As many of you know, in general I'm a big-time advocate of syndication as a strategy to permeate broadband video into all the "nooks and crannies" of the Internet. Many content providers have embraced this path, most recently Hulu and CBS (with its Audience Network). The purpose of syndication is to ensure that content reaches users where they currently visit, as opposed to requiring them to come to a new destination. That "destination-centric" approach was of course the way the traditional media industry worked.

But the NFL shows that syndication isn't right for everyone. In instances where there is genuinely unique content, it can make sense to pursue a pure destination strategy.

To illustrate, yesterday I missed part of the Patriots-Colts game. Though I did catch the end, I was eager to see the big plays. During the parts of the game I saw there were several promos for video available at NFL.com. So post-game I started pinging the NFL's site and it turned out that within about 1 1/2 hours of the end of the game, there was a 5:13 edited montage posted. It included most of the big plays and was available exclusively at NFL.com.

The NFL caused a kerfuffle earlier this year when it issued highly restrictive rules governing use of and monetization of its game video. But having had this experience, I think they made the right call. When you have must-see content and own all the rights, I think it is indeed better to pursue a destination strategy. You get all the views. You get all the monetization. You get all the site loyalty and cross-promotion opportunities. You get everyone linking to you. And you have the exclusive archive.

It's rare to own something as valuable as NFL game video. But if your video does have similar attributes, then I would encourage considering destination over syndication. If you go this route though, being highly proactive to serve users' interests, as the NFL is doing, is essential to success.