Posts for 'ESPN'

Two questions I like to ask when I speak to industry groups are, "Raise your hand if you'd be interested in 'cutting the cord' on your cable TV/satellite/telco video service and instead get your TV via broadband only?" and then, "Do you intend to actually cut your cord any time soon?" Invariably, lots of hands go up to the first question and virtually none to the second. (As an experiment, ask yourself these two questions.)

I thought of these questions over the weekend when I was catching up on some news items recently posted to VideoNuze. One, from the WSJ, "Turn On, Tune Out, Click Here" from Oct 3rd, offered a couple examples of individuals who have indeed cut the cord on cable and how their TV viewing has changed. My guess is that it wasn't easy to find actual cord-cutters to be profiled.

There are 2 key reasons for this. First it's very difficult to watch broadband video on your TV. There are special purpose boxes (e.g. AppleTV, Vudu, Roku, etc.), but these mainly give access to walled gardens of pre-selected content, that is always for pay. Other devices like Internet-enabled TVs, Xbox 360s and others offer more selection, but are not really mass adoption solutions. Some day most of us will have broadband to the TV; there are just too many companies, with far too much incentive, working on this. But in the short term, this number will remain small.

The second reason is programming availability. Potential cord-cutters must explicitly know that if they cut their cord they'll still be able to easily access their favorite programs. Broadcasters have wholeheartedly embraced online distribution, giving online access to nearly all their prime-time programs. While that's a positive step, the real issue is that cord-cutters would get only a smattering of their favorite cable programs. Since cable viewing is now at least 50% of all TV viewing (and becoming higher quality all the time, as evidenced by cable's recent Emmy success), this is a real problem.

To be sure, many of the biggest ad-supported cable networks (MTV, USA, Lifetime, Discovery) are now making full episodes of some of their programs available on their own web sites. But these sites are often a hodgepodge of programming, and there's no explanation offered for why some programs are available while others are not. For example, if you cut the cord and could no longer get Discovery Channel via cable/satellite/telco, you'd only find one program, "Smash Lab" available at Discovery.com. Not an appealing prospect for Discovery fans.

Then there's the problem of navigation and ease of access. Cutting the cord doesn't mean viewers don't want some type of aggregator to bring their favorite programming together in an easy-to-use experience. Yet full streaming episodes are almost never licensed to today's broadband aggregators. Cable networks are rightfully being cautious about offering full episodes online to aggregators not willing to pay standard carriage fees.

For example, even at Hulu, arguably the best aggregator of premium programming around, you can find Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report." But aside from a few current episodes from FX, SciFi and Fuel plus a couple delayed episodes from USA like "Monk" and "Psych," there's no top cable programming to be found.

As another data point, I checked the last few weeks of Nielsen's 20 top-rated cable programs and little of this programming is available online either. A key gap for cord-cutters would be sports. At a minimum, they'd be saying goodbye to the baseball playoffs (on TBS) and Monday Night football (on ESPN). In reality, sports is the strongest long-term firewall against broadband-only viewing as the economics of big league coverage all but mandate carriage fees from today's distributors to make sense.

Add it all up and while many may think it's attractive to go broadband only, I see this as a viable option for only a small percentage of mainstream viewers. Only when open broadband to the TV happens big time and if/when cable networks offer more selection will this change.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

More evidence this morning of the Syndicated Video Economy playing out, as Disney is announcing it will distribute both ABC and ESPN programming to Veoh, the broadband video aggregator. This follows ESPN's first and recent syndication deal with AOL.

Last week in "Disney/ABC's Cheng is Confident About Broadband Video Advertising," I explained how Disney places a huge emphasis on its video player, so that it can present a consistent user experience and also control advertising. The Veoh deal is aligned with that thinking. Veoh users are exposed to Disney programming, but once they want to view, the Disney video player launches.

In fact it's interesting, if you compare what's been implemented so far at Veoh vs. how ABC shows come up at Hulu (an aggregator that Disney does not have a deal with), there's not that much difference. Recall that Hulu is just taking a feed of Disney's program-related metadata, but again, if you actually want to view, you'll launch the Disney video player.

I'm guessing the major difference here, and why some money changes hands with Veoh, but not Hulu, is that Veoh must be making some kind of commitment to promote Disney programs. Though you never want to judge a deal by how it's implemented on day 1, for now Disney doesn't seem to getting much visibility. I noticed a Jimmy Kimmel thumbnail rotate through the Veoh home page, but when I drilled down through the "TV Shows" and "Channel" tabs, I didn't see any extra promotion of ABC programs. In fact the only ABC program even listed in Veoh's generic alphabetized directory was "Ugly Betty." I found a few full-length episodes when I drilled down through an "ABC" link I found with the Kimmel video, but couldn't find that link anywhere else.

All of this is a reminder that there's a very interesting minuet going on between established networks looking to broaden their online reach and the big video aggregators that have grown dramatically and raised lots of money, but are still unprofitable. The Disney-Veoh deal shows that aggregators may be willing to agree to networks' desires for online control in exchange for the potential to generate high-margin promotion-based revenue (remember they're not hosting or delivering the Disney video, so for Veoh in this case there's very little expense involved) and incremental on-page ad revenue. Of course too many of these kinds of implementations and the aggregator's user experience will look quite inconsistent.

No doubt there will be many more network-aggregator deals yet to be done, demonstrating how this market will eventually shape up.

In my recent post "Revisiting the Long Tail and Broadband" I explained how broadband is the next step in an evolution of video distribution systems and that now, after many years of growth, cable networks' niche, but collective audiences are exceeding those of the broadcasters.

Several readers emailed suggesting I append an important footnote to this analysis: there is a key business model difference between today's fledgling broadband video providers and cable networks. That difference is that cable networks benefit from monthly "sub fees" or "affiliate fees" that all distributors (cable TV and satellite operators, telcos, etc.) must pay to carry cable's programming. These fees are collected in addition to the advertising these networks sell. No such sub fees are available to broadband video providers (or broadcasters for that matter), at least not yet.

Having been in and around the cable industry for 20 years, I fully appreciate that sub fees matter a lot to cable networks. Since the beginning of the cable industry, they have served as a financial firewall for networks. Sub fees now range from pennies per month to over $3 for ESPN. Even on the low-end a "fully distributed" cable network (reaching approximately 80 million+ U.S. homes) reaps millions of sub fee dollars per month. And remember, that money comes in regardless of how well the network's ratings were that month. (btw, for an explanation of the genesis of sub fees, have a look at "Cable Cowboy," Mark Robichaux's biography of TCI's John Malone).

Cable networks' financial security continues to be translated into improved programming quality. Recently, in "Golden Age for TV? Yes, on Cable," the NY Times' David Carr lamented that broadcast TV seems to be on a degenerative slide to offer "all manner of contests and challenges," yet noted that cable is ascendant with Emmy and Oscar-winning talent dotting its innovative new dramas. No surprise to anyone, financial muscle translates into programming quality.

All this helps to explain why, whenever I moderate a panel including cable network executives, they fall all over themselves to declare their allegiance to their current, paying distributors. Cable networks are stepping gingerly into the broadband era, careful not to upset their enviable business model.

Conversely, broadband upstarts have no incumbent customers to consider. While this frees them to strike creative and wide-ranging distribution deals, as best I can tell, they're going to be totally dependent on advertising for a long time to come. This is why I continue urging that broadband video advertising must mature further, and fast.

While broadband upstarts scramble and broadcasters struggle, cable networks will keep chugging along, nicely fueled by their consistent sub fees.

You'd have to have slept through yesterday to miss the big news that ESPN is now syndicating video clips from a cluster of its programs to AOL, its first-ever such deal. I interpret the deal as an extremely strong indicator that the "Syndicated Video Economy" (as I described this trend 3 weeks ago) is inexorable, even for the richest and most powerful video brands.