregator space, Vuze's ongoing challenge is to bolster its content library to broaden its appeal.

But Vuze's new update, sure to mimicked by others, which comes on top of Netflix reporting 1M Watch Instantly users connecting to their Xboxes and consuming 1.5 billion in the first 2 months of its availability, Boxee's multiple integrations and other PC-to-TV convergence initiatives underway, shows the huge pent-up interest users have in watching broadband video on their TVs. The genie is way out of the bottle and content providers need to begin adapting to the coming landscape where video flows between PC, TV and mobile, offering unprecedented convenience to users.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

NBCU CEO Jeff Zucker provided the opening keynote interview at the Media Summit in NYC this morning with Businessweek Executive Editor Ellen Pollock. I've seen him speak a number of times and true to form he was pragmatic, quite candid and humorous. Highlights below:

"We're at digital dimes now" - Zucker of course famously worried aloud about the risk of "exchanging analog dollars for digital pennies," the notion that half-baked online delivery models would only serve to cannibalize traditional profitability. Zucker sees progress, saying Hulu is "well ahead of plan" and is yes, is now making money. Zucker repeatedly praised the success of the company's wide-ranging digital initiatives, but also noted often there is still a lot of work to do. He also wondered aloud whether digital would ever be a 1 to 1 revenue substitute for traditional revenue streams, but that further cost rationalization would help drive profitability.

"We're in process of finding new economic models" - On the above point, Zucker was candid in saying that the work to be done on new economic models is still experimental and that "a lot of success is often accidental." He readily concedes that nobody has all the answers, and that a key challenge is bridging from the traditional business models to new ones, balancing the interests of older audiences comfortable with the status quo with younger ones that are aggressively embracing the new. Describing his own kids' media activity, which focuses on Hulu, generating their own content and being interactive must give Zucker ample perspective.

"Technology is unbelievably exciting" - Zucker has always emphasized the importance of technology on NBCU's various businesses and today was no exception. He noted that technology is increasing access to TV programs and movies in unprecedented ways, which is a good thing. However he also candidly observed that it has fundamentally changed the broadcast business, primarily through consumers' use of DVRs and online delivery. All of that, plus NBC's lagging primetime performance, has caused it to completely re-think the broadcast model. He observed that newspapers' current woes can be traced to them not being willing to quetion the fundamentals of their model and the role of technology. Like other video providers, he seems determined to confront realities and avoid repeating this mistake.

"NBCU is first and foremost a cable programming company" - Zucker has often highlighted the benefits of the two revenue stream cable programming model (affiliate fees and advertising), but this was the first time I've heard him so clearly position the company as being mainly in the cable business. NBCU's stable of channels, USA, SciFi, Oxygen, MSNBC, Bravo, etc. contributed 60% of NBCU's operating profit last year. The networks' ability to "outperform the market, especially in women's programming and news" is key to NBCU's overall success. Zucker noted that USA is increasingly a "must buy" for advertisers, and with its mass appeal, should justifiably be considered the 5th broadcast network.

"We're hopeful we'll resolve TV.com-Hulu issues soon" - Zucker only briefly touched on Hulu's recent decision to pull its programming from TV.com, which is fast emerging as a Hulu competitor. As has been previously reported, Hulu's attorneys obviously believe TV.com compromised its Hulu distribution agreement as part of its new configuration subsequent to CBS's acquisition of CNET. With a battle looming between aggregators especially in the down economy, I think it remains to be seen whether a settlement can be found.

Last week a publicly-traded communications-equipment company invited me to speak to a group of investment analysts it had assembled for its annual "investor day." In the Q&A session following my presentation I took a question that I'm not often asked, nor do I give much thought to: "10 years from now, who will be the video industry's winners and losers?"

It's a far-reaching question that doesn't lend itself well to an impromptu answer. Also, while it's great fun to prognosticate about the long run, I've found that it's also a complete crapshoot, which is why my focus is much shorter-term. I've long-believed there are just too many variables in play to predict with any sort of certainty what might unfold 10 years into the future.

Still, as I've thought more about the question, it seems to me that there are at least 5 main factors that will influence the video industry's winners and losers over the next 10 years:

1. Penetration rate of broadband-connected TVs -There's a lot of energy being directed to "convergence" technologies and devices which connect broadband to the TV. Broadband to the TV is a big opportunity for video providers outside the traditional video distribution value chain. It's also a minefield for those who have dominated the traditional model, such as broadcasters. The Hulu-Boxee spat demonstrates this. A high rate of adoption of broadband to the TV technologies will result in more openness and choice for consumers. That's a good or a bad thing depending on where you currently sit.

3. How well the broadcast industry adapts to broadband delivery - The broadcast TV industry generates about $70 billion of ad revenue annually. But both broadcast networks and local stations are on the front lines of broadband's change and disruption, putting a chunk of that ad revenue up for grabs. With broadband-to-the-TV coming, broadcast networks must figure out how to make broadband-only viewership of their programs profitable on a stand-alone basis (i.e. when the online viewing is the sole viewing proposition). Local stations face bigger challenges. As the Internet was to newspapers, broadband delivery is to local stations. They face a slew of new competitors for ad dollars and audiences, while losing their exclusive access to network programming. To what extent they're able to reinvent themselves will determine how much share they hold on to and how much others peel off.

4. How aggressively today's video providers (cable/telco/satellite) and new paid aggregators pursue broadband video delivery - While anecdotes about "cord-cutting" will no doubt only intensify, the reality is that if today's video providers adapt themselves to broadband realities, they are likely to be as strong or stronger 10 years from now. The recent moves from Comcast and Time Warner are encouraging signs that the cable industry gets that being ostriches about the importance of broadband delivery is a road to nowhere. Consumers expect more flexibility and value; incumbents are in a tremendous position to deliver. Ownership of local broadband access networks that serve consumers' unquenchable bandwidth demands is going to be a very good business to be in. That all said, new paid aggregators like Netflix, Amazon and Apple could well steal some share if they aggressively beef up their content, offer a competitive user experience and deliver a better value. They could have a major impact on online movie distribution in particular.

5. The level of investment in startups - The venture capital industry, crucial to the funding of early-stage innovative technology companies, is going through its own turmoil. The industry's limited partners have been wounded by the market's drop, causing VCs to raise smaller funds (if they're even able to do this), limit the number of investments they make, and shy away from betting on big transformational startups. Plenty of strong video technology companies are still successfully raising money, but it's harder than ever. Lots of potentially promising ideas are going begging. The length and severity of the economic slowdown will have a big effect on just how much funding new technologies that can potentially reshape the video landscape over the next 10 years.

So there are 5 factors to consider in how the video landscape shapes up over the next 10 years. Now back to the here and now..

What's your crystal ball say? Post a comment now.

Netflix confirmed for me that the first 9 seasons of "South Park" are indeed coming to its "Watch Instantly" streaming service. This was mentioned by South Park's Matt Stone in a longer NY Times story yesterday about the program's digital activities. However, since there was no formal announcement yesterday and I couldn't add South Park episodes to my Netflix Watch Instantly I followed up to verify.

A Netflix spokesman told me that a deal has indeed been signed, and that the formal announcement will follow later this month when the release timeline has been finalized. He did not comment on the Times report that Netflix is paying for the episodes, though I assume this is almost certainly the case.

Netflix's move demonstrates the beginnings of what I think is real power in its Watch Instantly model, namely the ability to pay to get great content which itself can be a subscriber acquisition and/or retention tool. I expect we'll see a lot more of Netflix cherrypicking programs and or specific networks to build out its Watch Instantly feature. As it does, it will become an increasingly appealing alternative for early adopter cord-cutters.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

An article in Friday's WSJ "Cable Firms Look to Offer TV Programs Online" outlined a plan under which Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the nation's 2 largest cable operators, would give just their subscribers online access to cable networks' programming.

A Comcast spokesperson contacted me later Friday morning to explain that the plan, dubbed "OnDemand Online" is indeed in the works, though a release timeline is not yet set. The move is part of the company's "Project Infinity" a wide-ranging on-demand programming vision that was unveiled at CES '08, but oddly has not been messaged much since. Meanwhile, thePlatform, Comcast's broadband video management/publishing subsidiary also called me on Friday to confirm that - unsurprisingly - it would be powering the OnDemand Online initiative (thePlatform's CEO Ian Blaine explains more in this post).

The idea of cable operators setting up online walled gardens for their subscribers alone was first signaled by Peter Stern, Time Warner's EVP/Chief Strategy Officer on the panel I moderated at VideoNuze's Broadband Leadership Breakfast last November. As I wrote subsequently in "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks" my takeaway from his and other cable executives' recent comments was that the industry was poised to collaborate in order to defend cable's traditional - and highly profitable - business model. Under that model, cable operators currently pay somewhere between $20-25 billion per year in monthly "affiliate fees" to programmers whose networks are then packaged by operators into various consumer subscription tiers.

It should come as a surprise to nobody that both cable networks and operators are mightily incented to defend their model against the incursions of free "over the top" distribution alternatives. Indeed what's surprising to me is why it has taken the industry so long to act forcefully when the stakes are so high and the market's moving so fast? I mean cable operators themselves are the largest broadband Internet access providers in the country, and they have watched for years as their networks have been engorged by surging online viewing, courtesy of YouTube, Hulu, Netflix and others. While they've made some tepid moves to push programming online (though to be fair Comcast's Fancast portal has evolved quite a bit recently), overall their broadband video distribution activities have been underwhelming, evidence of broadband distribution's lower priority status vis-a-vis TV-based video-on-demand.

Meanwhile Friday's article triggered plenty of hackles from the blogosphere that those evil cable operators were up to their old monopolistic tricks, this time moving to control the broadband delivery market and choke off open access to premium video. While it's indeed tempting to see these plans that way, I think that would be the wrong conclusion.

Rather, I look at the Comcast/TWC moves as both welcome and likely to spur more, not less, consumer access to broadband-delivered programming. That's because, if the cable networks are smart in their negotiations, they will gain from operators the approval to push more of their programs onto both their own web sites, and even to distribute some through others' sites. With net neutrality agitators hopeful in the wake of Barack Obama's election, Comcast and TWC need to tread carefully in these negotiations. Yet another part of the model I foresee is archived programs, which have been locked up in vaults due to programmers' concerns over operator reprisals if they leaked out online, becoming much more openly accessible.

The Comcast/TWC hecklers need to remember one simple fact: to make quality programming requires solid business models. And in this economic climate, solid business models are far and few between. Despite having lost a total of over 500,000 video subscribers during the last 6 consecutive quarters, Comcast still owns one of those few sold models. And don't forget it is now investing to increase its broadband speeds, pledging 30 million, or 65% of its homes, will have 50 Mbps access by the end of '09 (a rollout which incidentally is all privately financed, without a dime of federal bailout money or other assistance).

Someday, when broadband video business models mature (as indeed they ultimately will), there will be lots of cable and other programming available for free online. For now though, getting Comcast and TWC to finally pursue an aggressive broadband distribution path is a welcome evolutionary step in unlocking this exciting new medium's ultimate potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: we'll be diving deep into this topic, and others, at VideoNuze's Broadband Video Leadership Evening on March 17th in NYC. More information and registration is here.)

This week's drama between Hulu and Boxee shines the strongest light yet on all of the disruptive forces broadband-delivered video has unleashed: the fight for how video content will reach your living room in the broadband era, and who exactly will control the process. It is a litmus test for major networks in how they intend to transition from the orderly and closed traditional distribution world to the new, open and messy one.

For those who haven't been paying close attention, this week Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar announced in a blog post that its content would no longer be available to users of Boxee, which is an open source media player that connects broadband delivered content to the TV with a friendly and social interface. Boxee has quickly become a darling of the early adopter and techie set (it's still in "Alpha" release, and only runs on Mac OSX and Ubuntu Linux).

Despite not having a formal agreement from Hulu, several months ago Boxee was able to extend its product to enable Hulu viewing. Hulu promptly became Boxee's #1 content source, and according to Boxee's CEO Avner Ronen, it was recently generating 100K streams per week (note that this amount is still chicken feed relative to Hulu's 240 million monthly streams). Boxee doesn't interrupt Hulu's business model; Hulu's content and ads are shown in their entirety. One would have thought the calculation for Hulu and its owners would be pretty simple: more streams = more ads = more success.

Yesterday I checked in with senior executives around the industry to see what's going on here. The picture that emerges is one of big media companies trying to reassert their control over how users access their content. In his blog post, Kilar says "our content providers requested that we turn off access to our content via the Boxee product, and we are respecting their wishes." According to everyone I spoke to, the unnamed content providers can only be Hulu's two owners, NBC and Fox.

Embracing broadband delivery by backing Hulu was progressive thinking by NBC and Fox. And as long as its skyrocketing usage was perceived as a net positive for on-air distribution (research has shown no cannibalization, higher sampling, more awareness, etc.) and its usage was mainly computer-based, all was fine.

But what Boxee did was extend the Hulu experience to sanctified ground: the TV itself. And that opened a real can of worms for the networks. Are they aiding and abetting "over the top" user behavior which could lead to "cord-cutting," in turn jeopardizing their highly profitable cable operator relationships? Are they undermining their own P&L's because Hulu usage on TV will cannibalize on-air delivery which carries higher revenues/viewer? Are they setting a dangerous precedent that any scruffy startup can distribute their prized programming without a formal relationship? And so on. These questions were too significant and Boxee's implications too profound to go unchecked. So Hulu's owners snapped its leash.

There's just one problem here: what's the impact of the decision on Hulu's users and by extension, the Hulu franchise? A quick perusal of the comments to Kilar's post says it all: people are ballistic and they are deeply confused. They don't get the arbitrary logic of why it's ok to watch Hulu in lots of other ways, but just not through Boxee. And they raise the nightmare scenario that this decision will only serve to fuel piracy, an outcome networks were expected to avoid given the devastating Napster precedent their music industry brethren experienced.

One can only imagine the anguish being felt by Kilar and the Hulu team. Having sweated every detail to create the best video experience out there, it is now watching that goodwill evaporate due to its owners' squeamishness. Better yet, one wonders what the folks at Providence Equity Partners, which invested $100 million in Hulu at a $1 billion valuation, are thinking? Did they sign up at this stratospheric valuation only to see NBC and Fox circumscribe Hulu's reach?

I've been saying for a while now that broadband's openness makes it the single greatest disruptive influence on the traditional video distribution value chain. The Hulu-Boxee situation illustrates this perfectly. Once content providers embrace broadband they inherently give up some of their traditional control. And there's no going back; once the proverbial genie is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in. Hulu, NBC and Fox are learning this first hand. With everyone now watching for their next move, I'm betting a change of heart is forthcoming. Hulu will be back on Boxee in one form or another soon enough. Resistance is futile.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Hulu-Boxee is going to be outstanding grist for the Mar 17th Broadband Leadership Evening's panel discussion. Early bird discounted tickets are available through the end of today)

Last week when comScore announced data from its Video Metrix service for December '08, I made a note to myself to go back and look at all the video usage data comScore has released and see what it reveals. Below are 5 charts that I've compiled from comScore's press releases covering January 2007 - December 2008 (note comScore didn't report on every single month during this 24 month period so there are some holes in the graphs).

The first graph shows the growth in total videos viewed per month, roughly doubling from 7.2 billion views in Jan. '07 to 14.3 billion views in Dec. '08.

That growth is driven by a number of factors including an increase in the number of monthly viewers from 123 million in Jan. '07 (70% of U.S. Internet users) to 150 million in Dec. '08 (78.5% of U.S. Internet users).

It also reflects an increase in the number of videos viewed per viewer from 59 in Jan. '07 to 96 in Dec. '08.

Which further translates into the growth of total number of minutes the average viewer watched per month from 151 minutes per month in Jan. '07 to 309 minutes per month in Dec. '08.

Recall that Google closed on the YouTube acquisition in Nov. '06 and at $1.65 billion, many thought Google had grossly overpaid. Some may still believe this as YouTube is still very much a work in progress in terms of how it generates revenue. But there's no questioning the phenomenal two-year run it has had in terms of its usage and market share growth. This is one of the reasons why I continue to believe YouTube is one of the most powerful platforms for eventually disrupting the traditional video distribution value chain.

If these slides are hard to view, I've uploaded them all to SlideShare.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

By any measure this is an impressive start. For perspective, this may well be the largest number of people who have connected broadband to their TVs using an external device. More have probably connected their computers directly to their TVs, but as for devices I can't imagine any other having close to a million (Apple TV? Vudu? Roku?). In addition, simple math suggests that these users would already be watching the equivalent of around 1 movie or so per week (1.5 billion minutes divided by 1 million Xbox users divided by 12 weeks = 125 minutes viewed per user per week). Obviously this is just an average and also doesn't account for the ramp up in users over the 3 months. I think consumption will steadily increase especially if Netflix can expand WI's library of 12K titles.

Xbox must represent the largest footprint of Netflix-connected devices, simply because the number of Xbox LIVE Gold members is far larger than the number of owners of TiVo or the Blu-ray players that connect to Netflix. The Xbox adoption rate underscores the validity of Netflix's approach to make WI a value add for its subscribers and to integrate with third-party devices.

VideoNuze readers know I've become extremely enthusiastic about Netflix's broadband activities. The Xbox numbers are a positive early indicator of success. I only see more good news coming down the road.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in January:

Broadband video marches to the TV - At CES in early January there were major announcements around connecting broadband to TVs, either directly or through intermediary devices (a recap of all the news is here). All of the major TV manufacturers have put stakes in the ground in this market and we'll be seeing their products released during the year. Technology players like Intel, Broadcom, Adobe, Macrovision, Move Networks, Yahoo and others are also now active in this space. And content aggregators like Netflix and Amazon are also scaling up their efforts.

Some of you have heard me say that as amazing as the growth in broadband video consumption has been over the last 5 years, what's even more amazing is that virtually all of it has happened outside of the traditional TV viewing environment. Consider if someone had forecasted 5 years ago that there would be this huge surge of video consumption, but by the way, practically none of it will happen on TVs. People would have said the forecaster was crazy. Now think about what will happen once widespread TV-based consumption is realized. The entire video landscape will be affected. Broadband-to-the-TV is a game-changer.

Broadband video advertising continues to evolve - The single biggest determinant of broadband video's financial success is solidifying the ad-supported model. For all the moves that Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and others have made recently in the paid space, the disproportionate amount of viewership will continue to be free and ad-supported.

This month brought encouraging research from ABC and Nielsen that online viewers are willing to accept more ads and that recall rates are high. We also saw the kickoff of "the Pool" a new ad consortium spearheaded by VivaKi and including major brands and publishers, which will conduct research around formats and standards. Three more signs of advertising's evolution this month were Panache's deal with MTV (signaling a big video provider's continued maturation of its monetization efforts), a partnership between Adap.tv and EyeWonder (further demonstrating how ecosystem partners are joining up to improve efficiencies for clients and publishers) and Cisco's investment in Digitalsmiths (a long term initiative to deliver context-based advanced advertising across multiple viewing platforms). Lastly, Canoe, the cable industry's recently formed ad consortium continued its progress toward launch.

Broadband Inauguration - Lastly, January witnessed the momentous inauguration of President Barack Obama, causing millions of broadband users to (try to) watch online, often at work. What could have been a shining moment for broadband delivery instead turned into a highly inconsistent and often frustrating experience for many.

In perspective this was not all that surprising. The Internet's capacity has not been built to handle extraordinary peak load. However on normal days, it still does a pretty good job of delivering video smoothly and consistently. As I wrote in my post mortem, hopefully the result of the inauguration snafus will be continued investment in the infrastructure and technologies needed to satisfy growing demand. That's been the hallmark of the Internet, underscored by the fact that 70 million U.S. homes now connect to the 'net via broadband vs. single digit millions just 10 years ago. I remain confident that over time supply will meet demand.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The NY Times reported this week that YouTube is in talks with the William Morris talent agency about a possible deal to have some of its clients create videos especially for YouTube.

Nothing's confirmed at this point and who knows if an actual deal will result. However, if one does it would be a major strategy change for YouTube and I believe would create lots of new issues for the company to deal with. YouTube has always insisted that it is not a content creator; rather its goal has been to be a platform partner for premium video providers seeking to get the most out of the broadband medium.

The company has made significant progress on this front while recognizing that its vast collection of user-generated video will always be valued by its users but will be largely unmonetizable. Still, YouTube has been viewed cautiously by large media companies wary of its reach and disruptive potential. There's still lingering concern about why it took so long to get its Content ID system in place to protect its partners' copyrights (lest we forget the residual of that delay is the Viacom lawsuit that still looms).

From my perspective YouTube risks its credibility with its premium partners if the Morris deal happens. It is going to reopen the debate about what YouTube wants to be when it grows up: distribution partner or content creator. Other questions abound: Will the YouTube-Morris content compete directly with certain premium partners? Will the Morris content receive preferential promotional treatment? And how about the risk that data YouTube keeps about its premium partners' channels could be shared with Morris to help guide its content strategy? The questions go on. YouTube may feel it can finesse these questions and/or that its 40% video market share gives it leeway to push the envelope.

I've long thought that YouTube would find it irresistible to eventually get into the content business itself. The logic flows from precedent. For example, in the cable TV world, TCI was once the largest cable operator. It recognized the enormous financial leverage it enjoyed if it evolved beyond simply being packager of others' channels. As partner in channels in which it owned equity, it guaranteed them distribution, which in turn created viewership, ad and affiliate revenues and big-time value. In fact, TCI's content activities were so successful that it ultimately spawned a whole new company, Liberty Media, to manage its programming investments.

Similarly for YouTube, its access to millions of eyeballs creates a lot of temptation to have its own content properties, all the more so as broadband finds its way to the TV. No doubt YouTube has been pitched on this idea repeatedly over the years. But if it chooses to proceed this time it will no doubt hear concerns raised from its partners. Can it be a neutral, committed distribution partner while it also tries to build up its own content portfolio?

Further, there's the specter of Google and its potent monetization engine backing YouTube's content properties, which could also be viewed as competitive with its partners' ad sales efforts. Put all of this together and the potential Morris deal creates lots of new issues. If it comes to fruition it will be interesting to see how YouTube navigates them.

Netflix's Q4 earnings and business metrics released late Monday are resounding evidence of how important the company's Watch Instantly streaming feature is becoming to its future. Netflix ended '08 with just under 9.4 million subscribers, up 26% for the year. In Q4 '08 it added almost 2.1M gross subs (39% better than in Q4 '07) and 718K net subs (59% better than in Q4 '07). The company generated $51M in free cash flow in Q4 alone, more than in all of 2007. Did someone say there's a recession going? Not for Netflix it seems.

But here's the really interesting news: on the earnings call CEO Reed Hastings pinned the company's ability to beat its Q4 subscriber growth guidance on underestimating "the positive impact of the introduction of the multi-function CE devices from LG Electronics, Samsung, Microsoft and TiVo that promote Netflix streaming." He further added that "streaming is energizing our growth." Those are pretty strong validations of the company's broadband and CE strategy. (Btw, SeekingAlpha has the full transcript here. If you're a Netflix follower like me, it's a must-read.)

Hastings highlighted the LG and Samsung Blu-ray players as having a high connect rate in the 4th quarter, though noting that in terms of gross numbers Xbox and TiVo were more significant simply because their installed bases are so much larger. It's also important to know that Netflix is paying spiffs to CE partners to generate new Netflix subscribers. That further enhances the relationship between Netflix and its CE-partners. On the one hand Netflix content is both a competitive differentiator for these brands' and a generator of cash while on the other CE partners are a driver of both new subs and streaming adoption for Netflix.

Hastings noted that Netflix is in discussions with all major CE companies to "broadly cover the Blu-ray category and Internet TV category over the next few years." In the coming years, expect Netflix to be the content locomotive for marketing broadband-enabled devices the same way that "Intel Inside" was once the technology locomotive for marketing PCs. What other content provider is going to come close to such ubiquity? Possibly Amazon, whose pay-per-download model could actually be complimentary to Netflix in driving more device adoption. But certainly not Apple, which seems intent to yoke its massive iTunes video library to the proprietary Apple TV box in a fruitless (my opinion) attempt to recreate its iPod success.

Netflix's eventual device ubiquity is going to open up vast opportunities for the company. As I've said in prior posts, in combination with its affordable subscription model and well-respected brand name, Netflix could well become the prime potential "over-the-top" competitor to incumbent video service providers (cable/satellite/telco).

The fly in the ointment remains Watch Instantly's content selection, which is still a shadow of the DVD-by-mail catalog. VideoNuze readers know that I've been a forceful proponent of Netflix bolstering the number of broadcast network programs in its streaming catalog. Yet I think it's clear from Netflix CFO Barry McCarthy's comments on the call that Netflix isn't planning any home run initiatives when it comes to building the streaming catalog. He notes that the level of online content spending "will be paced by our success with streaming and our determination to continue to deliver strong earnings growth."

I generally favor that kind of steady-Eddie approach. But in this case I'd hate to see Netflix give too much weight to smoothly-growing earnings (which of course act to defend its stock price) at the expense of missing out on the big first-mover advantages it is sitting on. In fact, a key part of my prediction that Netflix could well be acquired this year (in my opinion by Microsoft, but who knows...) is that a deep-pocketed acquirer who can insulate Netflix from Wall Street's earnings expectations would be able to build Watch Instantly's library with far more vigor and hence make Netflix an even more formidable competitor.

Only time will tell on that front. Meanwhile Netflix's outstanding Q4 - in the face of a titanic economic slowdown - is tangible evidence that the company is on a path to play a far larger role in entertainment distribution in the broadband era.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

CES '09 is now behind us. As has become typical, this year's show saw numerous broadband video product and technology announcements. As I wrote often last week, the key theme was broadband-enabled TVs. Assuming TV manufacturers deliver on their promises, Christmas '09 should mark the start of real growth in the installed base of connected TVs.

Here are the noteworthy announcements that I caught, in no particular order (I'm sure I've missed some; if so please add a comment and include the appropriate link):

Intel and Adobe to Extend Flash Platform to TVs

Adobe and Broadcom Bring the Adobe Flash Platform to TVs

Samsung and Yahoo Bring the Best of the Web to Television

Yahoo Brings the Cinematic Internet to Life and Revolutionizes Internet-Connected Television

LG Electronics First to Unveil "Broadband HDTVs" That Instantly Stream Movies From Netflix

LG Electronics Launches Broadband HDTVs with "Netcast Entertainment Access"

Sony Debuts Integrated Networked Televisions

Vizio Announces New and Exciting "Connected HDTV" Platform with Wireless Connectivity

Netflix Announces Partnership with Vizio to Instantly Stream Movies to New High Definition TVs

MySpace Partnerships Bring Web Site to TV Set

Macrovision to Bring Instant Access to Digital Content Directly to Internet-Connected Televisions

Move Networks Improves Delivery of High Definition Internet Television to Intel-based Mobile Internet Devices and Netbooks

NETGEAR Unveils Two New Internet-Connected Set-Top Products to Enrich TV Entertainment for Internet Families and Serious Media Enthusiasts

Amazon Video on Demand Brings Customers New-Release Movies and TV Shows to the Roku Digital Video Player

Cisco Brings Manufacturers Together to Make Connected Home Products Simple to Set-up and Easy to Use

Sling Media Introduces SlingGuide: Redefining Search and Discovery for Satellite, Cable and Terrestrial Broadcast Programming

Amazon and Roku announced yesterday that Amazon's VOD service will soon be available on Roku's $99 Digital Video Player. The deal starts to make good on Roku CEO Anthony Woods's intentions about "opening up the platform to anyone who wants to put their video service on this box."

With Amazon VOD's 40,000+ TV programs and movies added to the 12,000 titles already available to Netflix subscribers via its Watch Instantly service (plus more content deals yet to come), little Roku is starting to look like a potentially important link in the evolving "over-the-top" video distribution value chain.

More interesting though, is that I think we're starting to see the battle lines drawn for supremacy in the download-to-own/download-to-rent premium video category between Amazon on one side and Apple on the other. Though Apple dominates this market today, having sold 200 million TV programs alone, there are ample reasons to believe competition is going to stiffen.

Apple is of course in the video download business for the same reasons it was in the music download business: to drive sales of the iPod and more recently - and to a lesser extent - the iPhone. According to the latest info I could find, iTunes now has 32,000+ TV programs and movies, including a growing number in HD. For now that's slightly less than Amazon VOD, but my guess is that over time the two libraries will be virtually identical.

While Apple has a near monopoly on portable viewing via the iPod and iPhone, it is a laggard in bridging broadband-to-the-TV. Its Apple TV device, introduced in January, 2007, and meant to give iTunes access on the TV, has been an underperformer. Certainly a detractor has been price, with the 40GB lower-end model still running $229. But more importantly, as an iTunes-only box, Apple TV perpetuates a closed, "walled-garden" paradigm that consumers are increasingly rejecting (as companies like Roku astutely understand).

For Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, video downloads are a rich growth market. The company brings significant advantages to the table, starting with tens of millions of existing customer relationships with credit cards or other payment options just waiting to be charged for video downloads. Amazon has strong brand name recognition and trust. And of course, it has a near-limitless ability to cross-promote downloads with DVDs and other products.

Determined not to be left behind in the great race to get broadband delivered video all the way to the TV, it has been integrating its VOD service with 3rd party devices like TiVo, Sony's Bravia Internet Video Link, Xbox 360 and Windows Media Center PCs. Its latest deal with Roku is far from its last.

Amazon VOD's adoption will benefit from the fact that there are many non-Amazon reasons that people will be buying these devices. For example, consider Roku, TiVo and Xbox 360. With Roku, Netflix is fueling sales. As Netflix subscribers realize that new releases are generally not available in Watch Instantly, but are through Amazon VOD on Roku, they'll be prone to give Amazon VOD a try (the Netflix limitation is course due to Hollywood's windowing, and another reason why I believe it's crucial for Netflix to make deals with broadcast networks for online distribution of their hit programs). For TiVo and Xbox 360, each has a well-defined value proposition for consumers to purchase. Amazon VOD's availability is a pure bonus for buyers.

Apple and Amazon hardly have the market to themselves though. Others like Microsoft Xbox LIVE, Vudu and Sezmi are vying for a place in the market. And then of course there are the VOD offerings from the cable/satellite/telco video service providers, who have big-time incumbency advantages. Not to be forgotten in all of this is consumer inertia around the robust DVD market, which to a large extent all of these video download options seek to supplant.

In the middle of all this are Joe and Jane Consumer - soon to be overwhelmed by a barrage of competing and confusing offers for how to get on-demand TV program and movie downloads in better, faster and cheaper ways. In this market, I believe simplicity, content choices, brand and especially price will determine the eventual winners and losers. These are front and center considerations for Amazon, Apple and all the others going forward.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Happy New Year and welcome to 2009.

The new year is picking up right where the old year left off - with Netflix adding yet another way for its subscribers to use its Watch Instantly streaming service on their TVs. Today's announcement that its WI software will be embedded in a select number of new LG "Broadband HDTVs" is more evidence of how content providers and consumer electronics companies are aiming to go "over the top" of cable/satellite/telco, driving high quality broadband video all the way to the TV.

The new LG Broadband HDTVs joins XBox 360, TiVo, Samsung and LG Blu-ray players and Roku as options for Netflix subscribers looking to watch WI on their TVs. The differentiator here is that this is the first "boxless" approach, so it offers a potentially simpler (though not less expensive) solution for consumers. No doubt it is the first of many deals Netflix will announce with TV manufacturers in '09.

Still, my bet is that the group of box-based solutions will matter more to WI usage for a long time to come. That's because, even though LG is the #3 HDTV manufacturer, TV set replacement cycles are getting longer with the down economy, the new Broadband HDTVs will likely have a several hundred dollar price premium, and importantly, a solid portion of the existing Netflix subscriber target audience for these broadband sets may have long since been using one of the box-based alternatives and not see a lot of incremental benefit in buying one of the LG Broadband HDTVs.

Nevertheless, I think an interesting target market for these sets are non-Netflix subscribers, who are open to a "cord-cutting" proposition. Netflix is laying the groundwork for becoming a genuine alternative to today's multichannel subscription video services. As I've said before, to make itself more viable as an alternative, the most important thing Netflix can do is beef-up WI's broadcast network programming library.

When top-tier broadcast network programming is combined with its movie catalog, Netflix could become very appealing for consumers who don't care much about cable network programs or sports. For $17/month for Netflix vs. $60/month or more for a typical digital TV package from cable/satellite/telco, the math on paying the premium for the Netflix-enabled LG TV becomes much more interesting. Importantly, the retailer has a much stronger hook to sell the LG Broadband HDTVs, especially if, as an added incentive, Netflix perhaps threw in a 3-4 month trial subscription.

The bottom line here is that Netflix continues to do the right thing by building out the portfolio of devices that play its WI streaming programming. The bigger the addressable audience is, the more that content providers of all stripes will take notice and want to do deals (Netflix's expansion of its promotional deal with Showtime is a useful data point on this subject). No other non-cable/satellite/telco subscription video service is close to Netflix in terms of number of subscribers, compatible streaming devices, library or brand name. In '09, Netflix is poised to build on these advantages as it morphs itself into an over-the-top broadband powerhouse.

What do you think? Post a comment now.