-
Metacafe Expands Movies Hub; Emphasizes Short-form Premium Content
Today, Metacafe announced the expansion of the Metacafe Movies "hub," which adds to existing film content. Metacafe is continuing its emphasis on short-form premium content targeted at the young male audience. The
expansion includes adding new original programming, creating an HD Channel MetaHD, and building out a fully immersive online stereoscopic 3D showcase, where even the advertisements will be in 3D. Additionally, Metacafe CEO Erick Hachenburg explained that new team leads, Mark Poggi, recruited from Netflix and Steven Horn, from Rotten Tomatoes, will help shape an editorial voice to the video selection, keeping it fresh with content directly from the studios.
Erick cited Metacafe's editorial voice and emphasis on video as the key sources of its differentiation. He sees Metacafe users exploring 5 or 6 additional Metacafe exclusive clips instead of just a trailer. He compared competitive video sites like YouTube, Hulu, and even Yahoo/AOL to "broadcast" networks with clips for everyone, but not enough targeted navigable content. On the other hand he sees Metacafe catering to a key demographic, much like a niche cable network.
Categories: FIlms
Topics: MetaCafe
-
Hollywood Considers Squeezing Theatrical Window
An article in the WSJ.com this past weekend, "Hollywood Eyes Shortcut to TV," describes how some Hollywood studios' appear ready to further squeeze their bread-and-butter theatrical relationships in the name of accelerated electronic distribution to viewers' TVs.
The article cites proposals that Time Warner Cable, America's 2nd largest cable operator, is discussing with studios to offer movies to Video-on-Demand (VOD) just 1 month after they open in theaters, instead of today's typical 4 months. The idea, dubbed "home theater on demand" ("HTOD" for short) would mean a movie would be available on HTOD while still playing in theaters. Adopting such an approach would be akin to Hollywood sticking its finger in the eye of its theatrical partners, who would obviously suffer some degree of diminished ticket sales.
Hollywood studios surely know the firestorm an HTOD move would create. In the past 6 months, plans to overlap theatrical and electronic distribution - with Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" and Sony's "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" - met with stiff resistance from theater owners. With the new HTOD concept, studios seem intent on pushing further into this perilous territory, motivated by a desire to get movies into viewers' hands earlier than ever before.
In general I applaud studios willingness to experiment, but I think the value of HTOD and other early release plans is overestimated and more likely to backfire on studios than produce any tangible financial benefits.
The first issue is cannibalization. It's hard to imagine, given all the marketing effort around a movie's premiere, that the aggregate short-term audience for a particular movie can be expanded all that much. Certainly few people who just paid to see the movie in the theater will pay again to see it at home so quickly thereafter. And if you really wanted to see a movie, wouldn't you have made it to the theater in the first place?
Instead of tempting people to not bother going out, studios should be giving consumers more reasons to actually do so. Studios have so many new opportunities with social media, local-based services and user-generated content to add excitement to movie premieres. This is particularly true for younger audiences critical to box office results. Some of these new efforts can extend all the way through a movie's DVD and electronic release, adding downstream value as well.
In addition, even with movie ticket prices now approaching or hitting $20 apiece, in my opinion, HTOD's proposed fee of $20-30 is way too high. Most VOD movies today cost around $5-6; trying to justify a multiple of that price for HTOD, for the sole benefit of earlier in-home access, is a huge stretch. In reality, consumers seem plenty willing to wait in exchange for lower prices. That's the key takeaway from Netflix's willingness to do the 28-day DVD window deals with major studios. If a consumer can pay a paltry $9/mo they'll be just fine waiting until the movie becomes available on DVD or for streaming. Hollywood needs to be careful not to overestimate the value of its product.
Last but not least, HTOD is a risky play because cable-delivered VOD itself is going to be coming under intensifying competition. Recently I explained how competition for movie rentals is intensifying, making VOD just one of many, many choices for consumers. Initiatives like Google TV undermine VOD because when a consumer can just as easily access movies from various online outlets directly on their TVs, VOD usage will inevitably suffer. Though I'm skeptical about new efforts from retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, they will add more on-demand movie choices and will further turn up the pressure on VOD.
Electronic distribution is a hot topic these days, and studios are right to explore their options. But while studios' relationships with theater owners are far from optimal, in my opinion studios need to be very careful about jeopardizing them further. Rather than undermining theatrical release with ever-earlier electronic distribution plans, studios should be figuring out how to build more value into them.
(Note - if you want to learn more about how Hollywood succeeds in the digital distribution era, make sure to join us for the upcoming VideoSchmooze breakfast in Beverly Hills on June 15th! Click here to learn more and register for the early bird discount)
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Cable TV Operators, FIlms, Studios, Video On Demand
Topics: Disney, Netflix, Sony, Time Warner Cable
-
5 Reasons Why Google TV Looks Like a Winner
Google pulled the curtain back on Google TV ("GTV" for short) yesterday and the debate over whether it will be a game-changer or another in a long line of underwhelming web-TV approaches is already underway. I'm going to plant my stake firmly in the first category - I think GTV looks like a real winner and below I've articulated 5 good reasons why. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, and there are still some unknowns (starting with price) which will have a huge influence on its adoption. But as I describe below, GTV looks like the right product at the right time.
(Btw, if you need more background on what GTV actually is, see my post from 2 months ago "Here's How Google TV Will Work" and Colin Dixon's guest post below, "Google TV Unites Web and TV in One Experience.")
1. Consumers Want Online Video on Their TVs
The touchstone of a successful new consumer product introduction is simple - does it solve a problem or fill a need? For GTV, the answer is an overwhelming "yes." Consumers want a simple, cost-effective solution for watching online video on their TVs. Millions have already availed themselves of alternative - and often sub-optimal - methods for doing so: connecting their laptops to their TVs, buying a Roku/TiVo/connected Blu-ray player, using their gaming console, etc. There is no question here of "do consumers want online video on their TVs?" They do and there's abundant research supporting the trend already (here, here, here for example). If you need more validation, just ask anyone who's using Netflix streaming.
Moving the online video experience to the TV is the next natural step in the evolution of this exciting new medium. When most online video was short clips and the experience was poor, watching on computers was ok. But now, with HD, full-screen, well-featured experiences gaining prominence alongside the advent of high-quality, long-form programming, the viewing experience wants to move to the living room and the wide-screen HDTV. And it's a virtuous circle - the more the online video experience moves to the living room, the more high-quality content will come online, further reinforcing the value of GTV.
2. It's the Full Internet and It's Open
A main point of skepticism regarding GTV is that other web-to-TV approaches haven't made it big, so why will GTV? It's a very fair question and I think there are 2 very significant differences between past approaches and GTV. The first is that GTV users get the full Internet, not just the bits and pieces that the device provider has made deals with, or those that have invested the time and money to integrate with the device. Fifteen years since the Internet went mainstream, people are conditioned to expect nothing less than full choice and selection. GTV is the first to recognize that a "no boundaries," fully-browsable experience is not a nice-to-have, it's a must-have. The second differentiator is that search is core to the GTV experience, while others have focused mainly on browse. Searching is THE way people are accustomed to finding what they want and the inability to do so simply in other devices and on-screen guides has been a real handicap. GTV blends online expectations into the TV experience; that will feel natural and meaningful for many.
As important as the full Internet is to consumers, GTV's openness is equally important to developers who will build the apps that will make GTV compelling. It's essential to remember the Internet's open standards and development tools have driven its success. With GTV, the full brunt of the Internet's openness is once and for all being brought to the TV, powered by advances in processors that would have been unimaginable until recently. Google's Android OS and Chrome browser help create the platform - at no charge - to make all this happen. Simply put, developers are going to love GTV and the fruit of their imagination is going to astound us.
3. For Content Providers, GTV Should be Love at First Sight
Of course, what good is a new device if there's no good content? This is a problem that all too often plagues new devices (some of you have no doubt heard me mention "Richmond's Law" - that you can't introduce a device AND the content/apps for it simultaneously and expect the device to succeed.) However, in GTV's case, since it's really just leveraging all the great content on the Internet, content shortage won't be a problem. For video providers large and small GTV offers the potential of massive new reach, usage, and importantly new revenue streams, whether from Google ads, their own ads or new paid models. Nothing is required of them, though if they want to optimize for GTV (as with YouTube's new "Lean Back" UI), they can do so very easily.
For cable TV networks in particular GTV is a big-time winner. It doesn't disrupt their traditional model (see reason #5 below for more on that), but does open up all kinds of new interactive content opportunities. Another set of winners are the independent providers that have already attracted audiences online, like blip.tv, Next New Networks and Revision3. Other winners include print publishers like the NY Times, WSJ, Sports Illustrated, etc, who have been avidly building out their video libraries. The independent and print guys were limited mainly to computer-based consumption, but with GTV they get equal on-TV footing for the first time with their cable TV network counterparts. This will make for an exciting new round of content innovation. Lastly, if past is precedent, we can expect Hulu to dig its head further into the sand and block GTV users. That's ok, users will just turn to ABC.com, Fox.com, etc. As GTV and more convergence plays emerge, Hulu's insistence on computer-based viewing only is a self-inflicted bullet to its head (which btw, could be to YouTube's benefit as it seeks to increase its premium content roster).
4. GTV is Part of a Compelling 3-Screen Experience
As important as GTV is to on-TV viewing, it's critical to see its place in the larger context of a 3-screen, converged world. Today "convergence" is more a slogan than anything. But as Google showed in its demos yesterday (flawed though they were by incongruous Bluetooth snafus), the interplay between mobile, online and TV is tantalizing. Seeing an Android smartphone act as a voice-activated GTV remote control is just the tip of the iceberg. Today we are in just the first inning of consumer expectations for how devices interact ("my contact list synchs to my iPhone - whoohoo!"), but increasingly, as the cloud gains more prominence, the consumer technology battle is going to gravitate to integrated 3-screen experiences.
In this respect, GTV must also be seen in the context of Google's epic battle with Apple. GTV is a rare instance of Google actually being ahead of Apple, rather than playing catch-up (as in smartphones, tablets, operating systems, etc.). For now at least, Apple doesn't have a TV of its own, giving Google an opportunity gain an early lead in how 3-screen experiences will work. GTV further exposes key weaknesses of Apple's tightly-controlled, vertically integrated model. While Apple has enjoyed a huge head-start with the iPhone and a smaller one with the iPad, developers are increasingly going to ask themselves whether developing for essentially one company (and to its particular, exacting demands) is better than returning their roots and comfort zone of developing for the open Internet and GTV. As I mentioned last week, Apple vs. Android is looking increasingly like Apple vs. Wintel, and we know how that story ended. While Apple is busy ranting against Flash, Google has been presented with a monster-sized PR opportunity for Android to be positioned as the open, neutral alternative.
5. It's Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary
Possibly the most remarkable thing about GTV is that rather than trying to disrupt the TV ecosystem, Google pragmatically incorporates it and tries to enhance its value. That Google chose to go this route rather than doing something revolutionary that would incent "cord-cutting" is almost miraculous given the company's nearly dogmatic approach to re-inventing everything it touches. While the cable/satellite/telco set-top box sitting alongside GTV may seem like a ridiculous hack to many, serving little purpose but to preserve the entrenched cable business model, for Google, this "friend, not foe" approach means genuine partnership discussions can ensue for Google with Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs). That's key to GTV not relying on a risky, retail-only distribution model.
In my initial post on Google TV 2 months ago, I highlighted the fascinating negotiating dynamic about to unfold between Google and the MVPDs. Some will be frightened of Google and its potential Trojan horse incursion into the living room, while others will be compelled by the upside. One thing is for sure: yesterday's news that DISH's set-top box will be optimized for GTV means that GTV's new features are poised to become key messages in DISH's advertising. If you're an MVPD and you don't have an "Internet-on-TV" story you're going to be at a disadvantage. GTV adds value to MVPDs by enhancing both the TV experience and also driving more need for bandwidth on the ISP side. For all of these reasons, I think it's going to be very tempting for many MVPDs to engage with Google.
Wrap-up
OK, so those are my arguments why GTV looks like a winner. The main caveats to my enthusiasm are GTV's pricing and seeing GTV actually work (initially with the Logitech box and Sony products). These aren't trivial. If Logitech prices its companion box at $499, then despite the above arguments, GTV will be too expensive and not take off. But say it comes in at $249? Imagine a consumer contemplating buying it (with no monthly fee!) or an iPad, which is $500-800 (plus a $30 monthly fee!). GTV is a hand-down winner in that scenario.
There's a lot to be excited about with GTV, as a whole new chapter in online video's rise is set to begin.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple, DISH, Google, Google TV, Logitech
-
VideoNuze Report Podcast #62 - May 21, 2010
Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 62nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for May 21, 2010.
In today's podcast Daisy and I share chat about what else - Google TV. Listen in to learn more, and also see other posts on the site for further analysis and information.
Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 25 seconds)
Click here for previous podcasts
The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!Categories: Podcasts, Technology
Topics: Google, Google TV, Podcast
-
Google TV Unites Web and TV in One Experience
Colin Dixon, senior partner at industry research firm The Diffusion Group, which is a VideoNuze partner, has been attending the Google I/O developer's conference. Following his analysis of the WebM project yesterday, today he offer commentary on Google TV which was unveiled today. Back in late March I had posted on Google TV, based on some back-channel info I had received. I'll have more commentary as well.
Google TV Unites Web and TV in One Experience
by Colin Dixon
This morning, at Google I/O in San Francisco, Google announced a comprehensive push to bring the Internet to TV, an effort dubbed "Google TV." Working with initial partners Intel, Sony, and Logitech, Google is assembling an open ecosystem to deliver web content and applications directly to the TV. As well, rather than ignore traditional TV content, the effort seeks to integrate the Internet and TV into a single seamless experience.
Intel's CE4100 Atom-based SoC will serve as the processor engine for the service. The CE4100 is optimized for TV applications with sophisticated video handling and a 3D graphics engine built in. It also inherits the Atom processor's frugal power consumption capabilities and small footprint. The software stack that will run on the CE4100 is from Google. Android has been ported and optimized for the processor along with Google's Chrome browser. Since Android is the core operating system, many of the applications that have already been written for smartphones should run with little or no modification. Of course, the Android marketplace will also be available to add other applications to the experience.
Categories: Devices, Technology
Topics: Best Buy, DISH, Google, Google TV, Intel, Logitech, Sony
-
Google Reignites Codec Wars by Freeing VP8
Google is in the midst of its I/O developer's conference and Colin Dixon, senior partner at industry research firm The Diffusion Group, which is a VideoNuze partner, is attending. Today and tomorrow he's providing dispatches and analysis of the events.
Google Reignites Codec Wars by Freeing VP8
by Colin Dixon
At the Google developer's conference, Google I/O, on Wednesday the company announced that the ON2 VP8 codec has been open-sourced. The video codec is being united with the Vorbis audio codec under the WebM effort. VP8 is available under a completely royalty-free license.
Support for WebM is being built into browsers such as Chrome, Opera and Mozilla. This means that a video provided in the format does not need a separate player; it will play natively in the browser. In addition, Google
promised it would be supported in Chrome OS, Google's open source project to turn the browser into the computer operating system. Also, YouTube will fully support the format. Kevin Lynch, CTO of Adobe, also announced full support for the codec in Flash. This is important as Flash is the dominant video delivery mechanism on the Internet.
The ON2 codec was one of the earliest of the new advanced codecs. As the most efficient codec of its time, it allowed companies such as Move networks to provide adaptive streaming on the Internet at HD quality. Early adopters of the codec were companies such as Fox.com and ABC.com. Google purchased On2 for $120M in 2009.
The release of VP8 to the open community without a license fee is an important development. Google has the muscle to guarantee wide use and acceptance of the codec. YouTube serves 13 times more video content than any other site in the US. As well, the 70M users of the Chrome browser will also have support for the codec built in. With Flash support it is safe to assume that pretty much every PC will have support for VP8 before the year is out. For content developers, VP8 is a safe option to guarantee that content will play on a wide array of PCs and netbooks.
Less clear is the value of the codec to non-PC devices. Certainly we can expect full support in Android phones. But support at the TV is far less clear. Devices such as game consoles and set-top boxes are not going to support the codec anytime soon. Major SoC providers such as Intel and Broadcom do not provide built-in support for it, although Intel can support it in software. Until chip vendors support it, getting an STB or TV that can play video in the format is still years away. Perhaps we will hear more about that from Google Thursday (as has been widely rumored.) So, VP8 as a solution for multi-screen delivery is still not viable.
This leaves content providers with a problem. There still isn't a single codec that is supported on TV, PC and mobile. Perhaps the closest to this is MPEG4 H.264. However, H.264 is fatally flawed. Although today you can use the codec without incurring a royalty fee that could all change on December 31, 2015. MPEG LA, which controls the H.264 license terms, has only said that it would allow free streaming using the codec through 2015. What happens after that is anyone's guess. With uncertainty like this H.264 is unlikely to become the universal standard.
In the short term, if your video distribution plans are limited to PCs and Android phones VP8 could be the smart choice. For multi-screen delivery, content providers will have to continue to provide their content in several formats for some time to come. Apple, which is heavily backing the H.264 format should give this some serious thought!
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Technology
-
New Clicker.tv Raises the Bar on Online Video Navigation
Want to see what navigation will look like in the online video era? Then head over to Clicker.tv, which unveiled its new look today at the Google I/O conference. I hesitate to call Clicker.tv a "web site" because 15 years into the Internet age the term has a "point-click-scroll" connotation to it. Conversely, when you arrive at the new Clicker.tv you realize you can now set your mouse aside as you won't be needing it. The whole site can be navigated with your Up/Down/Side arrow, Enter and Backspace keys. Clicker's CEO Jim Lanzone gave me a sneak peek last week and pointed out its key differentiators.
Jim proudly pointed out that while it will feel like you've downloaded a plug-in or an app because of the richness and responsiveness of the site, in fact you haven't; this is the power of HTML5. What you see displayed are four columns. At the left is a tools bar with simple icons prompting search, browse, playlists plus links to display TV shows, web-only shows or movies. In default mode the next 3 columns show "headliners," trending shows and trending episodes. You can rearrange these views via the icons, browsing or setting up playlists.
If for example you see a large thumbnail for "The Hills," when you click on it all the recent episodes are exposed, which you can scroll through with just your arrow keys until finding the one you want and selecting it with the Enter key. Or if you select the movie "The Hurt Locker" Clicker will show you that it's available for download on Amazon and iTunes. If it had been available on Netflix too, you would have been exposed to that option and been able to seamlessly connect and watch at Netflix if you had previously linked your account to Clicker (same way as Netflix works with other devices).
Something else you'll notice is that there's no search bar. So how do you search for a TV show or movie? You simply start typing and your letters appear on screen. It's pretty cool. But in a nod to how different navigation on Clicker is, it offers a handy overlay screen when visiting so you know how to get around.
As Jim put it, Clicker also begins merging the browser and the app worlds (for more on what Google thinks about this idea see, this good post on TechCrunch), and moves the paradigm away from having set-top boxes in order to do robust navigation. Clicker's big opportunity comes as convergence takes off. It's 10-foot UI makes it a natural to be included in various connected devices that are looking to bridge broadband to the TV even as smaller scale version could work really well on mobile devices. In addition, as Jim pointed out, because this is HTML, social and other features can be added easily. The destination is still in beta and it's still pretty early days for Clicker's business model, but Jim sees two opportunities: bounties from aggregators it sends users to and apps that would be created and uphold. Playing around with Clicker you can't help thinking how far the web has now advanced.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Technology, Video Search
-
Kyte is Bullish on Android; Releases New SDK and App Framework
Further expanding its mobile offering, Kyte announced this morning both an SDK and an "App Framework" for the Android OS. The SDK eliminates a lot of the complexity for developers to do custom implementations of Kyte-powered video and interactivity for their Android apps. The "App Framework" provides
a template with pre-built modules (e.g. video playback, UGC video integration, commenting and chat, location-based events, Twitter and RSS readers) so new Android apps can be quickly built and released.
Kyte's COO Gannon Hall told me yesterday that both are comparable to the previously-released iPhone and BlackBerry SDK and Mobile App Frameworks. Examples of how the templatized iPhone App Framework have recently been used include UMG's Lady Gaga app and MTV's "Hope for Haiti" digital telethon app, which Gannon said was built in record time.
Gannon said the Android moves are further validation of Kyte's positioning as a "360 degree solution," helping companies easily deliver video to consumers everywhere they want. He sees continued fragmentation across operating systems, devices and formats as some of the tectonic "Apple/Google/Adobe/fill-in-the-blank" battles sort themselves out.
Gannon explained that even as Kyte has been expanding its social and set-top box functionality recently, it has seen the most growth in mobile. He's particularly bullish on Android, calling out last week's NPD research that Android was the #2 selling smartphone OS in Q1 '10, behind BlackBerry, but ahead of the iPhone. He also compared Android in certain ways to Windows, much like Will has as well, but added that because Android is open source, it allows developers to enhance and improve it - a big distinction from Windows. Note - the buzz around Android and video will grow much louder later today as Google and partners Intel and Sony announce their "SmartTV" initiative, built on the Android platform.
Regardless of the underlying technology, consumers just want video wherever they are. That's why, as these technologies segment and codecs continue to compete for dominance, OVPs that offer solutions to help content creators navigate through the myriad of technologies and cost-effectively deliver robust apps will have the competitive advantage.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).
Categories: Mobile Video, Technology
VideoNuze Posts
Connect with VideoNuze
Exclusive News Roundup
- Google TV’s uncertain future The Verge
- David Ellison Offers First Look At Plans For New Paramount Deadline
- Disney Will Stop Reporting Subscriber Numbers for Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ Variety
- ESPN flagship streaming service to launch Aug. 21 CNBC
- The NFL Is Taking a 10% Stake in Disney’s ESPN WSJ
- Roku Launches Howdy SVOD service Broadband TV News
