VideoNuze Posts

Late yesterday's announcement that Disney-ABC and ESPN would launch a number of ad-supported channels focused on short-form content was yet another meaningful step in broadband video's maturation process. Here are 6 reasons why I think the deal matters:

1. It validates YouTube as a must-have promotional and distribution partner

For many content providers it's long since become standard practice to distribute clips, and often full-length content, on YouTube. Yet aside from CBS, no broadcast TV network has seriously leveraged YouTube. That's been a key missed opportunity, as YouTube is simply too big to ignore. It's not just that YouTube notched 100M unique viewers in Feb. '09 according to comScore, it's that the site has achieved dramatically more market share momentum over the past 2 years than anyone else, increasing from 16.2% of all streams to 41% of all streams.

Increasingly, YouTube is not the 800 pound gorilla of the broadband video market; it's the 8,000 pound gorilla. Disney has acknowledged what has long been tacitly understood - as a video content provider, it's impossible to succeed fully without a YouTube relationship.

2. It creates a path for full-length Disney-ABC programming to appear on YouTube and elsewhere

While this deal only contemplates short-form video, and more than likely, mostly promotional clips, it almost certainly creates a path for full-length episodes to appear as well, as the partners build trust in each other and learn how to monetize. Full-length content is most likely to come from ABC, not ESPN (the release pointedly states no long-form content from ESPN's linear networks is included) as part of a newly expanded distribution approach.

For YouTube, which has been aggressively evolving from its UGC roots in its quest to generate revenues, the current clip deal alone is a big win; gaining distribution rights to full-length programs would be an even more significant step. Underscoring YouTube's flexibility, the current deal allows ESPN's player to be embedded, and for Disney-ABC to retain ad sales. YouTube's reported redesign, which places more emphasis on premium content, is yet another way it is getting its house in order for premium content deals.

3. It opens up a new opportunity for original short-form video to flourish

When you think about broadcast TV networks and studios, you immediately think of conventional long-form content. Yet all of these companies have been producing short-form content that either augments their broadcast programs, or is originally produced for broadband, as Disney's own Stage 9 is pursuing. The levels of success of this content have been all over the board.

With YouTube as a formal partner, Disney can aggressively leverage it as its primary distribution platform, gaining more direct access to this vast audience. Facing unremitting market pressures on many fronts, broadcast TV networks themselves need to reinvent their business models. Short-form original content married to strong distribution from YouTube would be a whole new strategic opportunity.

4. It puts pressure on Hulu and other aggregators

It's hard not to see YouTube's gain as Hulu's - and other aggregators' - loss. For sure nothing's exclusive here, and as PaidContent has reported, discussions about Disney distributing full-length programs on Hulu (as well as YouTube) are also underway. But the Disney deal underscores something important that differentiates YouTube from Hulu: YouTube is both a massive promotional vehicle and a potential long-form distributor, while Hulu is really only the latter.

YouTube's benefit derives from its first-mover status. Hulu has done a tremendous job building traffic and credibility in its short life, but it is still distant to YouTube in terms of reach. I continue to believe it is far easier for YouTube to evolve from its UGC roots to become also become a premium outlet than it is for Hulu - or anyone else - to ever compete with YouTube's reach.

5. It raises threat warning to incumbent service providers by another notch

It's also hard not to see the Disney deal moving YouTube's threat level to incumbent video service providers (cable/satellite/telco) up another notch. We discussed YouTube's importance to these companies at the Broadband Video Leadership Evening 2 weeks ago (video here), and I thought the panelists generally did not give YouTube much credit as it deserves.

I continue to believe that of all the various "over-the-top" threats to the current world-order, YouTube is the most meaningful ad-supported one. It has massive audience, a potent monetization engine in Google's AdWords, and with the Disney deal, increased credibility with premium content providers. Especially for younger audiences, the YouTube brand means a lot more than any incumbent service provider's. If I were at Comcast, Verizon or DirecTV, I'd be keeping very close tabs on YouTube's evolution.

6. It exposes the absurdity of the ongoing Viacom-Google litigation

Two weeks ago at the Media Summit I listened to Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman describe the status of his company's $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube. As he talked of mounds of data and reams of documentation being collected and reviewed, I found myself slumping in my chair, thinking about how well all the lawyers involved in the case must be doing, and yet how pointless it all seems.

The old adage "2 wrongs don't make a right" fits this situation perfectly. There is no question that in the past YouTube was lax about enforcing copyright protection on its site and cavalier about how it responded publicly to the concerns of rights-holders. But it has made much progress with its Content ID system and a good faith effort to become a trusted partner. All of this is evidenced by the fact that Disney wouldn't even be talking to YouTube, much less cutting a deal, if it didn't view YouTube as reformed. While the media world is moving on, adapting itself to the new rules of video creation, promotion and distribution, Viacom continues to waste resources and executive attention pursuing this case. To be sure, Viacom has been plenty active on the digital front, but it is long overdue that these companies figure out how to resolve their differences and instead focus on how to work together to generate profits for themselves, not their lawyers.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

This morning ExtendMedia is announcing that one of its board members, Tom MacIsaac has been named CEO. Tom is a long-time technology executive and venture capitalist. He and I got to know each other when he was running Lightningcast, one of the earliest broadband video advertising companies, which was sold to AOL in 2006. Tom went on to run strategy and M&A at AOL, where he led a $1B in acquisitions and more recently has been a venture partner at BlueRun Ventures and run Cove Street Partners, his own investment and advisory firm.

Tom's addition is a big step forward for the company, which has established a strong, yet relatively low-key position in the market. In my view that's been for two reasons: first, because Extend has emphasized pay media models, whereas a lot of the attention has been on ad-supported ones, and second, because while Extend has had a very strong team, the CEO role itself has been vacant for some time. For better or worse, one of the lessons I've learned over the years is that a high-profile, well-known CEO, who spends a significant portion of his/her time on externally-oriented visibility-building activities is a key success factor for young companies. I'm not a fan of the "rock star" CEO model, but I do believe in the "CEO as #1 company salesman" approach. Without such a person in place, a young company's whole team has to work that much harder to succeed.

Tom and I talked about his new role, ExtendMedia's opportunities and the broadband market in general. An edited transcript follows:

VN: Congratulations on joining ExtendMedia. What attracted you to the role?

TM: Extend is in an extremely exciting space as IP video changes the entire media and communications landscape. It has a great team with deep domain expertise, is very well-funded with great investors in Atlas Venture, Venrock and TVM Capital and has an enviable competitive position being the leading independent carrier-grade multi-screen video platform.

VN: Describe ExtendMedia's key product and technology differentiators and who its primary competitors are.

TM: We provide an enterprise class, multi-screen video platform that content owners and distributors use as a foundational asset in building video services. We manage video content across the lifecycle from ingest to monetization and across IPTV, web and mobile services in both ad-supported and pay media business models.

Our primary competitor is thePlatform, a division of Comcast. We don't really run into the Flash-based web video publishing companies like Brightcove, Ooyala, PermissionTV, etc. because we are usually deeper in the our customers' infrastructure trying to solve more complex problems that span the set-top box, PC and/or mobile devices, using multiple business models.

VN: ExtendMedia has always been strong with pay media business models, but has focused less on ad-supported ones. Given your background at Lightningcast, do you think that will change?

TM: Extend has always supported both ad-based streaming business models as well as pay media, but you're certainly right that we have been particularly strong in pay media. That said, we have new additional capabilities to help our customers in their ad-supported streaming media businesses in our next release and later this year will have yet another set of interesting enhancements targeted on maximizing video CPMs for our customers. We aren't going to get into the ad serving business but we are going to extend the boundaries of our product in that direction so that we can help the ad monetization engines we partner with leverage everything at our customers' and our disposal to maximize CPMs. We have some specific ideas on how we can really add value here.

VN: What kind of company is an ideal ExtendMedia customer?

TM: A telco, cable MSO or mobile carrier that is building a multi-screen video platform or a large diversified media company that has built several stove-piped digital video services over the last few years and is now trying to pull everything together on a single infrastructure.

VN: What areas of your background and experience do you think will be most valuable to the company?

TM: I've been in the technology business for 20 years, as a lawyer to tech companies, as a venture capitalist, as a board member, as a founder/entrepreneur and as an executive in large technology companies. I've sold three companies that I've run to public companies and acquired five venture-backed companies as an executive at AOL. That's a pretty good array of perspectives to bring to the table.

But my video advertising expertise in particular will definitely come into play at Extend. At Lightningcast we built the first advertising technology platform designed to monetize IP video and were at the table at the inception of some of the most successful video services out there - Comcast's Fancast and Hulu, for example. Despite all the activity and investment in the area, with possibly one or two exceptions, in the three years since I left Lightningcast no one's doing anything we didn't think of and do first.

VN: What do you think your top 2-3 priorities will be?

TM: We're on the right track, so it's all about execution.

VN: What's your perspective on the broadband video market today? And what would you say about incumbent service providers' evolving role in delivering broadband video services?

TM: I think the incumbent service providers are getting much smarter about IP video. They are leveraging their advantages much more effectively. When the web video phenomenon took off it was initially about user-generated content and giving the little guy content creator a direct-to-consumer path. The problem is that that hasn't paid off - the business model doesn't work yet - the dollars just aren't there.

The trend today is back to professional content and that plays to service providers' strengths. Initially it was all about advertising, and now the trend is toward dual offerings of both ad-supported and pay media business models, which is also good for incumbents. Many service providers, like our customers AT&T and Bell Canada for example, have set-top box, web and mobile sand boxes to play with and if folks like Extend can help them deliver video across and between those platforms and help manage the environments and entitlements from a single platform that will provide real value to their consumers and will drive loyalty. Comcast's On-Demand Online and Time Warner's TV Anywhere initiatives are good examples of service providers figuring out how to leverage their strengths in ways that benefit them, their content partners and consumers.

VN: You've been a venture capitalist, have raised venture financing and have successfully sold companies. What advice do you have for broadband video entrepreneurs given the state of the economy?

TM: The space is clearly overbuilt in many segments. There will be a lot of fallout. Investors are gun-shy. So do your research and make sure you have something unique. That said, it is going to be one of the most interesting and lucrative areas in all of technology over the next decade. So if you've got something truly innovative - go for it.

Yesterday's announcement by Visible Measures that it raised a $10M Series C round is further evidence that broadband video companies are still able to attract financing in this brutal economic climate. Here are other video sector investments I've tracked on VideoNuze in Q1 '09:

• RipCode ($12.5M) - 1/5/09
• SundaySky ($8M) - 1/6/09
• JibJab ($7.5M) - 1/08/09
• Motionbox ($6M) - 1/14/09
• Digitalsmiths (undisclosed from Cisco) - 1/26/09
• Fliqz ($6M) - 1/28/09
• Mixpo ($4M) - 2/2/09
• WhistleBox ($2.3M) - 2/9/09
• Tremor Media ($18M) - 2/19/09
• Auditude ($10.5M) - 3/11/09

Plus 7 others totaling over $80M in the Fall of '08, and no doubt others I've missed.

Since I initially profiled Visible Measures last June, and then followed-up with a post about their deal with MTV Networks last September, the company has continued to build momentum. Brian said that it's now powering video measurement and reporting for many of the largest web properties and dozens of advertisers. Revenue is about evenly split between the two categories.

Despite its progress, Brian explained the company has maintained a relatively low profile because neither it nor its customers have wanted to publicize their activities. Brian said there are a few competitors but none that he feels are that close to offering what Visible Measures has, and he'd like to keep it that way by being low-key about their wins. Skeptics might say "a publicity-shy early-stage company? Hmm...." but knowing Brian and his team as I do, I know that's been their approach since starting the company.

Brian added that the new round, led by Northgate Capital, a fund of funds that has also does some direct investing, "presented itself" without Visible Measures out looking for it. But Brian was quick to note that he considers the company extremely fortunate, given that he believes the current environment is even tougher than the post-bubble years in 2001-2003. Northgate is a limited partner in MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures, one of the company's two original investors, along with General Catalyst. The company has raised a total of $29M to date.

Visible Measures plans to use the new funds to accelerate product development and grow faster. Brian and Matt made repeated references to the mountain of tracking data the company is sitting on, and that many people are interested in accessing it (which I can believe). The intent is to further productize the data, though no specifics were offered.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is video of last Tuesday night's VideoNuze Broadband Video Leadership Evening. Many thanks to PermissionTV for shooting and editing....As a reminder, my takeaways from the discussion are here. Enjoy!

With the Broadband Video Leadership Evening now behind us, I'd like to turn your attention to three upcoming panels that offer lots of education value.

First, if you happen to be in Boston, or find yourself here next Monday night, March 30th, I'll be moderating a session for MassNetComms, entitled, "Is Convergence Finally Here? Web Video and TV Get Ready to Collide." We have a great group of local Boston-area companies and executives on the panel:

• Chris Gardner - Chief Marketing Officer, ExtendMedia
• Hilmi Ozguc - Former CEO and Co-Founder, Maven Networks
• Andy Roberts - VP of Advanced Technology, Azuki Systems
• Neil Sequeira - Managing Director, General Catalyst Partners

All of these guys are on the front lines of the broadband/mobile video evolution, and will provide tons of market insight. The event is from 5pm - 8pm including networking time. Registration is here.

Then on April 22nd, I'm pleased to be partnering with NAB to moderate 2 panels at the NABShow in Las Vegas. Access is complimentary by clicking here, and entering code "X104"

The first panel, at 11am is entitled, "How TV Broadcasters are Capitalizing on Broadband Video" with the following panelists:

• Bill Bradford - SVP, Chief Product Officer, Fox Digital Media Broadband Channels Group
• Colin Dixon - Practice Manager, Broadband Media, The Diffusion Group
• Suzanne Johnson - Senior Industry Marketing Manager, M&E, Akamai Technologies
• Clayton Thomson - VP, Video Strategy and Development, WorldNow

The second panel, at 3pm, is on one my favorite topics, "How Syndication is Powering the Broadband Video Era," with the following panelists:

• Doug Knopper - Co-CEO and Co-Founder, FreeWheel
• Steven Kydd - EVP, Demand Studios, Demand Media
• Chase Norlin, CEO, Pixsy
• Steve Rosenbaum - Founder and CEO, Magnify.net
• Brian Steel - President and CEO, VoloMedia

I hope you're able to join us, as both panels are sure to provide lots of great information. The panels will be in the "Content Theater" adjacent to the "Content/Commerce Pavilion" where many industry companies will be exhibiting (e.g. Brightcove, Limelight, Electronic Arts, Akamai, MGM, etc.) Exhibiting opportunities are still available, ping me if you're interested. Hope to see you there!

Access is complimentary by clicking here, and entering code "X104"

Blockbuster and TiVo have announced that Blockbuster OnDemand movies will be available on TiVo devices. Though I'm all for creating more choice for viewers to gain access to the content they seek, in this case I don't see the deal creating a ton of new value in the market, as it comes 6 months after Netflix and TiVo announced that Netflix's Watch Instantly service would be available on TiVo devices and nearly 2 years after Amazon and TiVo made Amazon's Unbox titles available for purchase and download to TiVo users. It looks like the main differentiator here is that Blockbuster will begin selling TiVos in their network of physical stores.

The deal underscores the flurry of partnership activity now underway (which I think will accelerate) between aggregators/content providers and companies with some kind of device enabling broadband access to TVs. I believe the key to these deals actually succeeding rests on 2 main factors: the content offering some new consumer value (selection, price, convenience, exclusivity, etc.) and the access device gaining a sufficiently large footprint. Absent both of these, the new deals will likely find only limited success.

Consumers now have no shortage of options to download or stream movies, meaning that announcements along the lines of Blockbuster-TiVo break little new ground. To me, a far more fertile area to create new consumer value is offering online access to cable networks' full-length programs. As I survey the landscape of how premium quality video content has or has not moved online, this is the category that has made the least progress so far. That's one of the reasons I think the recent Comcast/Time Warner Cable plans are so exciting.

With these plans in the works, but no timetables yet announced, non-cable operators need to be thinking about how they too can gain select distribution rights. There's still a lot of new consumer value to be created in this space. Given lucrative existing affiliate deals between cable networks and cable/satellite/telco operators, I admit this won't be easy. However, Hulu's access to Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" does prove it's possible.

We're well into the phase where premium video content is delivered to TVs via broadband. Those that bring distinctive content to large numbers of consumers as easily as possible will be the winners.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Everywhere I look there are companies doing innovative, clever things to bring broadband video to the TV and to mobile devices.

Yesterday brought another great example, from Vuze, a company with roots as a BitTorrent client that has evolved to an aggregator of hi-def niche broadband video using its desktop application for discovery, download and playback. Vuze announced an update that enables users to drag-and-drop downloaded videos for playback on non-PC devices such as Xbox, PS3 and - via an integration with iTunes - to the iPhone, Apple TV and iPods. It's a pretty cool extension of the Vuze client experience and I spoke with Vuze's CEO Gilles BianRosa and Sr. Director of Marketing Chris Thun to learn more.

Without getting too far into the technical details, what Vuze has done is capitalized on hooks that have existed in these various devices, making videos downloaded via Vuze visible in these devices' interfaces. As Gilles explained it, these hooks have been available for a while, but only the super-technical would have invested the time and effort to benefit from them.

The connections to Xbox (installed base of 30M) and PS3 (installed base of 23M) are quite complimentary to Vuze, which has 10M unique visitors/mo and about 50M downloads to date, because its content library is heavily skewed toward SciFi, animation, games and comedy (all HD btw) along with its user base. In other words, there's an affinity audience who will immediately benefit from being able to watch Vuze's content on their big screens and on-the-go. In fact, in a recent survey of its users for how they'd want to connect their PCs to TV and mobile, Vuze got 30K responses with a strong emphasis on gaming and Apple devices.

In prior conversations with Gilles I've raised a concern about the viability of Vuze's (or anyone's) client download model given the ever-increasing quality of browser-based streaming. But these integrations do shed new light on the value proposition of having a desktop presence. With its update, Vuze actually goes one step further by automatically transcoding downloaded videos into the format appropriate for the target device, often in real-time, thus eliminating playback issues.

Gilles noted that this is a beta release however, and that one current limitation is that ads cannot be passed through. This is a not insignificant gap for an ad-supported site. Vuze hopes to have ads up and running within a month or so. It also has its eye on integrating with additional devices. My bet is that TiVo is next up given that TiVo founder Mike Ramsey sits on Vuze's board.

For now Vuze's content is relatively nichey and Gilles concedes that despite ongoing negotiations with major studios and TV networks, they're still getting comfortable with Vuze's P2P platform. Given the crowded video aggregator space, Vuze's ongoing challenge is to bolster its content library to broaden its appeal.

But Vuze's new update, sure to mimicked by others, which comes on top of Netflix reporting 1M Watch Instantly users connecting to their Xboxes and consuming 1.5 billion in the first 2 months of its availability, Boxee's multiple integrations and other PC-to-TV convergence initiatives underway, shows the huge pent-up interest users have in watching broadband video on their TVs. The genie is way out of the bottle and content providers need to begin adapting to the coming landscape where video flows between PC, TV and mobile, offering unprecedented convenience to users.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Watching President Obama's appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on NBC.com over the weekend was a classic reminder of how so many sites miss out on so much of their total broadband video advertising opportunity.

The interview, which lasts over 24 minutes, carried just one 15 second pre-roll ad, (for Subway, when I watched it) along with a companion banner. Twice during the interview, Leno interrupted the President to pause for a TV commercial break, but when he did so, there was no mid-roll ad inserted by NBC.com. There was also no post-roll ad appended, just a promo graphic for the show itself.

If you figure there were at least 4 potential 15 second avails (1 pre-roll, 1 post-roll and 2 mid-rolls), but only the pre-roll was filled, it means that NBC.com missed out on 75% of the potential ad revenue that each full stream viewer would have generated. In reality the percentage is probably even higher because the mid-rolls could likely be 30 seconds or more.

That degree of under-monetization is pretty disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that broadband video streams become overwhelmed with ads, which would surely cause a consumer backlash. But I do believe that providers of premium content like NBC.com (and there are few videos more premium than the first time ever a U.S. President has appeared on the "Tonight Show") must recognize and monetize their opportunities effectively. There are at least three reasons why:

First, and most obviously, broadcast networks' poor recent financial performance demands that they seize every available money-making opportunity. Not doing so is just bad business. How many businesses succeed long-term when they don't execute on all chances to generate revenue?

Second, NBC.com and other premium video providers are setting a bad precedent for consumers' expectations. If I can watch 24 minutes of Leno with just one 15 second ad, then if and when NBC.com tries to increase the ad load, I'm inevitably going to be displeased. In short, NBC is devaluing its own content by not serving notice to broadband viewers NOW, that a "price" - in the form of watching ads - must be paid for access.

Third, and tying together the first two reasons, is that it is urgent that networks learn how to achieve economic parity between programs viewed via broadband delivery vs. on-air delivery.

That's because the era of broadband-connected TVs has already begun, and is poised to gain further steam as new devices and connected TVs proliferate.

As this happens, online viewing will no longer be merely supplemental for many viewers to on-air, as it often (thought not exclusively) is today. Rather it will be substitutive. That means viewers will watch Leno via broadband on their TVs, instead of via cable/satellite/telco or over-the-air delivery. Just as "Tonight" would never go 24 minutes on-air without an ad pod (which consists of more than one just 15 second ad btw); NBC.com should never let this happen online. Doing so will cause major damage to its future P&L.

In his Media Summit interview last week, NBCU's Jeff Zucker said the company has already evolved from "digital pennies" to "digital dimes." Yet Hulu's recent stiff-arming of Boxee underscores the reality that networks are nowhere close to economic parity between online and on-air delivery of their programs today. Neither consumers nor technology are standing still waiting for them to catch up. Behaviors, expectations and future economics are being formed right now.

NBC.com - and others - need to be mindful of this and ensure that when they put their premium video online they're fully capitalizing on their ad opportunities. If they don't, then 5 years from now Mr. Zucker will wind up like so many of today's newspaper CEOs - lamenting, not praising, his company's "digital dimes," long after his "analog dollars" have evaporated.

What do you think? Post a comment now.