Posts for 'FOX'

Happy New Year. If you're just back from a holiday vacation and have been partially or totally off the grid for the last week or two, here are 7 video-oriented items you may have missed:

1. Time Warner Cable and News Corp fight over fees, then settle - Two behemoths of the cable and broadcast TV ecosystem spatted publicly during the holidays over the size of "retransmission consent" fees that News Corp (owner of the Fox Broadcast Network and cable channels like Fox News) wanted TWC (the 2nd largest U.S. cable operator) to pay to carry its 14 local stations. While a last minute deal averted the channels going dark, broadcasters' interest in dipping into cable's monthly subscription revenues will only intensify as audience fragmentation accelerates and ad revenues are pressured.

For my part I wish Fox and other broadcasters were as focused on building new and profitable digital delivery models for their programs as they were on trying to redistribute cable's revenues. Even as Rupert Murdoch continues advocating the paid content model, the freely-available Hulu is seeing its traffic skyrocket (see below). But if Hulu's viewership isn't incrementally profitable, then all that growth is pointless. Urgency is mounting too; in '10 convergence devices that bridge broadband to the TV are going to get a lot of attention. In the wake of their adoption, consumers are going to want Hulu on their TVs. If Hulu doesn't allow this it will be marginalized. But if it does without first solidifying its business model, it could hurt broadcasters further.

2. Hulu has a big traffic year, but no further information provided on its business model - Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar pulled back the curtain a bit on the company's strong progress in 2009, citing 95% growth in monthly users, to 43 million, 307% growth in monthly streams, to 924 million (both as measured by comScore) and a doubling of available content, to 14,000 hours. While noting that its advertisers increased from 166 to 408 during the year, with respect to performance, Jason only said that "we are extremely excited about atypically strong results we have been able to drive for our marketing partners."

Though Hulu is under no obligation to disclose details of its business model, I think it would dramatically increase the company's credibility if it shared some metrics about how its lighter ad load model is working (e.g. improved awareness, click throughs, leads, conversions, etc.). Per the 1st item above, as Hulu grows, a lot of people have a lot at stake in understanding what effect it may have on broadcast economics. In addition, as I pointed out recently, it is important to understand whether Hulu thinks it may have already saturated its U.S. audience. After a jump in Q1 '09 from 24.6 million to 41.6 million users, traffic actually dipped below 40 million until October. What does Hulu do from here to gain significantly more users?

3. Cable networks' primetime audience is nearly double broadcasters' - Punctuating the ascendancy of cable over broadcast, this Multichannel News article pointed out that in 2009, ad-supported cable networks as a group captured 60.7% of primetime audience vs. 32% for the 4 broadcast networks. That's a major change from 2000 when the broadcasters had a 46.8% share vs. cable's 41.2%. Cable increased its share every single year of the last decade, powered by its innovative original programming. NBCU's USA Network in particular has become the real standout performer, winning its second consecutive ratings crown, with 3.2 million average primetime viewers, up 14% vs. 2008.

The surging popularity of cable programming is a crucial barrier to consumers cutting the cord on cable. Since cable networks are highly invested in the monthly multichannel subscription model, they are unlikely to disrupt themselves by offering their best shows to others under substantially different terms than how they're offered today. So to the extent cable programs are either unavailable to over-the-top alternatives or offered less attractively (e.g. less choice, higher cost, delayed availability), little cord-cutting can be expected. And if TV Everywhere achieves its online access goals, the cable ecosystem will only be further strengthened.

4. YouTube is working to drive higher viewership - Amidst the turmoil in the traditional ecosystem and Hulu's growth, YouTube, the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world, is working hard to deepen the site's viewership. As this insightful NYTimes article explains, a team of YouTube developers is analyzing viewing patterns and tweaking its recommendation practices to encourage more usage. YouTube says time on the site has increased by 50% in the last year, and comScore reports that the average number of clips viewed per user per month jumped to 83 in October, up from 53 a year earlier. Still, as comScore also reports, duration of an average session has yet to crack 4 minutes, meaning video snacking on YouTube is still the norm. YouTube's moves must be watched closely in '10.

5. Showtime's "Weeds" available online before on DVD - This WSJ article (reg req'd) pointed out that Lionsgate, producer of Showtime's hit "Weeds" series is offering episodes online before they're available on DVD. By putting the digital "window" ahead of DVD's, Lionsgate is further pressuring DVD's appeal. We've seen periodic experimentation in this regard, and I anticipate more to come, especially as the universe of convergence devices expands and consumers can watch on their TVs instead of just their computers. Until a tipping point occurs though, "Weeds" like initiatives will be the exception, not the rule.

6. Netflix goes shopping in Hollywood - And speaking of reversing distribution windows, this Bloomberg Businessweek piece was the latest to highlight Netflix's efforts to woo studios into giving it more recent releases. Netflix has of course made huge progress with its Watch Instantly streaming feature, but its appeal to heaviest users will slow at some point unless it can dramatically expand its current slate of 17K titles available online. Hollywood is understandably wary of Netflix given all the variables in play and a desire to avoid Netflix becoming master of Hollywood's post-DVD, digital future. Whether Netflix will spend heavily to obtain better rights is a major question.

7. Get ready for Google's Nexus One and Apple's "iSlate" - Unless you've really been off the grid, you're probably aware by now that two very significant mobile product releases are coming this month. Tomorrow (likely) Google will unveil the Nexus One, its own smartphone, powered by its Android 2.1 operating system. The Nexus One will be "unlocked," meaning it can operate on multiple providers using GSM networks. The device will further fuel the mobile Internet, and mobile video consumption along with it. Separately, Apple is widely rumored to introduce its tablet computer later in the month, which many believe will be called the "iSlate." The tablet market is completely virgin territory, and while it's early to make predictions, I believe Apple could have most of the ingredients needed to make the product another big hit. The prospect of watching high-quality video on a thin, light, user-friendly device is extremely compelling.

Last Monday, in "Netflix's ABC Deal Shows Streaming Progress and Importance of Broadcast TV Networks," I tried making the case that from Netflix's perspective, in order for its Watch Instantly streaming service to succeed, it would most likely need to strike more deals with the broadcast TV networks (as it announced with ABC).

Now how about the flip side of the question: how can broadcast TV networks make online video payments a significant revenue stream?

There is certainly no lack of interest by broadcasters in getting paid for online access to their content. For example, CBS has joined Comcast's TV Everywhere trial, and its CEO Leslie Moonves has been outlining his arguments for why cable's authentication plans should generated new revenue for the network. News Corp head (and Fox owner) lately Rupert Murdoch hasn't been shy about his interest in charging for content, though his first focus appears to be on newspapers. And Disney CEO Bob Iger (and ABC owner), recently told the WSJ, "People are going to pay for content. We are not worried about that." Meanwhile NBC's Jeff Zucker is trying to reposition NBCU as a cable network company (i.e. one that sells ads AND gets paid for its programs).

As I think through how broadcasters can succeed with getting paid, I keep returning to 3 core beliefs: first, broadcasters' efforts should not be undertaken individually, but rather through its joint initiative Hulu, second, the model needs to be subscription-based, not per program-based and third, the subscription service should be made in partnership with incumbent video service providers (cable, satellite, Netflix, etc.) and convergence device makers (Roku, Xbox, etc.).

Hulu has established a strong online brand, built a large audience and demonstrated online savvy. I have the most confidence in Hulu to be able to identify the differentiators needed to drive new value vs. free, including things like more timely access to hit programs, deeper libraries, higher quality streaming, options for downloading and mobile, etc. And assuming the federal government didn't step in and cry "collusion!" Hulu would provide the greatest negotiating leverage.

The key challenge for Hulu would be gaining the rights from the networks, producers, talent and others to launch such a comprehensive service. These stakeholders would be understandably wary, not knowing exactly how to value what they'd be providing.

Several months ago, I suggested a Hulu subscription service was in the offing, but so far Hulu has stayed on message, only emphasizing its free, ad-supported model. I hope it and its parents recognize that time is of the essence. With each passing day, as more people use Hulu ever more intensively, their expectations for free are being set, thereby raising the bar on their eventual willingness to pay. I do believe broadcast networks have any opportunity to evolve their business model and charge, but they must not dither. The online medium is still immature enough that they can influence its rules by acting now.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Move Networks, the well-funded Internet television technology company which has been virtually silent for the last 60 days since acquiring Inuk Networks and bumping former CEO John Edwards to Executive Chairman, is pursuing a major repositioning. Earlier this week I met with Marcus Liassides, Inuk's former CEO and founder who joined Move's management team, who previewed the company's new strategy to be a wholesale provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks.

Broadband video industry participants know Move best for its proprietary adaptive bit rate (ABR) technology and player, which power super-high quality live and on-demand video streams for broadcasters like ABC and Fox. Move gained a lot of attention by raising over $67M, including a $46M Series C round in April '08 from blue chip investors.

Despite all this, Marcus explained that coming into 2009 Move had at least 3 significant problems, symbolic of how fluid the broadband video market remains.

First, its core business of charging content providers in the range of $.30/GB of video delivered was being pressured by the fact that advertising-only business models couldn't support this pricing. Content providers loved Move's quality; they just couldn't afford it, particularly given the alternative of plunging CDN delivery rates.

Second, Move's pricing and business model were being challenged by both Microsoft and Adobe entering the market with ABR streaming features of their own (I wrote about this here). But because both were enabled on the server side (IIS and FMS respectively), the cost of ABR moved from content providers to CDNs, who might or might not choose to charge extra for these features. Either way, Move's direct cost looked comparatively more expensive, especially as the recession pounded ad spending.

Last, but not least, Marcus explained that Move's product development approach was undisciplined, leading to resources being spread too thin in too many directions. That was reflected by the market's ongoing difficulty in categorizing which business Move was really in.

Meanwhile, U.K.-based Inuk, which had been on its own funding and product development roller-coaster, was delivering its Freewire IPTV service to about 200K university students in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Because Inuk needed to serve these students when they were off campus, it had developed a "virtual set-top box" application that duplicates on the PC the IPTV service that had traditionally been delivered via an expensive IPTV set-top box. Inuk was using Move's ABR technology to power video delivery to the PC. Recognizing potential synergies and trying to address its other issues, Move acquired Inuk in April.

Move's new positioning as a provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks essentially replicates what Inuk has been doing, except that going forward services will be offered wholesale, not retail like with Freewire. Move's strategy starts from the proposition that to get cable TV networks online requires that they be paid consistent with the norms, rather than expecting them to free and ad-supported only. It also anticipates that consumers demand not just VOD offerings, but a full linear lineup as well (as an aside, that aligns with Sezmi's thinking too). While Move will continue supporting existing customers like ABC and others, its new wholesale model is a major shift in that it uses the company's core technology to support packaged multichannel video services, instead of a la carte web-based video.

Marcus explained that Move is targeting 3 verticals: (1) telcos which haven't traditionally offered video services (or have through direct satellite partnerships), (2) broadband ISPs looking to get into the video business, and (3) existing video service providers looking for a lightweight capex approach for extending their service either for remote access (a la "TV Everywhere") or in other rooms in the house (a model which has traditionally required another set-top box and truck roll for installation).

Marcus demo'd the Freewire service to me using his PC and a large monitor, and it looks great. There's instant channel changing, HD (when available), a great looking guide and auto-DVR of every program, all in the cloud. Freewire also offers targeted advertising, and HTML-based apps like Twitter integration, etc. My caveat is that I have no idea how well the service would scale to millions of homes.

Move's new positioning puts it in the middle of tectonic video industry shifts. For example, what's the appetite of 3rd parties like telcos and ISPs for new video solutions? Will other, well-suited consumer brands like Google, Netflix, Yahoo enter the multichannel video business, and if so how? What approach will cable operators like Comcast use for emerging, "TV Everywhere" services that would benefit from Move's lightweight capex model (note Comcast said it was using Move in its 5,000 subscriber technical trial yesterday)? How will major cable TV networks expect to get compensated in the broadband era where individuals, not homes, are the new unit of measurement? How will local ISPs, over whose networks remotely-accessed video will run, expect to be compensated? It's way too early to know the answers, but if Move's technology works as intended, and its costs are reasonable, it will likely find itself in the middle of a lot of very strategic industry discussions.

Another big change is that Marcus said the company's messaging will be focused more around business cases and services than its specific technologies. That seems smart given giants like Microsoft and Adobe are closely circling these waters with lots of their own technology, which could easily swamp Move. If all this wasn't enough, Move is also in the midst of hiring a new CEO and implementing a new management team, all of which will be announced imminently. One thing Move isn't doing for now is raising additional capital, which Marcus said is not needed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Move Networks is a current sponsor of VideoNuze)

Below is the 18th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for May 29, 2009.

This week I review the Q1 '09 Nielsen A2/M2 Three Screen Report data recently released, comparing it to Q1 '08 data. My comments pick up on a post I wrote earlier this week, "Video Behavior Changes Suggest Evolution, Not Revolution For Now."

Don't get me wrong, video consumption on alternative platforms (i.e. broadband, mobile, DVR) is continuing to grow briskly. But the reality is that when you look at the numbers, they suggest steady rather than dramatic, overnight change is what's really happening in the market. This reality is sometimes missed in the ongoing hype.

Meanwhile Daisy adds more detail to a post she wrote, "Fox's Prison Break Finale Demonstrates the Power of Social Media," which describes how Fox cleverly used social media to promote a DVD with 2 additional episodes following the on-air finale. Fox used various social media sites to release a teaser picture from the new episodes and began promoting the DVD which will be available on July 21 on DVD and for purchase on iTunes. It's an intriguing way for the studio to migrate users beyond traditional TV consumption and generate additional revenue.

Click here to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 37 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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."

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)

"Look to your left, look to your right. One of you won't be here next year."

- Professor Charles Kingsfield, The Paper Chase

As I wrote last summer in "Video Aggregators Have Raised $366+ Million to Date," there has been a lot of enthusiasm around broadband-only aggregators, especially those that focus on premium-quality video. Part of the excitement is based on the idea that they could eventually snatch a chunk of the $100 billion/year that today's cable, satellite and telco video distributors generate. This vision is enhanced by the inevitability of broadband connecting seamlessly to millions of consumers' TVs, enabling a pure on-demand, a-la-carte experience. The result has been many well-funded startups (e.g. Joost, Veoh, Vuze, etc.) as well as offensive/defensive initiatives backed by large media companies (e.g. Hulu, Fancast, portal sites, etc.).

However, ad-supported video aggregators face multiple challenges. First and most is that as their ranks have grown, the audience they're commonly targeting fragments. Not only does this make it hard to achieve scale, it makes it hard to identify meaningful audience differences that advertisers seek when allocating their budgets. The recent economic collapse and ad spending slowdown only exacerbate these audience-related issues.

The next big problem is that it is very difficult for aggregators to differentiate themselves. As with most web sites, there are really two main drivers of differentiation: content and user experience. On the content side, there is a finite amount of premium video available for ad-supported online distribution and there's no such thing as exclusivity (except to some extent with Hulu and its rights to NBC and Fox shows).

Increasingly broadcast programs are available in lots of places online, (starting with the broadcasters' own sites), while cable programs are in short supply (more on why that's the case and why it will stay that way in "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks"). Though there is lots of other quality video being produced, the reality is that once you get away from hit TV shows and recently-released movies (which themselves are not available except as paid downloads), little else has the same audience-driving appeal.

User experience is certainly a bona fide differentiator, and as I have spent time at all these sites, it's evident which sites are better and easier to use than others. But user experience differences are hard to maintain; it's all too easy for one site to emulate what another one does, and with cheap, open technology there are few barriers to doing so. Over time, most of the really important differences melt away (ample evidence of this is found in the ecommerce world, where checkout processes have long since gravitated to a set of best practices).

Another problem is customer acquisition and retention, which is a particular issue for the independent aggregators, who don't have incumbent advantages to leverage. With premium video only coming online relatively recently, users' video search processes are not yet well understood. Suppose someone is looking for a missed episode of Lost and don't want to pay for it. Do they start with a Google search for "Lost?" Or for "ABC?" Or do they reflexively go to ABC.com? Or maybe they're a heavy YouTube user, so they start by heading over to YouTube.com? Still others no doubt start by going to video search sites like blinkx or Truveo. Video aggregators need to insert themselves in the flow of an online user's video search process. But doing effectively is not yet anywhere close to the reasonably well-understood world of web-based optimization techniques.

The landscape for video aggregators is still pretty wide open, so some winners will emerge. But there are just too many entrants chasing the same prize. I'll be keeping close track of the aggregator space on VideoNuze as '09 unfolds, and will keep you apprised of all developments.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

2009 Prediction #1:The Syndicated Video Economy Accelerates

2009 Prediction #2:Mobile Video Takes Off, Finally

2009 Prediction #3:Net Neutrality Remains Dormant

Tomorrow, 2009 Prediction #5

Welcome to November. October was a particularly crazy month with the unfolding financial crisis. Here are 3 key themes.

1. Financial crisis hurts all industries; broadband is no exception

In October the financial crisis was omnipresent. During the month I addressed its probable effects on the broadband industry here and here so I'm not going to spend much more time on it today. Suffice to say, for the foreseeable future, the key industry metrics are financing, staffing and customer spending. Conserving cash and getting to breakeven are paramount for all.

In particular, in "Thinking in Terms of a 'GOTI' Objective" I tried to provide some food for thought about why focus is so important right now. Industry CEOs' jobs have gotten a whole lot harder in the wake of the meltdown; those with the best strategic and financial skills will come through the storm, others will encounter significant challenges.

I'm constantly trying to gauge just how developed the broadband video industry actually is. All kinds of indicators continue to suggest to me that we're still in the very early days. For example, in one post this month comparing iTunes and Hulu, it was evident that iTunes is currently far outpacing Hulu in TV episode-related revenues. Remember that Hulu is the undisputed premium ad-supported aggregator. And that the ad-supported business model itself is predicted by most to eventually be far larger than the paid model. That iTunes is so far ahead for now shows how young Hulu really is (in fact, just celebrating its first anniversary) and how much more development the ad-supported model still has ahead of it.

I think another relevant indicator of progress is how well the broadband medium is distinguishing itself from alternatives by capitalizing on its key strengths. In "Broadband Video Needs to Become More Engaging," I noted that while there have recently been positive signs of progress, overall, much of broadband's engagement potential is still untapped. That's why I'm always encouraged by compelling UGV contests like the one Fox and Metacafe unveiled this month or by technology like EveryZing's new MetaPlayer that drives more granular interactivity. To truly succeed, broadband must become more than just an online video-on-demand medium.

As ISPs, cable operators account for the lion's share of broadband Internet access. Further, their ongoing efforts to increase bandwidth widens the universe of addressable homes for high-quality content delivery. Still, their multichannel subscription-based business model is increasingly threatened by broadband's on-demand, a la carte nature. As delivery quality escalates and consumer spending remains pinched, the notion of dropping cable in favor of online-only access become more alluring.

Yet in "Cutting the Cord on Cable: For Most of Us It's Not Happening Any Time Soon," I explained why restricted access to popular cable network programs and an inability to easily view broadband video on the TV will keep cable operators in a healthy position for some time to come. Still, it's a confusing landscape; this month I noticed Time Warner Cable itself helped foster cable bypass, when in the midst of its retransmission standoff with LIN TV, it offered an instructive video for how to watch most broadcast network programming online. Comcast also got into the act, unveiling "Premiere Week" on its Fancast portal. These kinds of initiatives remind consumers there's a lot of good stuff available for free online; all you need is a broadband connection.

Lots more to come in November, stay tuned.

This morning Twentieth Century Fox and Metacafe are announcing "The Thirty Second Film Contest," which challenges contestants to put together a winning thirty second spot for the epic film "Australia," opening on November 26th. Though not yet fully live, I like the direction of this initiative a lot, and believe it provides an innovative example of how to blend traditional film marketing techniques with broadband-enabled audience participation.

Contestants visit the promotional site hosted at Metacafe, a large aggregator of short-form entertainment, to obtain film-related assets provided by Fox. These can be augmented with the contestant's own music, voiceovers, sound effects and artwork to create a highly original entry. Entries are submitted through Metacafe and will be judged by the folks at Fox and Bazmark (Australia director Baz Luhrman's company).

The contest is actually meant to be quite serious and semi-professional; Luhrmann has also created a whole library of videos about film-making, which a student of the art can use to help shape his/her entry, or just watch to learn. The grand prize is enticing: a trip for two to Australia, another to NY for a private screening/meeting with Luhrmann and inclusion of the winning entry on the film's eventual DVD.

The Australia contest builds on a similar one that Metacafe and Universal offered for "The Bourne Ultimatum" last year, which I reviewed enthusiastically here. The concept also follows on previous posts I've done about the value of what I call "purpose-driven user generated video" or "YouTube 2.0" opportunities for users to create videos that have actual business value. I continue to believe that user-submitted videos which go beyond goofball entertainment are a huge area of broadband industry opportunity.

The Australia contest is a winner on multiple levels as it; creates pre-release buzz for the film, allows fans and aspiring artists to get involved and showcase their work, taps into a large base of original (and free!) ideas to help promote the movie, and introduces a fresh, updated approach to film marketing that is sorely needed for differentiation.

This week I've been talking a lot about engagement and why it's so critical in the broadband era. While media and entertainment companies must always focus on driving ratings points or a big opening day box office, the ways to do so are changing. The key change I see is that films, TV programs and other entertainment must become part of a larger experience - complete with multifaceted engagement opportunities - rather than just a one-off moment of audience consumption. Broadband enables this shift in a big way. More marketers need to take advantage of the possibilities.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

There are reports today that Hulu intends to stream tonight's second presidential debate along with the third debate planned for Oct. 15th. VideoNuze readers will recall that I observed two weeks ago that NYTimes.com streamed the first debate on its home page. I regarded this as a noteworthy incursion of a print publisher onto broadcast/cable's traditional turf and asserted that the debates give the NYTimes a plum opportunity to use video to expand its audience appeal and ad revenue potential.

Cause and effect that Hulu, backed by two broadcasters Fox and NBC, is now planning to stream the remaining debates? Hard to say. But no question, if Hulu hadn't done this, it would have been leaving the door open, again, for NYTimes to be a prime destination for live streaming of the debate. For broadcasters fighting for every eyeball out there, that would have been a mistake. More evidence of how broadband is creating competition between previously disparate media worlds.

Two-and-a-half weeks ago, in "Fox's 'Remote-Free TV': Broadband's First Adverse Impact on Networks" I asserted that Fox's decision to cut in half the number of ads it will include in two new programs was influenced by the limited ads shown in networks' broadband initiatives.

By giving "RFTV" a try, Fox was catching on to the idea that fewer commercial interruptions improves the viewer experience. I pointed out that the challenge RFTV posed is that cutting ad time in half means that Fox would have to double the CPMs it charged just to remain whole. Could Fox do that?

Yesterday's piece in Adweek provided at least a preliminary answer: No. Adweek, quoting unnamed media agency sources, reported that Fox is getting only a 35-40% premium for the "RFTV" ad inventory. If my math is right that would imply that Fox is grossing 30-33% less total ad revenue than it would have under its traditional ad model.

Broadcast networks, having moved much of their programming online, have engendered new viewer expectations for fewer ads. The early results from Fox's "RFTV" initiative may indeed be evidence that these new expectations are at odds with sustaining broadcasters' traditional margins and profits.

Why is Fox doing this and why does it matter? According to TV Week's coverage, Mr. Liguori said: "The broadcast business needs a jolt. This gives viewers one less reason to change the channel." The first statement is certainly true, but the second seemed off somehow. If the programming's really compelling, it seems unlikely that viewers are going to change the channel (when did you ever change the channel in the middle of "24" for example?).

Switching channels doesn't seem to be the issue; rather, I think the more pressing concerns behind RFTV are ad-skipping from DVR usage and broadband's growing influence. But on the DVR side, if I'm a viewer watching programs like these in recorded mode, are fewer pods or shorter ads going to make me any less inclined to hit the fast-forward button to skip the ads? Doubtful. I only need to retrain myself to hit the "play" button sooner.

If that's the case, then it seems to me that "RFTV" should be interpreted as a response to viewers' preference for broadband's "limited commercial interruptions" model. But when Fox cuts these programs' on-air ad time in half, it needs to double its fees per ad to remain even. Fox is now talking to advertisers to see if it can turn that goal into a reality. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't. If it can't, then these 2 new programs' on-air monetization will be lower than traditional expectations. Could this mean that "RFTV" may actually end up representing broadband's first demonstrably adverse impact on the network TV business? Quite possibly.

In my post last week, "Does Broadband Video Help or Hurt Broadcast TV Networks?" I argued that while broadband offers short-term benefits, in the long-term it's going to force broadcast TV networks to fundamentally adjust to different economics. Broadband's limited commercial interruptions means far fewer ad slots to monetize. RFTV may be a harbinger that this approach may now be coming to on-air as well.

Though broadband delivery is still nascent, its implications are far-reaching. In this case, having moved most of their prime-time programs online, networks now need to show it brings positive results. That will be interesting to watch. Longer-term may be nearer than I thought.

What do you think of Fox's "RFTV" initiative? And how does it impact the network's business? Post a comment and let everyone know!

In the heat of the Democratic primary, the five major Sunday morning talk shows have recently taken on greater prominence. For political junkies like me, even after a week's worth of endless campaign coverage, it is great sport to watch the candidates and their surrogates put the best face on the week's events, while eagerly trying to tee up issues for the coming week's news cycle.

The Sunday shows are also perfect fodder for broadband video consumption. On-air they are neatly segmented by guests and topics, their archives offer a vivid research opportunity for both editorial and user-driven curation, and the audiences that tune in are upscale and appealing to advertisers.

With all this going for them, I decided to investigate the online presence of the five Sunday morning shows, ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," CBS's "Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer," FOX's "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace," NBC's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" and CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Though all of the sites had their strengths, as a group I found them to be surprisingly average initiatives, especially in comparison to the superb efforts these same networks have mounted for their online entertainment programming. (Note that all I found for "Late Edition" was a brochure page)

"FTN" would have to rank at the top of my list, primarily because it segments the show by its guests and topics and displays them in the user-friendliest manner. This allows the user to quickly zero in on desired segments. "This Week" and "MTP" do some of this as well, though I found their presentation not as straightforward. What's missing from all are related clips across episodes curated in a meaningful way. Presentation is very episode-centric.

While all the sites rely heavily on pre-roll ads, "FTN" gets credit for using some frequency capping. "This Week," seems to ignore the best practices that ABC.com follows in presenting its shows with limited interruptions. Not only does it not frequency cap, it also ran the same 2 ads - one for Intel and one for Verizon Wireless - over and over. Needless to say this became tiresome after clicking to watch several segments.

Meanwhile, navigation and available content on these sites are all over the board. "MTP" offers a link to watch the whole program with limited interruptions, while "FNS" offers a text transcript of the most recent program, but not a video of the whole program. "This Week's" main text navigation has links to pure text stories, text stories with embedded video clips, and video clips alone, but no way to sort the list by media type. Search on each site also yields highly diverse results - some video, some not. One missed opportunity is that none offer any user editing features. Putting together your own highlights reel to be embedded on a blog or social networking site would likely be great fun for many hard-core viewers.

The Sunday talk shows offer dynamite content, highly leverageable for broadband consumption. Hopefully as the political season rolls on we'll see the networks recognize this and continue to invest in new features and improved usability.

What do you think? Post a comment and let us all know!

In the last few days there's been a lot of attention paid to Apple's deals with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Sony, Lionsgate, Imagine and First Look Studios giving iTunes day-and-date access to these studios' current films.

As an advocate of the broadband medium, naturally I'm delighted to see studios put broadband distribution on a par with DVD release. The deals should rightly be interpreted as another step in the maturation of the broadband medium.

However, these deals, in and of themselves, do not constitute a game-changing event for paid downloads of feature films. That's because until there's mass connectivity between PCs and TVs and much-improved portability, consumers' willingness to buy is going to be significantly muted. Consumers' inability to easily watch a feature film on their widescreen TV or easily grab-these- movies-to-go (as with DVDs) are a huge drag on the download value proposition, easily swamping its new convenience benefits.

I believe that lack of mass connectivity between PCs and TVs is the last major hurdle to unlocking broadband video's ultimate potential. It is also the firewall that's preserving a lot of incumbents' business models (cable operators, broadcasters, etc.). No question, Apple and iTunes are powerful marketing partners for the studios, and their download revenue will certainly increase from its current modest base. But not even Apple's mighty brand (and certainly not its anemic AppleTV device) is enough to compensate for broadband's current deficiency.