Posts for 'TV Everywhere'

  • VideoNuze Report Podcast #131 - Battle Lines Drawn Between Paid vs. Free Video Ecosystems

    I'm pleased to be joined once again by Colin Dixon, senior partner at The Diffusion Group, for the 131st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for May 4, 2012. This week Colin and I discuss how fundamental battle lines have been drawn between the traditional TV ecosystem vs. the numerous digital outlets that are launching online-only original programs. To be more specific, the former group seems intent on erecting ever-higher paywalls to access its programs, which is in turn opening up a gigantic opportunity for free, ad-supported programs to be provided by the latter group. How this battle unfolds will have far-reaching and profound implications for everyone involved.

    For the traditional TV ecosystem, there appear to be two core drivers at work; first, the desire by broadcast TV networks to morph themselves into cable TV networks, and second, the role that TV Everywhere is taking on as a foundation of paywall economics.

    Continue Reading

     
  • thePlatform's Marty Roberts on How Consumer Expectations are Driving Pay-TV Innovation [VIDEO]

    TV Everywhere is a major trend in the pay-TV industry these days and thePlatform, a large online video platform, has been in the middle of a lot of the activity.

    At the NABShow, Marty Roberts, thePlatform's SVP of Sales and Marketing stopped by the VideoNuze booth and explained how consumer expectations are helping drive pay-TV innovation with TV Everywhere, enabling anytime/anywhere/any device access. Marty also addresses other key trends he's seeing in the industry. See video below (6 minutes, 14 seconds).

    continue reading

     
  • UltraViolet and TV Everywhere: It's All About Devices and Access. But That's Not Enough.

    I'd wager the two most spoken words in the media and entertainment industries these days are "devices" and "access." Executives are gripped by the idea that consumers must have access to their content across a growing universe of video-enabled devices. In fact, the premise of the industry's two most strategic initiatives - UltraViolet and TV Everywhere - is that by enabling access to content on multiple devices, traditional business models will either be reinvigorated (in UV's case for DVD purchases) or buttressed against attack (in TVE's case for pay-TV's multichannel bundle).

    If only things were that straightforward. While it's undeniable that improved access on multiple devices is extremely valuable, especially for today's on-the-go viewer, the shortcoming of both UV and TVE is that neither addresses fundamental changes in consumer behaviors or preferences. Broader access is only half the battle here; the other half is devising the right business model that meets consumers' vastly changed expectations. Until this piece of the equation is solved, I doubt that either UV or TVE is going to have the industry's hoped-for impact.

    continue reading

     
  • thePlatform Envisions TV Everywhere With Customized Content Delivery

    TV Everywhere (TVE) should not be a way for pay-TV operators solely to deliver existing content to connected devices, but rather a whole new paradigm for offering subscribers targeted packages of custom content to drive new value and potentially incremental revenue. That's the message video management provider thePlatform is conveying this morning with updates to its mpx system. Though many operators are still early in their TVE rollouts, thePlatform is providing a tantalizing longer-term vision of how they can use TVE to greatly expand their video services in the broadband era, far beyond the traditional one-size-fits-all multichannel bundle.

    continue reading

     
  • mPortal Debuts Cloud-Based TV Everywhere Management Platform

    Not that long ago, when only authorized set-top boxes could receive video service, life was relatively simple for cable operators. But now, as cable operators and TV networks have begun deploying TV Everywhere, one of the key hurdles has become the time and expense involved with integrating and maintaining these services with the ever-expanding array of connected and mobile devices that consumers prefer. To address this pain point, mPortal, a provider of mobile service delivery solutions, is announcing this morning its SPRINGBOARD Media product, a cloud-based approach to help accelerate TV Everywhere rollouts.

    continue reading

     
  • VideoNuze Report Podcast #108 - TV Everywhere's 5 Challenges

    Following a short break, Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to be back to present the 108th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for Oct. 21, 2011.

    In this week's podcast, Daisy and I discuss TV Everywhere and the 5 key things that are holding back its rollout as I described earlier this week (where there are some great reader comments too). Since its introduction almost 3 years ago, TV Everywhere has been hailed as the pay-TV industry's most critical initiative to combat the rise of over-the-top competition. But while there have been a number of great TV Everywhere implementations, widespread deployment is delayed by a number of important challenges. Daisy and I delve deep into these and offer our predictions on TV Everywhere's future success. Listen in to learn more!

    Click here or below to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 17 seconds)



    Click here for previous podcasts

    The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!
     
  • 5 Things Holding Back TV Everywhere's Rollout

    It has been almost 3 years since the term "TV Everywhere" burst onto the scene as the pay-TV industry's response to threats from over-the-top competitors. Yet while TV Everywhere is as tantalizing as ever, it remains a vaguely defined concept and a mishmash of disparate efforts. On the positive side, efforts like HBO GO, WatchESPN, various Turner apps, Comcast's Xfinity TV app and others are already gaining traction and illustrating how valuable TV Everywhere services can be.

    However, there's still no consensus in the industry about what TV Everywhere really is meant to be - a new way of viewing programming in-home or out-of-home or both? A new delivery mechanism for live/linear channels or for on-demand archives only or for both? A value-added opportunity to retain subscribers or a new way to generate incremental revenue with additional fees and/or with conventional TV-style ad loads? And so on. Talking to executives throughout the industry and following all of the media coverage I'd suggest there are at least 5 things that are currently holding back TV Everywhere from achieving its full potential:

    continue reading

     
  • Music Choice Raises the Bar on TV Everywhere Distribution

    Music Choice, which delivers dozens of channels of streaming music  to over 50 million homes in the U.S. via digital set-top boxes, is raising the bar on TV Everywhere by offering its whole array of services via the cloud to connected and mobile devices. In an initiative  announced last week, Music Choice is partnering with content management provider Sitecore, digital media platform Unicorn Media and Microsoft's Windows Azure cloud service.

    continue reading

     
  • Here's A Great Example of Why TV Everywhere Matters So Much To the Pay-TV Industry

    Want a really tangible example of why TV Everywhere is so critical to the pay-TV industry? Then have a look at this post from industry banker Ken Sonenclar, who recounts his personal experience of trying to find an online version of the season finale of Showtime's "Dexter" on an evening when bad weather knocked out his satellite dish. Frustrated that he couldn't find the episode available anywhere, he ultimately stumbled upon a pirate site and happily watched the episode, albeit at somewhat lower quality.

    Experiences like these no doubt play out daily as pay-TV subscribers seek convenient, on-demand access to their favorite programs. The TV Everywhere model works because it still requires a valid paid subscription, so the current monetization model is unharmed. But the incremental value to viewers is substantial. With services like Netflix and Hulu Plus increasingly available on every conceivable online and mobile device, consumers' expectations are being raised. If the pay-TV industry (both operators and networks) can't meet or exceed the experiences that a sub $10/mo service can deliver, then they shouldn't be surprised when subscribers begin dropping their expensive pay-TV services.
     
  • 6 Key 2011 Trends in Online and Mobile Video

    Yesterday Colin Dixon from The Diffusion Group and I presented a webinar describing our 6 key trends for 2011 in online and mobile video. Colin is one of the sharpest analysts of the pay-TV and online/mobile video industries and we had no shortage of ideas to sort through. Our list is a joint effort, and during the webinar we each presented the 3 trends we felt the strongest about. In today's post I share and explain each one. At the end of the webinar we conducted a poll asking attendees whether they agreed or disagreed with our predictions. I've noted those results in bold font. If you want to download the slides and/or hear more of our detailed discussion, just register for the on-demand version of the webinar and you'll be emailed a link.

    continue reading

     
  • 5 Items of Interest for the Week of Dec. 5th

    Once again I'm pleased to offer VideoNuze's end-of-week feature highlighting and discussing 5-6 interesting online/mobile video industry news items that we weren't able to cover this week. Read them now or take them with you this weekend!

    continue reading

     
  • 6 Items of Interest for the Week of Oct. 18th

    It was another busy week for online/mobile video, and so VideoNuze is continuing its Friday practice of curating 5-6 interesting industry news items that we weren't able to cover this week. Read them now or take them with you this weekend!

    Networks block Google TV to protect themselves
    Yesterday news started breaking that ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking access by Google TV. There are numerous concerns being cited - potential disruption of advertising, encouraging cord-cutting, incenting piracy, diminished branding, unsatisfactory ad splits with Google, and general worry about Google invading the living room. Each item on its own is probably not enough to motivate the blocking action, but taken together they are. Still, doesn't it feel a little foolish that broadcasters would differentiate between a computer screen and a TV screen like this? For Google, it's more evidence that nothing comes easy when trying to work with Hollywood. I'm trying to find out more about what's happening behind the scenes.

    TWC Lines Up For ESPN Online Kick
    An important milestone for TV Everywhere may come as early as next Monday, as #2 cable operator Time Warner is planning to make ESPN viewing available online to paying subscribers. Remote access is part of the recent and larger retransmission consent deal between Disney and TWC. TV Everywhere initiatives have been slow to roll out, amid cable programmers' reluctance.  Further proving that remote authenticated access works and that it's attractive with a big name like ESPN would increase TV Everywhere's momentum.

    Hulu Plus, Take Two: How's $4.95 a Month?
    Rumors are swirling that Hulu may cut the price of its nascent Hulu Plus subscription service in half, to $4.95/mo. That would be a tacit recognition of Hulu Plus's minimal value proposition, largely due to its skimpy content offering. As I initially reported in August, over 88% of Hulu Plus content is available for free on Hulu.com. More important, Netflix's streaming gains have really marginalized Hulu Plus. Netflix's far greater resources and subscriber base have enabled it to spend far bigger on content acquisition. Even at $4.95, I continue to see Hulu Plus as an underwhelming proposition in an increasingly noisy landscape.

    Viacom Hires Superstar Lawyer to Handle YouTube Appeal
    Viacom is showing no signs of giving up on its years-long copyright infringement litigation against Google and YouTube. This week the company retained Theodore Olson, a high-profile appellate and Supreme Court specialist to handle its appeal. While most of the world has moved on and is trying to figure out how to benefit from YouTube's massive scale, Viacom charges on in court.

    Verizon to sell Galaxy Tab starting November 11th for $599.99
    Verizon is determined to play its part in the tablet computer craze, this week announcing with Samsung that it will sell the latter's new "Tab" tablet for $600 beginning on November 11th. The move follows last week's announcement by Verizon that it will begin selling the iPad on Oct. 28th, which was widely interpreted as the first step toward Verizon offering the iPhone early next year. Apple currently owns the tablet market, and it remains to be seen whether newcomers like the Tab can break through. For his part, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said on Apple's earnings call this week that all other tablets are "dead on arrival." Note, if you want to see the "Tab" and learn more about how connected and mobile devices are transforming the video landscape, come to the VideoSchmooze breakfast at the Samsung Experience on Wed., Dec. 1st.

    One-Third of US Adults Skip Live TV: Report
    A fascinating new study from Say Media (the entity formed from the recent merger of VideoEgg and Six Apart), suggesting that 56 million, or one-third of adult Internet users, have reduced their live TV viewership. The research identified 2 categories: "Opt Outs" (22 million) who don't own a TV or haven't watched TV in the last week and stream more than 4 hours/week, and "On Demanders" (34 million) who also stream more than 4 hours/week and report watching less live TV than they did a year ago. Not surprisingly, relative to Internet users as a whole, both Opt Outs and On Demanders skew younger and higher educated, though only the latter had higher income than the average Internet user. This type of research is important because the size of both the ad-supported and paid markets for live, first-run TV is far larger than catalog viewing. To the extent its appeal is diminishing as this study suggests poses big problems for everyone in the video ecosystem.


     
  • Rogers Pushes TV Everywhere; Where's Everyone Else?

    A piece in Light Reading this week noted that Rogers, the largest cable operator in Canada, now has approximately 100,000 of its subscribers registered for its TV Everywhere service, and is on track for getting a few hundred thousand out of its total 2.3 million subscribers using it by the end of the year.

    The success at Rogers raises the question of where things stand with TV Everywhere in the U.S. Recently Comcast's Amy Banse told me a million people are regularly accessing its Fancast Xfinity TV service, but she declined to provide any further details. I just read yesterday in B&C that Time Warner Cable has "a small number of subscribers" in a trial in New York.

    I've been bullish on TV Everywhere from the start, but have noted repeatedly that execution is key. The world is moving fast toward convergence, and incumbent video service providers need to prove that they can innovate and roll out these new services. Whether it's Netflix, Google TV or others, there are plenty of people outside the ecosystem that want a piece of the action.

    What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).
     
  • Comcast's Amy Banse Provides an Update on TV Everywhere Rollout

    While at the Cable Show early this week, I had a chance to sit down with Amy Banse, President of Comcast Interactive Media, which is driving the rollout of Fancast Xfinity TV - what Comcast calls its TV Everywhere service. After a lot of PR build-up last fall, Comcast officially launched FXTV (my shorthand) last December. As a Comcast triple-play customer myself, I was able to give it a try, and I thought the initial effort was respectable, even though the content selection was limited.

    Flash forward 5 months and curiously, Comcast hasn't said a peep about how things are going with the FXTV rollout. Amy explained that with the NBCU deal's approval process underway, the company has chosen to maintain a relatively low profile on FXTV, something she hopes will change in early fall. Amy said about 1 million people are accessing FXTV regularly, with engagement time a lot higher than with the open Fancast portal. Subscribers to premium channels like HBO are the heaviest users and like FXTV the most. Primarily people use FXTV to catch up on missed episodes and past seasons.

    Still, Amy noted that the authentication process needs to be improved substantially, reducing the number of steps from its current 8-10 (though I have to say, I just authenticated on my new Mac and it really wasn't that painful). Amy's eager to introduce a universal ID approach, so users don't need to scramble to remember their Comcast login information. And the company is working on getting more content; the key issues to doing so are proving in authentication, building trust with content partners and enabling measurement.

    I was an early fan of the TV Everywhere approach and believe it is key to blunting cord-cutting's appeal. I recognize that nothing ever happens as fast as you'd like it to, but Comcast - and other operators - need to hustle more on rolling out TV Everywhere initiatives. As I noted recently, Netflix is banging it out of the park, gaining more mind-share and disruptive potential. They're just one of many new competitors the industry needs to worry about.

    What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

     
  • Is Comcast Inching Toward Its Own Over-the-Top Play?

    Question: How much difference is there between Comcast offering its TV Everywhere service to its own multichannel video subscribers in its geographical footprint, who have chosen to get their broadband Internet service from another company (e.g. Verizon, AT&T, etc) vs. Comcast offering TV Everywhere services to consumers who similarly get their broadband Internet service from one of these companies (or another cable operator), but happen to also get their multichannel video service from another company (e.g. another cable operator operating in a non-Comcast geographical area)?

    If you answered "not that much," then you'll likely have the same reaction that I did upon reading last week's Light Reading article, "Comcast to Expand 'Xfinity' to DSL Subs," which describes Comcast's plan to offer its Fancast Xfinity TV (which I call FXTV) TV Everywhere service to those of its video subscribers who use DSL or some other method to connect to the Internet instead of Comcast's own broadband service by the second or third quarter of 2010.

    (As quick background, in December, Comcast launched the beta of its FXTV service, but it's only been available to homes that subscribe to both broadband and video, which is about 14 million out of the 24 million who subscribe to Comcast's video service. Of that 10 million difference, using the 70% national broadband penetration rate, I'd estimate there are about 3 million of Comcast's multichannel video subscribers who use Verizon, AT&T or someone else for their broadband access.)

    When I read the article, my reaction was: if Comcast is going to target this group of users, wouldn't the next logical step in FXTV's rollout be to offer it to non-Comcast video subscribers? This is the concept I suggested back in September in, "How TV Everywhere Could Turn Cable Operators and Telcos Into Over-the-Top's Biggest Players." In that post I argued that with sizable revenue per subscriber gains largely behind it, Comcast' big growth opportunity is to expand into other cable operators' territories, by offering FXTV as a TV Everywhere 2.0 over-the-top service in those areas.

    To be sure, I noted that this type of move would be a serious breach of protocol in the insular cable industry, and with today's incomplete FXTV offering it wouldn't be viable competitively just yet anyway. But given nationally-oriented competitors like DirecTV, DISH Network and newer OTT alternatives like Netflix mobilizing, it seems logical that somewhere down the road, Comcast, whose geographical reach today only encompasses about 25% of American homes, will have to go national to stay even.

    When Comcast's executives have been asked about the possibility of FXTV as an OTT service they have denied any intentions. With their hands full making sure FXTV is working properly for its current subscribers, that's probably the case, at least for now. Plus, with the NBCU deal facing regulatory scrutiny and the net neutrality debate heating up again, Comcast certainly isn't going to hint at anything that would further expand its dominance. But still, given competitive issues, will limiting FXTV access to its own multichannel video subscribers remain the case? It will be interesting to see if and when this changes.

    What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

     
  • 4 Items Worth Noting for the Jan 4th Week (Netflix-WB Continued, comScore Nov. '09 stats, TV Everywhere, 3D at CES)

    Following are 4 items worth noting for the Jan 4th week:

    1. TechCrunch disagrees with my Netflix-Warner Bros. deal analysis - In "Netflix Stabs Us In The Heart So Hollywood Can Drink Our Blood," (great title btw) MG Siegler at the influential blog TechCrunch excerpts part of my post from yesterday, and takes the consumer's point of view, decrying the new 28 day "DVD window" that Netflix has agreed to in its Warner Bros deal. Siegler's main objection is that "Hollywood thinks that with this new 28-day DVD window deal, the masses are going to rush out and buy DVDs in droves again." Instead, Siegler believes the deal hurts consumers and is going to touch off new, widespread piracy.

    I think Siegler is wrong on both counts, and many of TechCrunch's readers commenting on the post do as well. First, nobody in Hollywood believes DVD sales are going to spike because of deals like this. However, they do believe that any little bit that can be done to preserve the appeal of DVD's initial sale window can only help DVD sales which are critical to Hollywood's economics. Everyone knows DVD is a dying business; the new window is intended to help it die more gracefully. And because new releases are not that critical to many Netflix users anyway, Netflix has in reality given up little, but presumably gotten a lot, with improved access for streaming and lower DVD purchase prices.

    The argument about new, widespread piracy by Netflix users is specious. With or without the 28 day window, there will always be some people who don't respect copyright and think stealing is acceptable. But Netflix isn't running its business with pirates as their top priority. With 11 million subscribers and growing, Netflix is a mainstream-oriented business, and the vast majority of its users are not going to pirate movies - both because they don't know how to (and don't want to learn) and because they think it's wrong. Netflix knows this and is making a calculated long-term bet (correctly in my opinion) that enhancing its streaming catalog is priority #1.

    2. comScore's November numbers show continued video growth - Not to be overlooked in all the CES-related news this week was comScore's report of November '09 online video usage, which set new records. Key highlights: total video viewed were almost 31 billion (double Jan '09's total of 14.8 billion), number of videos viewed/average viewer was 182 (up 80% from Jan '09's 101) and minutes watched/mo were approximately 740 (more than double Jan '09's total of 356).

    Notably, with 12.2 billion views, YouTube's Nov '09 market share of 39.4% grew vs. its October share of 37.7%. As I've previously pointed out, YouTube has demonstrated amazingly consistent market dominance, with its share hovering around 40% since March '08. Hulu also notched another record month, with 924 million streams, putting it in 2nd place (albeit distantly) to YouTube. Still, Hulu had a blowout year, nearly quadrupling its viewership (up from Jan '09's 250 million views). But with 44 million visitors, Hulu's traffic was pretty close to March '09's 41.6 million. In '10 I'm looking to see what Hulu's going to do to break out of the 40-45 million users/mo band it was in for much of '09.

    3. Consumer groups protest TV Everywhere, but their arguments ring hollow - I was intrigued by a joint letter that 4 consumer advocacy groups sent to the Justice Department on Monday, urging it to investigate "potentially unlawful conduct by MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors) offering TV Everywhere services." The letter asserts that MVPDs may have colluded in violation of antitrust laws.

    I'm not a lawyer and so I'm in no position to judge whether any actions alleged to have taken place by MVPDs violated any antitrust laws. Regardless though, the letter from these groups demonstrates that they are missing a fundamental benefit of TV Everywhere - to provide online access to cable TV programming that has not been available to date because there hasn't been an economical model for doing so. In the eyes of people who think that making money is evil, the TV Everywhere model of requiring consumers to first subscribe to a multichannel video service seems anti-consumer and anti-competitive. But to people trying to make a living creating quality TV programming, the preservation of a highly functional business model is essential.

    These advocacy groups need to remember that consumers have a choice; if they don't value cable's programming enough to pay for it, then they can instead just watch free broadcast programs.

    4. 3D is the rage at CES - I'll be doing a CES recap on Monday, but one of the key themes of the show has been 3D. There were two big announcements of new 3D channels, from ESPN and Discovery/Sony/IMAX. LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony announced new 3D TVs. And DirecTV announced that it would launch 3 new 3D channels by June 2010, with Panasonic as the presenting sponsor. 3D sets will be an expensive proposition for consumers for some time, but prices will of course come down over time.

    Something that I wonder about is what impact will 3D have on online and mobile video? Will this spur innovation in computer monitors so that the 3D experience can be experienced online as well? And how about mobile - will we soon be slipping on 3D glasses while looking at our iPhones and Android phones? It may seem like a ridiculous idea, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

    Enjoy your weekend!

     
  • Seeking Cable's Formula for Success in Broadband Video

    Yesterday VideoNuze hosted a breakfast at the annual CTAM Summit where I moderated a discussion titled, "How Cable Succeeds in the Broadband Video Era." Panelists included Ian Blaine, CEO, thePlatform, Rebecca Glashow, SVP, Digital Media Distribution, Discovery Communications, Bruce Leichtman, President & Principal Analyst, Leichtman Research Group and Chuck Seiber, VP, Marketing, Roku. Following are some of my observations from the discussion.

    Against a backdrop of rapidly rising broadband video consumption, cable operators and networks are trying to strike a balance between preserving their traditional, and highly profitable business model, while still keeping pace with consumers' desire for more flexible and on-demand viewing options. A nagging question is whether full-length cable programs should be made available online for free, solely supported by advertising (the Hulu model), or if the cable industry's dual subscription/advertising model should be extended online (the TV Everywhere concept).

    On the panel, Rebecca likely reflected many cable networks' current thoughts, saying, "We are in an ecosystem with our distribution partners that works....It (the free model) is going to kill all of our business; it's certainly going to kill our ability to produce high quality programming." These sentiments echo concerns I've raised about the viability of ad-supported long-form video. Even as Rebecca was critical of the free model, she noted that Discovery is taking a measured approach to TV Everywhere.

    Chief among Rebecca's concerns regarding TV Everywhere is the need to accurately measure online viewership, crucial for ensuring that if viewership were to shift to online, that Discovery's ratings would not be hurt in the process. As Rebecca further pointed out, measurement issues have limited the appeal of cable operators' Video-on-Demand offerings.

    Bruce went a step further to suggest that cable operators should learn from VOD's shortcomings when crafting their TV Everywhere plans. Bruce said that VOD rollouts "were led by engineers on a node-by-node basis" when they should have been led by marketers, and that "some operators introduced VOD only with trepidation." He believes that the problems that VOD had in the early days, "are still impacting consumers' perception of the on-demand platform."

    Another VOD lesson I would add is that operators must also make TV Everywhere monetizable for their content partners. VOD has suffered significantly from operators not investing in dynamic ad-insertion capabilities, making VOD a marginal opportunity for ad-supported cable networks. A day earlier on another CTAM Summit panel, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO highlighted the fact that Comcast is now generating 300 million VOD sessions/month. But he also noted that Comcast has only just launched a dynamic ad-insertion capability, and in just one of its operations. It continues to bewilder me why Comcast wasn't investing in dynamic ad insertion when it was doing 10 million VOD sessions/month, years ago. How much further along might the VOD platform be, had robust advertising been possible?

    As a result, it's fair to wonder whether operators will invest in TV Everywhere sufficiently to make it attractive as a new distribution platform, or alternatively will leave critical components unresolved as they've done with VOD. The answer could well determine whether TV Everywhere is a killer app (as I believe it has the potential to be) or if just becomes a half-baked nice-to-have for consumers and content providers alike. For Comcast at least, thePlatform and other technologies are important building blocks to success. As Ian pointed out, the key is being able to "quickly ascertain" the networks and programs that subscribers should have access to, a challenge that gets more complicated as content available through TV Everywhere-type offerings grows over time.

    If cable doesn't get TV Everywhere quite right another implication is that certain gaps in consumers' experiences will persist - gaps that companies like Roku are seeking to fill with video they're bringing into the home solely over broadband connections. Today the $99 Roku device offers users the ability stream Netflix, Amazon and MLB video. It's tempting to see Roku as a potential cable competitor down the road, yet Chuck was quick to clarify that Roku sees itself as augmenting the cable experience, not supplanting it. In fact, he added that Roku is talking to cable operators about how it can partner with Roku to extend their viewer experiences.

    Coming away from the session I'm reminded that while broadband is causing significant shifts in consumer behavior and expectations, fully capitalizing on them will take time as business requirements and technologies evolve.

    What do you think? Post a comment now.

    (Note: Steve Donohue contributed to this post.)

     
  • VideoNuze Report Podcast #37 - October 23, 2009

    Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 37th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for October 23rd, 2009.

    This week Daisy and I discuss my post from yesterday, "In the Digital Era, Disney is Walking to the Beat of its Own Drummer," which picks up on a WSJ article from Wednesday about the company's new DRM initiative dubbed "Keychest." Disney appears to be taking a lone-wolf approach since other Hollywood studios and technology companies have rallied around DECE, the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem. When combined with its ongoing resistance to TV Everywhere (while other cable networks jump on board), I argue in the post that Disney appears to be adopting a much more individualistic approach to how it envisions pricing and delivering its content in the digital era.

    On the TV Everywhere topic, Daisy shares observations from a recent Beet.tv executive roundtable she covered, in which participants debated the concept's benefits to consumers. Daisy cites how the NYTimes.com isn't currently offering embeddable video as an example of how rights remain a key challenge for online video distribution. Online rights will be one of the factors determining how much content is made available in TV Everywhere at launch.

    Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 59 seconds)

    Click here for previous podcasts

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

     
  • In the Digital Era, Disney is Walking to the Beat of its Own Drummer

    Yesterday's WSJ article about Disney's new DRM initiative, dubbed "Keychest" was another sign that in the digital era, Disney keeps walking to the beat of its own drummer. Combine Keychest with Disney CEO Bob Iger's repeated skepticism about TV Everywhere and the need for Disney to receive incremental payments for online distribution and it's not hard to conclude that Disney envisions retaining much more control over how its content is delivered and priced going forward. It's also not hard to conclude that Disney's largest individual shareholder Steve Jobs's influence is being felt in the company's decision-making.

    The Keychest DRM initiative in particular shows a real streak of separatism by Disney given the critical mass that DECE (the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem) has gained. DECE counts among its members multiple studios (Sony, Warner Bros., NBCU, Lionsgate, Fox), technology providers (Microsoft, Intel, Dolby, Philips, HP, Cisco, etc.) and delivery outlets (Comcast, Best Buy). Granted, DECE hasn't shown a whole lot of progress yet, but that's pretty much to be expected when you have this many big players at the table. Still, even getting all these companies to join forces is a hopeful sign of inter-industry collaboration.

    And as the WSJ article underscores, the need to introduce some form of standardized DRM for movies in particular is growing more urgent. DVD sales, the industry's cash cow for years, are off by 25% at certain studios, yet movie downloads don't yet come close to filling the gap. Downloading is not only still a new experience for many, but it introduces key limitations (lack of portability, non-ubiquitous playback and confusing usage rights) that are significant inhibitors for future growth. Let's face it, not a lot of people are going to invest in building downloaded movie libraries when it's difficult or impossible to do something basic like play a movie on 2 different TV sets in their home. Downloading's issues need to be solved quickly if it is going to take off.

    Meanwhile, Disney's posture on TV Everywhere has created real questions about what the company's goals are in online content distribution. VideoNuze readers know that I've been bullish on TV Everywhere because it's a win for the 3 main constituencies - incumbent video providers (cable operators and telcos), cable TV networks and consumers. By forcefully advocating a plan to offer TV Everywhere as a value-add to existing subscribers, with no incremental fees, video providers laid the logical foundation for cable networks not to expect incremental distribution fees ("We're not charging anything extra, so you shouldn't expect to either.").

    From my point of view, rationale cable network executives should be excited with the prospect of TV Everywhere, as it provides them an on-ramp to online distribution (which they've been shut out of to date, given the absence of a sound online business model and fearing a backlash from paying distributors if they offered their content for free streaming) while preserving their incumbent dual revenue-stream approach and expanding their advertising potential.

    Nonetheless, Disney seems unsatisfied. CEO Iger continues to float the idea of incremental payments for online access, even suggesting it will launch its own subscription services. That could mean consumers face the prospect of paying twice for the same content, which is unrealistic even for ESPN's vaunted sports coverage. Disney has seen success with ESPN 360, its premium online service, but it offers distinct content (supplementary pro-sports coverage and niche sports coverage) from its flagship channels. And it should be noted that broadband ISPs pay for 360, not consumers directly.

    I tend to believe we're seeing Steve Jobs's influence behind the scenes with both Keychest and Disney's posture on TV Everywhere. That's pure speculation on my part I'll admit. But "Think Different" is more than a slogan for Jobs and Apple. The company's ability to succeed by pursuing a non-conformist, innovative path (e.g. iPods, iTunes, iPhones, Macs, etc.) in the face of market norms is beyond dispute. Emboldened by Apple's success and understanding the strength of Disney's franchises as an insider suggests Jobs would encourage Disney not to be constrained by nascent industry-wide initiatives. At a minimum Apple provides Disney with a pretty compelling case study of how to succeed by zigging when others are zagging.

    No question, Disney has incredible brands, and is probably in the best position among major content providers to influence how things will unfold in the digital era. And its investment in Hulu shows it is willing (albeit belatedly), to align with joint industry initiatives. Still, its Keychest project and resistance to TV Everywhere raise the possibility that in pursuing its own path it could not only miss out on or delay benefiting from the efforts of others in the industry, but could also be over-reaching with the result being consumer confusion and discontent. Disney holds strong cards, but it needs to be careful how it plays them.

    What do you think? Post a comment now.

     
  • How TV Everywhere Could Turn Cable Operators and Telcos Into Over-the-Top's Biggest Players

    Though TV Everywhere ("TVE") is still in a nascent stage, with trials either underway or not even yet started, there has been no shortage of hype around it. I've been among those who have argued that if these trials work as intended and the rollouts ensue, TVE would be a big win for video service providers (cable, satellite, telco), content providers and consumers. But recently I've started to think there's another TVE angle that has not really been explored - the possibility that "TVE 2.0" could enable certain cable operators and telcos themselves to become the biggest players in "over-the-top" (OTT) video.

    (For those not familiar with the term OTT, it refers to the idea of video being delivered to homes over a broadband network that isn't owned by the video provider itself. So for example, when you watch Hulu in your home over a Comcast broadband connection, Hulu is going "over-the-top" of Comcast. Hulu doesn't own the underlying network, it just rides on top of the one that's there, in effect competing with Comcast's own video service.)

    To date TVE has been positioned by incumbent video service providers as an online adjunct solely available to their traditional, paying multichannel subscribers. While Comcast has been most emphatic on this point, no other operator that has announced TVE trials has deviated from this approach either.

    But what if, at some point down the road, TVE was "unbundled," meaning that you could subscribe just to TVE, and not the traditional video service? Cable operators and telcos have little incentive to do this within their current service or "franchise" areas, but the lure to offer TVE 2.0 to households outside their franchises could prove irresistible. If pursued, this could actually turn cable and telcos into the biggest over-the-top players themselves, potentially dwarfing those typically thought of as key OTT competitors (e.g. CE companies like Sony or computing companies like Apple, or aggregators like Netflix or Hulu). In a TVE 2.0 world, the hunted could become the hunters.

    The franchise concept is key to understanding how the cable and telco video distribution business work. In short, a cable or telco needs to win an agreement with the "franchising authority" - typically a municipal government - to offer video service in the municipality. Agreements are required because the video distributor needs legal access to rights-of-way to operate (to hang its wires on poles, dig up streets when necessary, etc.). Franchising may seem anachronistic in the digital age, but it remains the essential determinant of where cable companies or telcos operate (note that because satellite companies don't require rights-of-way, they operate nationally, outside the franchising domain).

    Now put yourselves in the shoes of Comcast, for example. You've worked hard to wring every possible dollar out of subscribers who live in your franchise areas, by successfully introducing triple-play video/voice/Internet bundles, digital tiers, sports tiers, movie channels, HD, additional outlets, DVRs, etc. With all of these services, the average revenue per home serviced today is a multiple of what it was just 15 or 20 years ago.

    But growth is slowing, and new competition from OTT providers looms. So where does the biggest new growth opportunity exist? Answer: outside traditional franchise areas. To get a sense of how big this opportunity is, even Comcast, the largest U.S. cable operator, serves only about 25% of the country, meaning almost three-quarters of American homes are currently out of its reach. To grow their addressable universes, Comcast and others traditionally bought other cable operators. In fact, fearful of the power any one cable company could gain, the FCC imposed a 30% ownership cap. Coincidentally that cap was just overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals a few weeks ago.

    In the traditional video distribution business, buying other operators was the only way to build an operator's footprint. But with TVE 2.0, a company like Comcast could use broadband so that, for the first time, it could operate everywhere. They key is being willing to unbundle TVE from core cable service so that a consumer can subscribe solely to TVE service.

    Doing so would in effect pit Comcast, for example, against other cable operators, a major breach of cultural etiquette in the clubby cable industry. But faced with the choice of acquiring other operators for around $5,000 per sub, or just introducing a capital-efficient and high-quality linear/on-demand OTT service over broadband, powered by Move Networks (as one option) it wouldn't even be a close call. In fact, Comcast could cherry pick the incumbent's video customers, in turn driving that company's valuation down and thus opening up the option for it to eventually swoop in and acquire the incumbent operator for far less. Or it could decide not acquire, and instead just focus on rolling up OTT subs.

    Will cable and telco go over the top? Who knows. They will surely have what it takes - TVE expertise, requisite technology, content relationships, private video delivery networks, customer care facilities and deep pockets. All that's really needed is the motivation to proceed. For now, operators are rightfully focused on getting TVE working right for their own subs. But I suspect the business cases for TVE 2.0 are already being run.

    (Note - we'll explore this subject and others at both VideoSchmooze in NYC on Oct. 13th and at VideoNuze's CTAM Summit breakfast on Oct. 26th.)

    What do you think? Post a comment now.