VideoNuze Posts

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 43rd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for December 11, 2009.

This week Daisy kicks us off, discussing key trends to look for from early adopters online in 2010, based on her recent interview with Bill Tancer, the author of Click, and the head of research at Hitwise. The insights may surprise you. Daisy also discusses what sites are heating up and tools that are available to help you detect trends yourself.

Then I dig into further detail on my post from yesterday, "Lack of Viewership Data Could Stall TV Everywhere," in which I outline concerns cable TV networks have regarding Nielsen's current inability to measure online viewership of TV programs. Until this is fixed, many networks will be reluctant to provide their primetime programs to TV Everywhere providers as they won't receive ratings credit for programs viewed online. If online viewership were to cannibalize on-air viewing, networks' ratings-based advertising revenues would suffer. Listen in to learn more.

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!

Based on a number of conversations I've had with cable programming executives, Nielsen's current inability to measure online viewing of TV programs and meld that data effectively with on-air viewing is emerging as a key stumbling block to successful rollouts of TV Everywhere services.

Cable networks are justifiably concerned that any viewership that potentially shifts from on-air to online that they are not credited for will adversely impact their ratings and therefore their advertising revenue. Until the issue is fixed cable networks will be reluctant to offer their most popular programs to TV Everywhere providers, in turn diluting TV Everywhere's appeal to consumers.

Nielsen, the de facto standard in TV ratings measurement, is well aware of these concerns and as Multichannel News reported this past Monday, it plans to accelerate the deployment of its "TVandPC" software which measures online viewing to 7,500 of its National People Meter households by Aug. 31, 2010. While that's a start, as industry executives have told me, it's not just the online viewing data that's needed, but also the proper blending of that data with the on-air data that's critical.

Among the issues is how online viewing, which offers consumers the potential of much-delayed on-demand viewing, should be aligned with Nielsen's "C3" ratings, which captures up to 3 days playback on DVRs. Another issue is understanding and measuring new TV Everywhere viewership patterns (e.g. college students remotely watching shows on a laptop which has been authenticated by Mom and Dad's cable account). Then there's the question of whether the online ad loads are going to be comparable to those on-air (e.g. if the online share of a program's overall viewership carried far fewer ads than the on-air viewership, advertisers and media planners will want to know this). No doubt other issues loom as well.

Add it all up and the process of collecting and then blending online and on-air viewership data is non-trivial and will require a significant investment and testing on Nielsen's part to accomplish. From Nielsen's standpoint, it could be reluctant to make such an investment in overhauling its measurement service unless there were pre-commitments from some of its clients to accepting and buying the enhanced ratings service.

On the one hand, it would seem that cable networks' reluctance to embrace TV Everywhere until adequate measurement systems were in place would be a strong incentive for TV Everywhere providers to support Nielsen's enhancements. However, I've been told that when Nielsen previously made improvements to track Video-on-Demand viewership, not many service providers implemented necessary mechanisms to denote programs were VOD-based, and therefore Nielsen's investment yielded little return. Particularly given the tough economic times, that could make Nielsen more cautious about how it proceeds with online ratings. For now Nielsen has not disclosed its plans.

Still, Nielsen is under pressure to move forward given the formation of the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM), which is comprised of 14 TV networks, agencies and advertisers. CIMM's goal is to explore new methodologies for audience measurement, particularly for set-top box data and cross-platform media consumption. While some in the industry have tagged CIMM as a Nielsen challenger, its members have said they have no intention of trying to replace Nielsen. Regardless, the presence of an industry-backed group trying to wrap its arms around cross-platform audience measurement is likely to only accelerate Nielsen's online tracking efforts.

As VideoNuze readers know, I've been quite enthusiastic about TV Everywhere's potential, though I'm plenty cognizant of the challenges it faces. Measurement is surely near the top of that list. One of the benefits to Comcast of owning NBCU is that, if it chooses to, it can release NBCU's cable networks' programs for TV Everywhere viewing, absent complete online tracking. This would be comparable to what Hulu's owners have chosen to do by distributing their broadcast network shows online (they're at least partly motivated by the belief that online viewing augments on-air viewing). But Comcast won't take ownership of NBCU for another year or so. By that time Nielsen may well be close to rolling a blended online/on-air offering.

In sum, it could well be that 2010 ends up being more a year of experimentation for TV Everywhere while building blocks like audience measurement get put in place. VOD, which years since its launch still lacks many primetime programs as well as dynamic advertising insertion, offers a cautionary example for TV Everywhere providers of how a lack of investment can block the realization of a new medium's full potential. Cable networks in particular will keep looking for signals that TV Everywhere will be more robust than VOD before they get too enthusiastic about online distribution.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Vevo, the much-heralded "Hulu for the music industry" venture backed by Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Abu Dhabi Music Company and Google/YouTube (and with video provided by EMI as well) officially launched late last night. I've been browsing around the site this morning and my first reaction is that it's a decent start, but has a long way to go if it is to fulfill its lofty mission.

Conceptually, I like the idea behind Vevo. The music industry, which has suffered multiple blows over the last 10 years, is getting together to create a destination site where music videos are distributed legally, with a coherent ad strategy. YouTube's participation means that videos that have been watched in the labels' YouTube channels can be branded Vevo, giving the new site tons of visibility, and helping migrate traffic over time.

From a design standpoint, the Vevo site has a similar feel to Hulu: large, wide-screen images on the home page promoting certain videos/artists, thumbnails below, of top videos, playlists and artists, quick links to most popular today, and search/navigation. A nav bar at the bottom of the screen invites users to easily create new playlists by adding up to 75 videos with one click. Videos are embeddable and shareable, and there are quick links to buy the music at Amazon and iTunes. The site was periodically very slow to load and occasionally even gave me a server error page. I don't know how much of this to ascribe day 1 hiccups that will be worked out over time or really poor capacity planning.

Less clear to me is how Vevo distinguishes itself from a user experience standpoint from YouTube itself. This has been a question that's nagged at me since the Vevo concept was first unveiled - how do the partners plan to make 1+1=3? The partners have made references to being indifferent to whether users watch at Vevo.com or YouTube, presumably because there would be similar advertising on both with similar splits. Yet, my experience going back and forth between the sites, albeit very limited, reveals lots of inconsistencies and a lot of promotional leverage left untapped.

Focusing on U2, one of my personal favorites, I found only about a dozen of the band's music videos on Vevo. Switching over to YouTube, I found many more tracks, such as "Beautiful Day," "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and "Where the Streets Have No Name," all in the Universal Music Group's channel. All of the videos were monetized: the first was preceded by a 15 second pre-roll ad for Chevy Malibu and the latter two carried an overlay ad to "Play Free Games" which was accompanied by a companion ad in the right column (the overlay was incredibly distracting, but that's another story). None of the videos had any Vevo branding whatsoever. It's also worth noting that even the UMG channel in YouTube has no Vevo branding or promotion.

Conversely, a search in YouTube for "All Because of You," a video that is available on Vevo, loads in YouTube with full Vevo branding. Above the video window are options to "Watch with Lyrics," "View Artist Profile," and "Create a Playlist." Clicking on any of these carries you over to the Vevo site. However, none of these actions are well-executed. "Watch with Lyrics" restarts the video, whereas a much slicker implementation would resume playing on Vevo from the point of drop-off. "View Artist Profile" simply displays a list other videos available, without any real artist profile information offered (background, upcoming concerts, etc.). And "Create a Playlist" just brings you to Vevo's home page, without any prompts for what to do next if indeed you want to actually want to create a playlist.

Elsewhere, the Vevo team hasn't even bothered to update its blog to officially announce the site's launch (it still says "Launching Tonight!" at the top). That's a missed opportunity, especially considering there was a splashy launch party in NYC last night (attendees ranging from Google's Eric Schmidt to Rhianna, Bono and Mariah Carey) and pictures and video from that event would have been a big drawing card. Come on - where's the Vevo PR team here?

How much of this should be forgiven to it being early days of Vevo's launch is a subjective call. From my vantage point though, I think the Vevo team could have done a lot more to think through and execute on the user experience. Back in November '07, when I looked at Hulu in its private beta, I gave it a solid B+. The Hulu team had clearly obsessed about each and every detail of the site - and have continued to do so. Hulu's user experience isn't perfect, but it has set the bar very high for those seeking to emulate it. For now Vevo probably rates around a C; much work is still ahead.

ExpoTV has formally launched "Kitchen Table Conversations," (KTC in my shorthand) a new research service in which certain members of its community provide video responses to a set of brand-sponsored research questions. The resulting video footage provides authentic, qualitative insights on actual consumers' habits, attitudes and behaviors. KTC is yet another example of "purpose-driven" user-generated video, a concept I began discussing in Fall '08 that continues to gain traction. I talked with Expo's president Bill Hildebolt yesterday to learn more about how the new research service works.

For those not familiar with Expo, it is a community-oriented site where consumers create videos of themselves reviewing products they've used. The site now offers a catalog of 300,000+ of these "videopinions" on a wide diversity of products, generated by 60K+ community members. Over time Expo has evolved from being an outlet where users alone chose which products to review (which they can still do) to a model where sponsors are able to tap the community for video reviews of specific products. Members receive points in exchange for their video submissions and other activities.

Bill explained that the KTC research service originated from sponsors approaching Expo with a desire to interact with community members on a deeper level. With KTC, the research sponsor (e.g. brand, ad agency, trade organization, etc.) can submit a series of questions and the respondent profiles they want to target. Expo then taps into its member database and offers invitations to participate. Because participants have a track record of submitting video to Expo, a minimum quality level is pretty well assured. As part of its service, Expo can edit the submitted videos into a package or just provide them raw to the research sponsor to use as they'd like.

While online research is not a new concept (how many of us have filled out surveys or email questionnaires), what's different here is the reliance on video, which provides a different level of insight. Bill said that for researchers, KTC fits between traditional focus groups (where a group of individuals is brought together in a room to discuss their views of a product) and "ethnography" (a process whereby professional researchers actually live with participants for a period of time studying and capturing their behaviors). Bill believes that KTC provides many of the same authentic, on-location benefits of ethnography, but at a price comparable to focus groups and in a far-quicker turnaround time of 2 weeks or less.

Expo has run half a dozen KTC research projects over the past 9-12 months, working to refine the process. The adjacent video, from one of the research projects (focusing on moms' grocery shopping habits), is a good example of an edited result. In it, you see and hear women in their own homes, speaking authentically and showing specifics (e.g. a coupon folder, handwritten lists, etc.) of how they do their shopping. The video won't be mistaken for prime-time entertainment, but to researchers looking for nuggets of insight, it's golden. For agencies in particular, which can incorporate select segments of KTC video into their client pitches, it's a totally new approach to consumer research.

KTC is the latest example to hit my radar of how certain types of user-generated video can be used for very productive purposes. Regardless of what might be said about YouTube's and others' inability to monetize the user-generated video uploaded to their sites, one of the derivative benefits of all this user activity is that an army of amateur videographers has been created, many of whom are comfortable in front of and behind the camera. Their video won't win an Oscar or Emmy any time soon, but as Expo and others are proving, their skills and passion are valuable and can be tapped for various purposes.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

It's hard not to be fascinated by the Tiger Woods "transgressions" scandal and the drip-drip-drip revelations that are keeping the story alive. Amid the hubbub, the big mystery remains what actually happened on the fateful night that Tiger plowed his Escalade into a neighbor's fire hydrant and tree.

As the NY Times reported over the weekend, the animation unit of the Taiwanese "infotainment" newspaper Apple Daily (owned by Hong Kong-based  media company Next Media) has created an animated video re-enactment of the events. The video is available on YouTube, where it has already drawn 2 million+ views. Non-Chinese speakers are out of luck on what the narrator's saying, but the animation provides the gist. As many suspect to be the case, there's Elin chasing Tiger's car down the street bashing its rear window with a golf club, causing a distracted Tiger to lose control and run off the road.

Compared to animated feature films, the quality is pretty amateurish. But that's the least of its problems; more significant is that the events shown are not based on the police reports or known facts, but rather on the animators' conception of what happened. So while Daisy Li, the Apple Daily manager overseeing the animated videos is quoted as saying that the idea of the animated videos is to make news more accessible to young people who don't like to read newspapers, by any standard, the video cannot be considered a journalistic pursuit.

Notwithstanding, the significance of the Tiger animated video and the whole idea of animated video re-enactments in general is that they have the potential to hugely influence public opinion about actual news events. By publishing videos like this to sites such as YouTube that have global reach, non-journalistic animators can vie with bona fide news outlets to inform audiences. For purists that will feel alarming, though it should be remembered that this is hardly the first time performance has influenced opinion - consider for example, that many people formed an opinion of Sarah Palin last year not on her remarks, but on Tina Fey's imitation of them on SNL.

Whether it is fact, fiction or something in between, video's power lies in its ability to tell a story better than any other medium. The animators at Apple Daily appear to understand this, as will others who will inevitably try to emulate their success. Audiences beware.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 30th week:

1. Alicia Keys concert on YouTube is an underwhelming experience - Did you catch any of the Alicia Keys concert on YouTube this past Tuesday night celebrating World AIDS Day? I watched parts of it, and while the music was great, I have to say it was disappointing from a video quality standpoint -lots of buffering and pixilation, plus watching full screen was impossible.

I think YouTube is on to something special webcasting live concerts. Recall its webcast of the U2 concert from the Rose Bowl on Oct 25th drew a record 10 million viewers. That concert's quality was far superior, and separately, the dramatic staging and 97,000 in-person fans also helped boost the excitement of the online experience. It's still early days, but to really succeed with the concert series, YouTube is going to have to guarantee a minimum quality level. Notwithstanding, American Express, the lead sponsor of the Keys concert had strong visibility and surely YouTube has real interest from other sponsors for future concerts. It could be a very valuable franchise YouTube is building and is further evidence of YouTube's evolution from its UGC roots.

2. Being a Jeff Zucker fan is lonely business - In yesterday's post, "Comcast-NBCU: The Winners, Losers and Unknowns" I said I've been a fan of Jeff Zucker's since seeing him deliver a brutally candid and very sober assessment of the broadcast TV industry at the NATPE conference in Jan '08. My praise elicited a number of incredulous email responses from readers who vehemently disagreed, thinking Zucker's performance merits him being sent to the woodshed rather than to the CEO's office for the new Comcast-NBCU JV.

To be sure, NBC's abysmal performance under Zucker (falling from first place to fourth in prime-time), will be one of his legacies, but I take a broader view of his tenure. A good chunk of NBCU's cable network portfolio came to the company via the Vivendi deal around the time Zucker took over responsibility for cable. Since that time the networks have grown strongly in audience and cash flow has doubled from about $1 billion to a projected $2.2 billion in '09. NBCU added Oxygen (which combined with its iVillage property makes a strong proposition for women-focused advertisers) and The Weather Channel, in a joint buyout with two PE firms.

While Zucker's hiring of Ben Silverman to run NBC was a misstep, NBCU has enjoyed stability on the cable side, with two of the highest-regarded women in TV, Bonnie Hammer and Lauren Zalaznick cranking out hit after hit for their respective networks. A CEO's tenure is always a mixed one, with plenty of wins and losses. It can be hard to know how much of the wins to ascribe to the CEO personally, rather than the executives below, but at the end of the day, NBCU was transformed from a single network company to a cable powerhouse; even Zucker skeptics have to give him some credit for this.

3. Comcast rebrands On Demand Online to Fancast Xfinity TV - yuck! - Largely lost in the NBCU commotion this week was news that B&C broke that Comcast is changing the name of its soon-to-be-launched TV Everywhere service from On Demand Online to Fancast Xfinity TV. Yikes, the branding gurus need to head back to the drawing board, and quick. The name violates the first rule of branding: pronunciation must be obvious and easy. Not only is it unclear how you pronounce Xfinity, it's a an unnecessary mouthful that doesn't fit with any of Comcast's other workmanlike brands (e.g. "Digital Cable," "On Demand," "Comcast.net"). If we're talking about a new videogame targeted to teenage boys, Xfinity is great. If we're talking about a service that provides online access to TV shows, there's no need for something super-edgy. I'd suggest just sticking with "On Demand Online." But even more importantly, priority #1 is getting the product launched successfully.

4. Sports Illustrated demo builds tablet computing buzz - If you haven't seen SI's demo of its tablet version being shown off this week, it's well worth a look at the video here. Never mind that there isn't such a tablet device on the market yet, the rumors swirling around Apple's planned launch of one has created an air of inevitability for the whole category. As the SI demo shows, a tablet can be thought of a larger version of an iPhone (likely minus the phone), providing larger screen real estate to make the user experience even more interesting. It's fascinating to think about what a tablet could do for magazines in particular, along the lines of what the Kindle has done for books. The mobile video and gaming possibilities are endless. Judge for yourselves.

Enjoy the weekend!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 42nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for December 4, 2009.

Today's sole topic is of course the big news of the week, Comcast's acquisition of NBCU. Daisy and I chat about the winners/losers/unknowns that I detailed in my post yesterday. There are a lot of aspects to the Comcast-NBCU deal and the new entity will have wide-ranging implications for the media industry. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 24 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

With Comcast's acquisition of NBCU finally official this morning (technically, it's not an acquisition, but rather the creation of a JV in which Comcast holds 51% and GE 49%, until GE inevitably begins unwinding its position), it's time to assess the winners, losers and unknowns from the deal, the biggest the media industry has seen in a long while. I listened to the Comcast investor call this morning with Brian Roberts, Steve Burke and Michael Angelakis and reviewed their presentation.

Here's how my list shakes out, based on current information:

Winners:

1. Comcast - the biggest winner in the deal is Comcast itself, which has pulled off the second most significant media deal of the decade (the first was its acquisition in 2002 of AT&T Broadband, which made Comcast by far the largest cable operator in the U.S.), for a relatively small amount of upfront cash. Comcast has long sought to become a major player in cable networks, but to date has been able to assemble an interesting, but mostly second tier group of networks (only one, E! has distribution to more than 90 million U.S. homes).

The deal moves Comcast into the elite group of top 5 cable channel owners, alongside Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and News Corp, with pro-forma 2010 annual revenues of $18.2 billion and operating cash flow of $3 billion. It also provides Comcast with a huge hedge on its traditional cable/broadband/voice businesses, as the JV, on a pro-forma basis would be 35% of Comcast's overall 2010 revenue of $52.1 billion, though importantly only 18% of its cash flow of $16.5 billion. On the investor call, Roberts emphasized that the deal should not be seen as the company diminishing its enthusiasm for the traditional cable business, but given the downward recent trends in fundamentals (vividly shown in slides from my "Comcast's Digital Transformation Continues" post 3 weeks ago), the conclusion that Comcast will be relying on its content business for future growth is inescapable.

2. Cable networks' paid business model/TV Everywhere - With Comcast's executives' platitudes about cable networks being "the best part of the media business," the fact that cable networks will contribute 80%+ of the JV's cash flow and the ongoing travails of the ad-supported broadcast TV business, the deal puts an exclamation mark on the primacy of the dual-revenue stream cable network model and Comcast's commitment to defending it (see "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks" for more on this.)

The deal can also be seen as cementing the paid business model for online access to cable networks' programs. Comcast is committed to having online distribution of TV programs emulate the cable model, where access is only given to those consumers who pay for a multichannel subscription service. Much as they may resist acknowledging it, Hollywood and the larger creative community must see Comcast as doing them a huge service by preserving the consumer-paid model, helping the video industry avoid the financial fate of newspapers, broadcasters and music. To be sure, some consumers will cut the cord and be satisfied with what they can get for free online, however it is unlikely to be a large number any time soon. As for aspiring over-the-top providers, they'll need to look outside the cable network ecosystem to generate competitive advantage.

3. Jeff Zucker - The current head of NBCU will migrate into the role of CEO of the JV, greatly expanding his portfolio and influence. Zucker has fought the good fight to preserve the NBC network's status, rotating in new creative heads, shifting Leno to primetime, backing Hulu, etc, but the reality, as he pointed out earlier this year, is that NBCU in his mind has long since become a cable programming company. I've been a Zucker fan since seeing him speak at NATPE in '08 when he laid out a sober assessment of the broadcast business. Through solid acquisitions and execution, Zucker has proved himself to be far more than the wonderboy of "Today" - he's going to fit in well at Comcast and be a great addition to its executive team.

Losers:

1. NBC broadcast network and the JV's 10 owned and operated stations - While Comcast executives said they "don't anticipate any need or desire to divest any businesses" and "take seriously their responsibility" to the iconic NBC brand, the reality is that with the broadcast business contributing just 10% of the JV's pro-forma annual cash flow, the network, and especially the stations, are not just in the back seat of the JV, they're in the third row. Though broadcast contributes 38% of the JV's pro-forma revenue and the deal is being struck near the bottom of the advertising recession, it's hard to see things improving much. Exceptions are the sports division (more on that below), the TV production arm and possibly the news division. The only thing saving the stations is retrans and Comcast's need to appease regulators to get the deal done and keep the regulators at bay thereafter.

2. Other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators - It's never good news when one of your main competitors owns the rights to a good chunk of the key ingredients in your product, yet that's the reality for all other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators. Sure Comcast must be disciplined about throwing its weight around too much, but if these distributors cried when NBCU (and other big network owners) forced bundling and drove fee increases, they haven't seen anything until Comcast runs the renewal processes. With 6 channels having 90+ million homes under agreement plus many others in the JV's portfolio, Comcast is in a very strong negotiating position. As the world moves online, the threat that Comcast eventually says to hell with other distributors and goes over the top itself (a scenario I described here), other distributors have even bigger problems ahead.

3. GE - Yes GE gets about $15 billion in cash and a graceful exit from NBCU, but 20 years since incongruously acquiring NBC, the question burns even brighter, what was GE doing in the entertainment business in the first place? Hasta la vista GE, time to focus on manufacturing turbines and unraveling the woes at GE Capital.

Unknowns:

1. Do content and distribution go together any better this time around - With the disastrous results of AOL-Time Warner still fresh in the mind, it's fair to ask whether vertical integration will work any better this time around. Sensitive to the issue and no doubt anticipating questions on it, Roberts said on the call that this is "a different time and a different deal" and, pointing to News Corp-DirecTV, noted that sometimes vertical integration does work. In addition, he highlighted that the deal's financials are not predicated on achieving any elusive synergies. Still, aside from the obvious benefits of getting bigger in cable networks, the primary reasons cited for Comcast pursuing the deal still have synergy at their core: a slide that clearly says that "Distribution Benefits Content" and "Content Benefits Distribution." As always there are plenty of opportunities to pursue in theory; the challenge is executing on them given the rampant conflicts and turf battles that inevitably ensue.

2. Hulu's future - the online aggregator was literally not mentioned once in the Comcast presentation and its logo only appears on just one of the 36 slides in the deck, yet its presence is hard to underestimate. Hulu is the embodiment of the free, ad-supported premium video model that Comcast is so fiercely committed to combating. So how does it fare when one of its controlling partners soon will be Comcast? In response to a question, Steve Burke said he sees "broadcast content going to Hulu" and that "Hulu and TV Everywhere are complementary products." He also tersely dismissed the much-rumored idea of a Hulu subscription offering. It's impossible to know what becomes of Hulu, but with such divergent interests among the owners, it wouldn't surprise me if Hulu is unwound at some point post closing.

3. ESPN's role - With the JV's NBC Sports assets, plus Comcast's Versus, regional sports networks and Golf Channel, the new JV is primed to play a bigger role in national sports. While Fox Sports and TNT have skirmished for high-profile rights deals with ESPN, the new JV has a much stronger hand to play. It's fair to wonder whether Comcast, which likely sends Disney a check for $70-80 million each month to carry ESPN to its 24 million subscribers, won't at some point say, "hey we can do some of this ourselves" and move to become a bona fide ESPN competitor. In fact, ESPN figures into a far larger Comcast vs. Disney story line in the media industry going forward. The two companies are incredibly dependent on each other, and yet are poised to become even tougher rivals. Expect to hear much more about this one.

4. Consumers - last but not least, what does the deal mean for consumers? Likely very little initially, but over time almost certainly an acceleration of digitally-delivered on-demand premium content - but at a price. Comcast has the best delivery infrastructure, with the JV, soon premier content assets and a persistent, if sometimes incomplete (as with VOD, for example) commitment to shape the digital future. I expect that will mean lots of experimentation with windows, multiplatform distribution and co-promotion across brands. Washington will scrutinize the deal thoroughly, but with continued public service assurances from Comcast, will eventually bless it. Then it will be vigilant for anything that smacks of anti-competitiveness. Consumers should buckle up, the next stage of their media experience is about to begin.

What do you think? Post a comment now.