Posts for 'Broadcasters'

Hearst-Argyle Television will use KickApps' social media/video platform to power its stations' new "u local" initiative according to an announcement this morning.

Hearst-Argyle's goal is to allow local residents to discuss news topics important to their community and to upload their own photos and videos. The first u local area was launched in Dec '08 by WMUR in Manchester, New Hampshire and according to Hearst-Argyle generated tens of thousands of submissions in the first week alone. The other stations in Hearst-Argyle's portfolio will roll out u local in the coming months. For KickApps, the deal follows one with WorldNow, announced last year to drive social media into WorldNow-powered sites.

The question begs: can a local TV station become a social media hub for its local residents? In the Facebook-MySpace-Twitter-YouTube age, we seem to be on the cusp of social media saturation. Yet despite all these engagement opportunities, focused local social media initiatives could well find a place. People are extremely passionate about their local communities and the social bonds are very tight. Sharing common experiences, concerns and passions online with local neighbors seems like an updated version of what's been happening over backyard fences since the beginning of time.

The key is execution, not just in the user experience, but in the positioning of what the local broadcaster's brand will stand for. Striving to be a social media hub is a new positioning, and to incent viewer behavior, Hearst-Argyle will need to embrace the capability, heavily promote it and then manage it so it's a safe, well-lit area of its sites.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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)

Microsoft's Silverlight notched another high-profile win with yesterday's announcement by CBS Sports and the NCAA that CBSSports.com's March Madness on Demand (MMOD) will offer a high definition option using powered by Silverlight.

Over the past few years MMOD has become the signature online video sports event, with CBSSports.com successfully converting it in 2006 from a paid, subscription based model to one fully supported by ads. The payoff has been evident: in '08 MMOD had 4.8 million unique visitors (a 164% increase over '07) who watched 5 million hours of live video (an 81% increase over '07).

CBSSports.com is building on its MMOD success by offering the higher quality option via Silverlight this year. Users who download the plug-in will get 1.5 mbps streams vs. the standard player's 550 kbps. Once again, all 63 games, from the first round through the championship game will be available. For office workers unable to watch on TV, online distribution continues to be a compelling value.

With MMOD, Microsoft is continuing to push Silverlight into high-profile sports events. Recall that Silverlight's inaugural run, supporting the 2008 Summer Olympics, was executed superbly. It showcased new features like multiple viewing windows and instant rewind/fast-forward. MMOD promises yet another premier opportunity for Silverlight to show its stuff.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Want to get your head spinning? Try making sense of the various research data that keeps spilling out about current TV consumption, and how it is being impacted by broadband video's rising popularity.

For those who think TV is largely unaffected, consider this: Last month, Nielsen reported that the average person in the U.S. watched approximately 142 hours of TV a month, which was 5 hours more than last year. Though Nielsen also said that watching video online and watching video on a mobile phone also clocked in new records at 2 hours, 31 minutes per month and 3 hours, 37 minutes per month, respectively (though, more mobile video use than online video use? That seems odd to me...).

These positive TV numbers echo what Multichannel News reported CBS research head David Poltrack recently shared: that even though 75% of TV viewers have now watched some video online, TV viewing in all demographics have gone up 8% since 2000. So maybe TV viewing isn't being hurt much.

But on the flip side is evidence that, particularly among young people, TV has already been hurt by broadband and other alternatives. Just yesterday Adweek reported upcoming numbers from Deloitte showing that viewing among 14 to 25-year-olds is now down to 10.5 hours per week, while their time spent watching video on computers continues to rise. These numbers build on research from IBM released last month that among the 76% of people they surveyed, 15% said they watched "slightly less" TV and 36% watch "significantly less" TV (note this was a 6 country study). There are other reports which have showed similar trends.

What should one conclude? My take is that broadband and other outlets are certainly having an impact among younger people, where the digital lifestyle is most pervasive. However, there are still a whole lot of people living a mainly analog lifestyle. While that provides the TV industry some short-term comfort, the long-term trends almost certainly favor less TV viewing.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

To get a sense of how grim these last two weeks have been in the local broadcast TV industry, do a quick scan of the "Stations" section of TVNewsday, one of my favorite aggregators of broadcast-related news. Layoffs are rampant as stations are buffeted by the economic slowdown, which has only added to their long list of woes, topped by declining network ratings, massive audience fragmentation and steady migration to online/DVR viewing.

I've long thought that local broadcasters are among the most vulnerable industries in the digital era, as broadband has created many similar challenges as the Internet itself created for their local newspaper brethren. Back in April I wrote in "Broadband, Broadcast Converge at NAB" that local broadcasters needed to reimagine their businesses to capture opportunities broadband offers beyond their local geographies. The urgency needle is now in the red zone. This industry's fundamentals have permanently changed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The corporate seismograph measuring activity coming out of NBCU lately has shot off the charts.

NBCU's tectonic moves have included: the "mini-merger" of NBC Entertainment and Universal Media Studios, together with the ouster of Katherine Pope, UMS's president and others; ongoing job cuts as part of its previously-stated plan to reduce its workforce by 3% or 500 positions, a move that itself was part of a larger $500M expense reduction program; and the planned shift of Jay Leno to the 10pm slot, the first-time ever a "stripped" program has moved to prime-time. And one can bet the changes are far from over.

The moves indicate that NBCU's president and CEO Jeff Zucker has concluded not just that the traditional rules of the media game are over for good, but that nothing short of a radical transformation of NBCU's business will ensure its future survival.

I don't know Zucker or the executives he's shuffling around so I'm not in a position to say whether the personnel actions he's taking are the right ones specifically. But what I can say fairly is this: Zucker's unvarnished realism and willingness to make wrenching organizational changes should be viewed as a model for other industry CEOs to follow.

I was impressed with Zucker back in January '08, upon listening to his keynote at NATPE. I wrote in "Zucker Preparing NBC for Broadband Era" that I appreciated him saying "technology is transforming every part of our business" and that the "historic economic model supporting broadcast TV is wounded." Most famously, he said that the "number one challenge for everyone in this industry is...not trading analog dollars for digital pennies." I concluded that Zucker "got it."

In short, leaders see the world as it is. Not as it used to be. Not as they wish it could be. And not as they manufacture it to be so that in the short term they can maximize their financial reward. Zucker's ability to be a clear-eyed realist, and his willingness to take the actions required for future success, are critical to tens of thousands of NBCU employees and their families, the vast web of suppliers reliant on the company's continued good health and myriad investors whose confidence is the lifeblood of NBCU's parent company GE.

From my parochial position, broadband is at the top of the list of the company's challenges. Broadband and on-demand digital distribution, together with DVRs and fragmenting consumer behaviors strike at the core of the broadcast industry's longstanding success formula. The recent economic crisis and accompanying ad spending slowdown have simply accelerated their importance.

On the broadband front, so far NBC has responded admirably. By co-founding Hulu as its broadband spear tip, hiring top-notch executives for it, funding it generously and providing it ample autonomy, NBC has given Hulu the room to get off to a strong start. Though I have my concerns with how Hulu's monetizing its streams and worry about its affect on NBC's P&L, I'm hopeful that the Hulu team understands the big picture. In '09 I expect there will be a shakeout among the online aggregators of premium-quality video but I'm confident Hulu will be among those left standing.

In the meantime, I don't envy Jeff Zucker, or any of the other big media CEOs who are tasked with navigating their proud organizations into an unfamiliar and deeply unsettling new era. Personally I wouldn't have the stomach for it. But, based on what I've seen to date, if I were an NBCU stakeholder, I'd be glad that Zucker is at the helm.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Welcome to December and to the home stretch of 2008. Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in November:

Cable programming's online distribution narrows - Last month I concluded that cable programmers (e.g. Discovery, MTV, Lifetime) are going to become much more sparing when it comes to distributing their full programs online. As noted in "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks," after hearing from industry executives at the CTAM Summit and on the Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast, it has become apparent that the industry is going to defend its traditional multichannel video subscription model from broadband and new "over-the-top" incursions.

Both programmers and operators have a lot vested in this successful model, and are surely wise to see it last as long as possible. Subscription and affiliate fees are particularly precious in this economy, as the WSJ wrote on Saturday. Still, many VideoNuze readers pointed out the music industry's folly in trying to maintain its business model, only to see it turned upside down. Many predicted the cable industry is doomed to follow suit. Truth-be-told though, as I wrote in "Comcast: A Company Transformed," major cable operators are already far more diversified than they used to be. Broadband, phone and digital TV (+ add-ons like DVR, HD and VOD) have created huge new revenue streams. Surging broadband video consumption only helps them, even as "cord-cutting" looms down the road.

Netflix moves to first ranks of cord-cutting catalysts - Three posts in November highlighted the significant role that Netflix is poised to play in moving premium programming to broadband distribution. Most recently, in "New Xbox Experience with Netflix Watch Instantly: A 'Wow' Moment," I shared early reactions from a VideoNuze reader (echoed by many others) to receiving a subset of Netflix's catalog through Xbox's recently upgraded interface. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings highlighted the increasing importance of game devices in bridging broadband to the TV in his keynote at NewTeeVee Live this month (recapped here).

Still, Netflix lacks the rights to deliver many movies online, a problem unlikely to be rectified any time soon given Hollywood's stringent windowing approach. As such, in "Netflix Should be Aggressively Pursuing Broadcast Networks for Watch Instantly Service," I offered my $.02 of advice to the company that it should build on its recent deal with CBS to blow out its online library of network programs. In this ad-challenged environment, I believe networks would welcome the opportunity. Hit TV programs would help drive device sales, which is crucial for building WI's adoption. While the Roku box is a modest $99, other alternatives are still pricey, though becoming cheaper (the Samsung BD-P2500 Blu-ray player is down $100, now available at $300, I spotted the LG BD300 over the weekend for $245). A robust Netflix online package would be poised to draw subscribers away from today's cable model.

Lousy economy still looms large - Wherever you go, there it is: the lousy economy. Though the market staged a nice little rebound over the last 5 days, things are still fragile. Across the industry broadband companies are doing layoffs. This is only the most obvious of the side effects of the economic downturn. Another, more subtle one could be downward price pressure. As I wrote in "Deflation's Risks to the Broadband Video Ecosystem," economists are now growing concerned that the credit crunch could lead to collapsing prices and profits across the economy. I noted that such an occurrence would be particularly damaging for the broadband industry, where business models are still nascent, so ROIs and spending are softer.

Here's to hoping for some good economic news in December...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

First, apologies for those of you getting sick of me talking about the cable TV industry and broadband video; I promise this will be my last one for a while.

After attending the CTAM Summit the last couple of days, moderating two panels, attending several others and having numerous hallway chats, I've reached a conclusion: the cable industry - including operators and networks - is closing ranks to defend its traditional business model from disruptive, broadband-centric industry outsiders.

Before I explain what I mean by this and why this is happening, it's critical to understand that the cable business model, in which large operators (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.) pay monthly carriage or affiliate fees to programmers (e.g. Discovery, MTV, HGTV, etc.) and then bundle these channels into multichannel packages that you and I subscribe to is one of the most successful economic formulations of all time. The cable model has proved incredibly durable through both good times and bad. In short, cable has had a good thing going for a long, long time and industry participants are indeed wise to defend it, if they can.

It's also important to know that the industry is very well ordered and as consolidation has winnowed its ranks to about half a dozen big operators and network owners, the stakes to maintain the status quo have become ever higher. All the executives at the top of these companies have been in and around the industry for years and have close personal and professional ties. There's a high degree of transparency, with key metrics like cash flow, distribution footprint, ratings and even affiliate fees all commonly understood.

One last thing that's worth understanding is that the cable industry has very strong survival instincts, or as a long-time executive is fond of saying, "Real cable people (i.e. not recent interlopers from technology, CPG or online companies that have joined the industry) were raised in caves by wolves." The fact is that the industry started humbly and experienced many very shaky moments. Yet it has managed to survive and continually re-invent itself (for those who want to know more, I refer you to "Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable Business" by Mark Robichaux, still the best book on the industry's history that I've read).

All of that brings us to broadband and its potential impact on the cable model. As I've said many times, broadband's openness makes it the single most disruptive influence on the traditional video distribution value chain. Principally that means that by new players going "over the top" of cable - using its broadband pipes to reach directly into the home - cable's model is at serious risk of breaking down, once and for all.

The cable industry now gets this, and I believe has closed ranks to frown heavily on the idea of cable programming, which operators pay those monthly affiliate fees for, showing up for free on the web, or worse in online aggregators' (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, Veoh, etc.) sites. The message is loud and clear to programmers: you'll be jeopardizing those monthly affiliate fees come renewal time if your crown jewels leak out; worse, you'll be subverting the entire cable business model.

And this message isn't being delivered just by cable operators such as Peter Stern from Time Warner who said on my Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast panel that "a move to online distribution by cable networks would directly undermine the affiliate fees that are critical to creating great content." It's also coming from the likes of Discovery CEO David Zaslav who said on a panel yesterday that "there's no economic value from online distribution," and that "great brands like Discovery's must not be undervalued by making full programs available for free online."

The issue is, as a practical matter, can the industry really control all this? If there's zero online distribution, then as Fancast's impressive new head, Karin Gilford said on my panel yesterday, "pressure builds up and another channel inevitably opens" (read that as The Piracy Channel). The problem is that if, for example, an operator does put programs up on its own site - as Fancast is doing - they're available to ALL the site's visitors, not just existing cable subscribers, unless other controls are put in place like passwords, IP address authentication, geo-targeting, etc. But these are confusing and cumbersome to users whose expectations are increasingly being set by broadcasters who are making their primetime programs seamlessly available to all comers.

So what does this closing ranks suggest? Going forward, I think we'll still see cable networks putting up plenty of clips and B-roll video from their programs, maybe the occasional online premiere, some made-for-the-web stuff, paid program downloads (iTunes, etc.) and promotional/community building contests, as Deanna Brown from Scripps described with "Rate My Space" or Zaslav discussed with "MythBusters."

But when it comes to full cable network programs going online, I think that spigot's going to dry up. That has implications for online aggregators like Hulu, who will continue to have big holes in their libraries until they're ready to pay up for these carriage rights. And it also means that broadband-to-the-TV plays are also going to be hampered by subpar lineups unless these companies too are willing to pay for cable programming.

For my part, there are just too many moving parts for me to call this one just yet.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Over the past several months Netflix has made a series of announcements related to its "Watch Instantly" feature. On the device side, there are new partnerships with TiVo (for Series 3, HD and HD XL models), Microsoft Silverlight (for Mac viewing), Samsung (for Blu-ray players), LG (for Blu-ray players), Xbox 360 and of course Roku. All allow Netflix Watch Instantly content to be delivered directly to users' TVs. Meanwhile on the content side, there have been deals with Starz, CBS and Disney Channel, with more no doubt yet to come.

Our household has been an enthusiastic subscriber to Netflix for years and I welcome the commitment that Netflix appears to be making to Watch Instantly. However, as I pointed out in May, in "Online Movie Delivery Advances, Big Hurdles Still Loom," Watch Instantly is hobbled by its limited catalog, now totaling around 12,000 titles, just 10% of Netflix's total catalog, even after including the recently added Starz titles.

The fundamental problem Netflix is bumping up against in building out Watch Instantly's film catalog is Hollywood's well-established windowing process. Studios have wisely and methodically maximized their films' lifetime financial value by doling out the rights to air them to a series of distribution outlets. These rights unfold in a carefully calibrated timeline and have become wrapped up in a thick layer of contractual agreements extending to all parties in the value chain. It is a system that has served all constituencies well, generating billions of dollars of value. It is also unlikely to change in any material way any time soon.

As such, Netflix, the "world's largest online movie rental service," as it calls itself, is increasingly discordant. On the one hand, growing the Watch Instantly service is crucial to Netflix's long term success in the digital/broadband era but on the other, it doesn't have the ability to offer a competitive catalog that meets consumers' online delivery expectations. So what to do?

My recommendation is for Netflix to incorporate the delivery of TV programming, via Watch Instantly, into its core value proposition. Specifically, Netflix should be making an all-out effort (if it is not already doing so) to secure next-day rights to deliver all prime-time broadcast network programs to its subscribers.

This strategy provides Netflix with many clear benefits and positions it well for long-term success. First, in these tight economic times, it dramatically expands the value of the Watch Instantly feature, turning it into both a bona fide subscriber retention tool to battle churn as well as a high-profile subscriber acquisition lever (not to mention an exciting pull-through offer big box retailers could use in their Sunday circulars to generate traffic).

Second, it is a clever competitive strike against four primary alternative ways whereby consumers can watch network programs on demand: cable-based VOD, a la carte paid downloads at iTunes/Amazon/others, free online aggregators like Hulu/Fancast/others and DVRs (though note the TiVo deal addresses this last option).

A comprehensive Netflix prime-time catalog compares well with each alternative. Against cable VOD it offers familiar, superior navigation plus a viable revenue stream for broadcasters while cable tries to get Canoe ready; against paid downloads, the obvious advantage of being a value-add service; against online aggregators, commercial free delivery; and against DVRs, the lack of consumer hardware purchases and persistent recording space limitations.

All of this should make Netflix a very appealing partner for the broadcast networks. They are getting hammered by ad-skipping, audience fragmentation, quality programming migrating to cable and an inferior single revenue source business model. The prospect of Netflix offering payments for their programs should be well-received. There may be concerns about programs' long term syndication value and also the potential enablement of a new gatekeeper. In better times these might be deal-killers; in this climate they shouldn't be.

Finally, there's the big potential long-term Netflix prize: if it can stitch together a large-scale network of compatible devices for Watch Instantly distribution, it could create a viable "over-the-top" alternative to today's multichannel subscription services (cable/telco/satellite). As I described in my recent "Cord Cutters" post, to really succeed, Netflix would have to eventually incorporate cable network programming. But if its reach is wide and its economics sound, that's within the realm of possibility as well.

But those are long-term issues. For now, while the recent CBS deal is a great start, Netflix should be working double-time to build out a full library of broadcast programs. It would dramatically improve Watch Instantly's appeal and value, while positioning Netflix well for the broadband era.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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.

Even before the recent economic crisis, broadcast networks were facing unprecedented challenges. An article in yesterday's WSJ, "Network Audience Keep Eroding" caught my attention as it highlighted the current season's viewership shortfalls. The article pointed out that 4 of the 5 major broadcasters have suffered double-digit percentage declines in same day prime-time viewing among 18-49 year-olds as compared with a year ago.

To me, the overarching thematic challenge that broadcasters now face is how to successfully address the core 18-49 year-old audience. This group is important not only for traditional reasons relating to its appeal to advertisers, but also because it represents the leading edge of audience behaviors that will only accelerate in the future.

So what should broadcasters be doing? Here are three suggestions:

Broaden definition of programming and brand promise

Broadcasters must re-imagine what constitutes compelling visual entertainment. The traditional paradigm of 30 and 60 minute time blocks, scripted to accommodate pre-set advertising pods and programmed sequentially on specified evenings is increasingly meaningless in an on-demand world. Programming should be looked at as anything that entertains the audience, on their terms, period. This is particularly relevant for 18-49 year-olds who arguably have the most entertainment alternatives.

Though it breaks with traditional success formulas, network executives should be excited by this, as it loosens creative constrictions. Further, it offers up the opportunity to expand a network's "brand promise" to become positioned as a "wherever, however, whenever entertainment provider." Going forward networks should view themselves as being in the entertainment business, not just the TV business. This would also help bring advertisers along, as they too are suffering from diminished consumer access.

Embrace new distribution platforms, and help drive new development

In the above vein, broadcasters must fully embrace new distribution platforms like broadband, mobile, VOD and DVR. Creating programming specifically for these platforms, suited for each one's strengths and weaknesses is essential. Simply repurposing TV shows for these platforms is insufficient to meet 18-49 year-olds' entertainment appetites.

Further, broadcasters need to take a leadership role in how these new platforms evolve. It is not enough to accept what technology and service providers choose to prioritize and offer. Instead broadcasters must have their own roadmaps and requirements, and work actively to see that their needs are met. This is a new role for broadcasters and they need to learn to embrace it.

Focus on experience, not just ratings

Broadcasters need to look at their shows as the hub of an ongoing and immersive entertainment experience, not just a once per week interaction to be measured in ratings points. A network's "customer relationship" is repeatedly put on hiatus between episodes (and worse, between seasons!), thus undermining the viewer's loyalty and engagement. A friend recently lamented to me that NBC is offering just 14 new episodes of "The Office" this season. Realistically, what kind of customer relationship should NBC expect to have when so many other weeks of the year pass without offering a product to its customers?

Broadcasters have incredibly compelling assets that can be the basis for deeper audience engagement and experiences. Mining all the various interactive tools and capabilities which 18-49 year-olds already regularly engage with are crucial to bonding with audiences and creating excitement and ongoing loyalty. To be sure, some of this is already happening, but in perusing the networks' web sites it's obvious there's a lot more that can be done.

Final Thoughts

Broadcasters are getting squeezed by audience fragmentation, new technologies and the shift to on-demand consumption. The 18-49 year-old cohort is ground zero for networks to maintain their future health. What the networks choose to do, and how well they succeed at it is surely a business school case study in the making.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Last week Apple announced that it has sold 200 million TV episodes to date and also that all four of the major broadcast networks are now providing HD versions of their prime-time shows. These periodic updates are always welcome as Apple is notoriously parsimonious with its iTunes numbers, making it hard for analysts to get a real handle on how the store is doing.

This latest total got me to thinking about the relative sizes of online aggregators of prime-time TV shows. Below I've made some calculations comparing the revenues of iTunes, the largest paid download store, with the revenues of Hulu, likely the largest free, ad-supported streaming site for TV programs. The conclusion is clear: for now at least, iTunes is a far larger business, demonstrating that despite the obvious appeal of free video, a segment of consumers are still plenty willing to buy and collect individual episodes.

iTunes calculations

I estimate iTunes is currently generating about 10 million TV program downloads/month. TV program downloads officially began just about 3 years ago with ABC's initial iTunes partnership. There's obviously been a ramp over the years, so if you assume 50% of the volume came in the first 3 years combined, and 50% in the 10 months of '08 alone, that produces 100 million TV program downloads year to date or about 10 million downloads/month. (that actually synchs with the fact that Apple last disclosed 150 million total TV program downloads in May, '08, 5 months ago).

To grossly simplify, let's say the download price is $2/episode. I know that doesn't take account of the $3 HD downloads iTunes launched last month (of which it says it sold a million) or the varying prices of international downloads. At $2/episode iTunes does $20 million/month in gross download revenues from TV programs.

Hulu calculations

Conclusions

Though the above numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, they suggest there's a huge gap in TV program-related revenues between iTunes and Hulu. Now of course iTunes has been around a lot longer than Hulu, and of course it benefits from the massive popularity of the iPod, and more recently the iPhone. We also can't forget there are lots of places to watch free TV episodes online while there are comparably fewer online stores to purchase and download high-quality episodes. So it might actually be fairer to compare the monthly revenues of ALL the online aggregators (and the networks' own sites too) to iTunes to get a clearer comparison.

Still, I think comparing iTunes and Hulu does show how nascent the streaming TV market is today. In the long-run, I'm a believer that free, ad-supported trumps a la carte paid downloading. But for now, when it comes to real revenues - which for many is the only metric that really matters - it's no contest.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

In the two years since Google acquired YouTube, I've often wondered about two things: (1) was there really a strategic rationale behind the deal? and, (2) if there was indeed a strategic rationale, when might we see it borne out in actual business initiatives?

For sure YouTube's organic growth has continued unabated during these two years and from a traffic perspective, it is more dominant now than ever. Yet the dearth of initiatives that are tangibly strategic (or meaningfully revenue-producing for that matter) to Google, or that even minimally strengthen either company's underlying value proposition, has led me to conclude that the deal had more to do with the Google guys wanting to acquire YouTube for its "coolness" factor - simply because they could - than anything else.

I don't mean to sound unfair to the YouTubers who work diligently to make YouTube an incredible experience, which of course it truly is. Yet it is hard to deny the obvious: exactly what has YouTube done differently during the last two years that it couldn't have done had it remained independent (and saying "afforded its monthly CDN bills" doesn't count!), and how exactly have either YouTube or Google benefited from being together during this time?

However, I think things are finally changing. In fact, with little fanfare or proactive PR, Google at last seems to be strategically flexing YouTube's muscles. While some of what they're doing is experimental, other moves have significant market potential and could be highly disruptive to other broadband oriented media and technology companies.

At the top of my "highest potential" list is Google Content Network, especially as it's envisioned as "spokes" tied to YouTube's "hub." I wrote at length about GCN a month ago in "Google Content Network Has Lots of Potential, Implications" so I won't rehash my arguments here. But note yesterday's news about "Poptub" as the second video series to get the GCN/YouTube treatment; I expect a steady drumbeat of these types of deals in the months to come. GCN has the potential to become a key driver of the Syndicated Video Economy.

Another high-potential activity is YouTube's plan to start streaming full episodes. The first deal with CBS is no doubt a signal of many more to come. Full episode streaming is strategic on a number of levels. It enhances YouTube's and Google's access to big brands' ad dollars. While Google has thrived in the self-service, "long tail of advertising" world, it needs more cred among big brands, especially as it pursues its Google TV initiative (see latest deal with NBCU) and other eventual broadband-to-the-TV activities. Full episodes are also a winner from a user standpoint: a unified video experience across premium, indie, long tail and UGC video is very compelling and also squeezes competitors with narrower offerings.

Yet another high-potential activity is the implementation of search ads on YouTube. When the deal was originally done, my first reaction was to think it was a no-brainer to simply start displaying ads against every YouTube search (example - you search for "West Wing" in YouTube and the results page shows an ad to buy the DVD set). If there's one thing Google knows cold, it's the search ad business. YouTube searches represent billions of incremental opportunities each year to extend its core franchise.

Lastly - and this is admittedly more of a "Will Richmond thing" than anything Google or YouTube are yet pursuing: I think it's practically inevitable that the company will start investing in independent broadband video companies at some point. I touched on this in yesterday's piece about NBCU-60Frames and MSN-Stage 9. As time marches on and some of the above activities bear fruit, it's going to become very tempting for Google/YouTube to lever its strengths more directly into content ownership. I know what Google's always maintained about being a technology company, committed to neutrality in way that even Switzerland would appreciate. But as Google's ad business matures and it inevitably is pressured for growth, content is going to be a very alluring opportunity.

Regardless of what happens on this last point, YouTube now seems to have a full plate of strategic activities underway. It's great to finally see this happening.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

In case you missed the news, last Tuesday, NBCU and 60Frames, an independent broadband-only studio I've written about, announced a comprehensive content development and ad sales deal. Critically, NBCU will take original broadband-only shows from 60Frames to brands/agencies with which it has relationships to pursue both upfront sponsorships and possible brand integration.

Then this past Monday, Disney and Microsoft announced at MIPCOM that Stage 9, Disney's in-house broadband-only studio which I've also written about, would begin syndicating its shows to MSN Video for European viewers. While smaller in scope, the Disney-MS deal is no less noteworthy.

I see at least three underlying threads to these deals that suggest broader market implications. First, the deals are further evidence that the broadband-only video model is still nascent and in need of market validation and financial support. If these deals are in fact harbingers, this support will come from established players like NBCU and Microsoft who have significant reach and access to ad dollars. Somewhat ironically these are also companies that have financial stakes (either through direct ownership of or important customer/strategic relationships with) the very incumbent media properties that the broadband-only crowd is trying to grab eyeballs away from.

Second, the down economy is a catalyst for more of these types of deals. Last week, in "5 Conclusions About the Bad Economy's Effect on Broadband Video," I asserted that the broadband-only studios would tighten their belts a bit to conserve resources in this uncertain climate. One way to mitigate their financial risk and uncertainty is through these linkups with deep pocketed partners. NBCU's backing of the 60Frames slate appears to be the most extensive of these types of deals to date. That Stage 9 - owned by well-funded Disney - is also hunting down big distribution partners which have brand relationships is still further evidence that risk mitigation is a key priority.

Third, the deals point to an acceleration of the trend toward broadband video syndication. In a presentation I give periodically to industry executives, I have a slide titled "Syndicated Video Economy Accelerates" which lists the reasons as: (1) Ongoing video explosion causes heightened need to break through to audiences, (2) Device proliferation causes even more audience fragmentation, (3) Ad model firms up, improving ROI for free, widely distributed video and (4) Social media use means surging user-driven syndication. That slide needs to be updated for a new #1 reason motivating syndication: "In a down economy, syndication could mean the difference between success and failure for broadband-only studios and even big media backed broadband initiatives."

Here's something else to consider: what role might YouTube, the market's undisputed 800 pound gorilla, play as an emerging distributor and financial backer of broadband-only video? Despite its much-avowed disinterest in being a content provider, YouTube, with Google's abundant balance sheet, is in a Warren Buffet-like position to become the go-to resource for financial backing and key distribution. (Readers who are cable industry veterans will also see a potential parallel to the M.O. of TCI back in the 1980's and 90's.) Couple Google's billions with YouTube's massive reach, desire to move up the quality ladder from its UGC roots, pursuit of new ad models and commerce models and its budding GCN initiative, and the company really is superbly positioned to play a role in the development of broadband-only programming.

With so much going on in the broadband video world, I rarely get an opportunity to follow up on previously discussed items. So today, an attempt to catch up on some news that's worth paying attention to:

Brightcove 3 is released - Back in June I wrote about the beta release of Brightcove 3, the company's updated video platform. Today Brightcove is officially releasing the product. I got another good look at it a couple weeks ago in a briefing with Adam Berrey, Brightcove's SVP of Marketing. I like what I saw. Much more intuitive publishing/workflow. Improved ability to mix and match video and non-video assets in the way content is actually consumed. New emphasis on high-quality delivery to keep up with ever-escalating quality bar. Flexibility around video player design and implementation. And so on.

The broadband video publishing/management platform is incredibly crowded, and only getting more competitive. Brightcove 3 ups the ante further.

Silverlight 2 is released - Speaking of releases, Microsoft officially unveiled Silverlight 2 yesterday, making it available for download today. I was on a call yesterday with Scott Guthrie, corporate VP of the .NET developer Division, who elaborated on the details. NBC's recent Olympics was Silverlight 2 beta's big public event, and as I wrote in August, the user experience was seamless and offered up exciting new features (PIP, concurrent live streams, zero-buffer rewinds, etc.).

A pitched battle between Microsoft and Adobe is underway for the hearts and minds of developers, content providers and consumers. Silverlight has a lot of catching up to do, but as is evident from the release, it intends to devote a lot of resources. Can you say Netscape-IE or Real-WMP? This will be a battle worth watching.

Google and Seth MacFarlane are hitting a home run with "Cavalcade of Comedy" - A month since its debut, Google/YouTube and Seth MacFarlane seem to have hit on a winning formula at the intersection of video syndication, audience growth and brand sponsorship. On YouTube alone, the 10 short episodes have generated over 12.7 million views according to my calculations, while this TV Week piece quotes 14 million + when all views are tallied.

Last month, in "Google Content Network Has Lots of Potential, Implications" I wrote at length about how powerful GCN and YouTube could be for the budding Syndicated Video Economy, yet noted that the jury is still out on whether Google's really committed to GCN. "Cavalcade's" early success surely gives GCN some tailwind. (Btw, for more on Google/YouTube's myriad video initiatives, join me on Nov. 10th for the Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast Panel, which David Eun, the company's VP of Content Partnerships will be a panelist)

NBC/SNL and Tina Fey set a new standard for viral success - Tina Fey's Sarah Palin skits are hilarious and unlike anything yet seen in viral video. Usage is through the roof: a new study by IMMI suggests that twice as many people watched the skits online and on DVR than did on-air, while Visible Measures's data (as of 3 weeks ago!), shows over 11 million video views. SNL is smack in the middle of the cultural zeitgeist once again, with Thursday night specials and reports of a new dedicated web site in the mix.

To put in perspective how disruptive viral video can be to the uninitiated, several weeks ago I heard a pundit on CNN's AC360 dismiss the potential impact of the Fey skits on the election with a wave of his hand and a remark to the effect of "come on, how many people stay up that late to watch SNL really?" How's that for being out of touch with the way today's world really works? Political pros and other taste-makers should take heed - viral video can be a cultural tour de force.

Joost Flash version is here, finally - Remember Joost? Originally the super-secret "Venice Project" from the team that made a killing on KaZaA and Skype (the latter of which was acquired by eBay, permanently undermining former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's M&A acumen), Joost today is announcing its Flash-based video service. You might ask what took the company so long given this is where the market's been for several years already? I have no idea.

But here's one key takeaway from Joost's story: because of its lineage, the company was once regaled as the "it" player of the broadband video landscape. Conversely, Hulu, because of its big media NBC and Fox parentage, was dismissed by many right from the start. Now look at how their fortunes have turned. When your mom used to tell you "don't judge a book by its cover," she was right.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Two questions I like to ask when I speak to industry groups are, "Raise your hand if you'd be interested in 'cutting the cord' on your cable TV/satellite/telco video service and instead get your TV via broadband only?" and then, "Do you intend to actually cut your cord any time soon?" Invariably, lots of hands go up to the first question and virtually none to the second. (As an experiment, ask yourself these two questions.)

I thought of these questions over the weekend when I was catching up on some news items recently posted to VideoNuze. One, from the WSJ, "Turn On, Tune Out, Click Here" from Oct 3rd, offered a couple examples of individuals who have indeed cut the cord on cable and how their TV viewing has changed. My guess is that it wasn't easy to find actual cord-cutters to be profiled.

There are 2 key reasons for this. First it's very difficult to watch broadband video on your TV. There are special purpose boxes (e.g. AppleTV, Vudu, Roku, etc.), but these mainly give access to walled gardens of pre-selected content, that is always for pay. Other devices like Internet-enabled TVs, Xbox 360s and others offer more selection, but are not really mass adoption solutions. Some day most of us will have broadband to the TV; there are just too many companies, with far too much incentive, working on this. But in the short term, this number will remain small.

The second reason is programming availability. Potential cord-cutters must explicitly know that if they cut their cord they'll still be able to easily access their favorite programs. Broadcasters have wholeheartedly embraced online distribution, giving online access to nearly all their prime-time programs. While that's a positive step, the real issue is that cord-cutters would get only a smattering of their favorite cable programs. Since cable viewing is now at least 50% of all TV viewing (and becoming higher quality all the time, as evidenced by cable's recent Emmy success), this is a real problem.

To be sure, many of the biggest ad-supported cable networks (MTV, USA, Lifetime, Discovery) are now making full episodes of some of their programs available on their own web sites. But these sites are often a hodgepodge of programming, and there's no explanation offered for why some programs are available while others are not. For example, if you cut the cord and could no longer get Discovery Channel via cable/satellite/telco, you'd only find one program, "Smash Lab" available at Discovery.com. Not an appealing prospect for Discovery fans.

Then there's the problem of navigation and ease of access. Cutting the cord doesn't mean viewers don't want some type of aggregator to bring their favorite programming together in an easy-to-use experience. Yet full streaming episodes are almost never licensed to today's broadband aggregators. Cable networks are rightfully being cautious about offering full episodes online to aggregators not willing to pay standard carriage fees.

For example, even at Hulu, arguably the best aggregator of premium programming around, you can find Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report." But aside from a few current episodes from FX, SciFi and Fuel plus a couple delayed episodes from USA like "Monk" and "Psych," there's no top cable programming to be found.

As another data point, I checked the last few weeks of Nielsen's 20 top-rated cable programs and little of this programming is available online either. A key gap for cord-cutters would be sports. At a minimum, they'd be saying goodbye to the baseball playoffs (on TBS) and Monday Night football (on ESPN). In reality, sports is the strongest long-term firewall against broadband-only viewing as the economics of big league coverage all but mandate carriage fees from today's distributors to make sense.

Add it all up and while many may think it's attractive to go broadband only, I see this as a viable option for only a small percentage of mainstream viewers. Only when open broadband to the TV happens big time and if/when cable networks offer more selection will this change.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The latest battle over "retransmission consent" is now underway between Time Warner Cable and LIN TV. These fights crop up periodically, but what's different about this one is that TW is offering instructions to its customers for how to hook their PCs to their TVs so they can view LIN's prime-time programming from the applicable network affiliate's web site.

Time Warner has set up instructional sites, such as http://www.tellthetruthwluk.com/main.phpfor residents of the Green Bay, WI area affected by the outage. Prominently displayed at the site is a 3 minute video with the step-by-step instructions for connecting a PC to a TV. (As a sidenote, the video itself is a great example of a how-to broadband video, but I'd bet that it makes the process look far easier than it is likely to be for most average consumers).

But the all-too-obvious question that I raise: once TW customers get the hookup working, how long will it take them to realize that by bypassing TW's service, some cable network programming can now also be viewed this way, and for free? TW may be inadvertently helping its own customers realize that the $40-$60/month or so they're paying TW may be avoidable.

To my knowledge, this is the first time in these regular retrans flareups involving broadcasters and cable operators (mostly) that broadband has been injected into the mix. In these situations the warring companies usually focus on tactics like LIN offering a $50 credit to consumers to sign up for DISH satellite service or Time Warner handing out over 50,000 free antennas to its customers to receive LIN stations the pre-cable TV, over-the-air way.

But now, with broadband access to prime-time network programs rampant, cable operators have a new tactic to buttress their argument that these broadcast programs are available for free already, so they - and in turn the consumer - should not have to pay for them.

This situation underscores what I've been saying for a while: that broadcast networks' and local affiliates' strategic agendas are falling out of line, as the networks have embraced online delivery wholeheartedly and local stations are left without their historical de facto exclusivity to key prime-time programs.

Of course the root issue here is that local broadcasting is a business built on analog-determined geographic markets. With the advent of digital delivery over the Internet, the networks have increasingly realized that they can go direct to their target audiences. Sometimes they've been friendlier to their local affiliates by giving them some branding or cutting them in on the ad revenues. Yet long-term, the schism between networks and local affiliates seems inevitable. That means that these retransmission fights are bound to only get nastier in the future.

(Note: I'll have Peter Stern, Time Warner Cable's EVP of Product and Strategy on my Nov. 10th Broadband Video Leadership Panel in Boston, "How to Profit from Broadband Video's Disruptive Impact." Click here for early bird registration and information.)

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Welcome to October. Recapping another busy month, here are 3 key themes from September:

1. When established video providers use broadband, it must be to create new value

Broadband simultaneously threatens incumbent video businesses, while also opening up new opportunities. It's crucial that incumbents moving into broadband do so carefully and in ways that create distinct new value. However, in September I wrote several posts highlighting instances where broadband may either be hurting existing video franchises, or adding little new value.

Despite my admiration for Hulu, in these 2 posts, here and here, I questioned its current advertising implementations and asserted that these policies are hurting parent company NBC's on-air ad business. Worse yet, In "CNN is Undermining Its Own Advertisers with New AC360 Live Webcasts" I found an example where a network is using broadband to directly draw eyeballs away from its own on-air advertising. Lastly in "Palin Interview: ABC News Misses Many Broadband Opportunities" I described how the premier interview of the political season produced little more than an online VOD episode for ABC, leaving lots of new potential value untapped.

Meanwhile new entrants are innovating furiously, attempting to invade incumbents' turf. Earlier this week in "Presidential Debate Video on NYTimes.com is Classic Broadband Disruption," I explained how the Times's debate coverage positions it to steal prime audiences from the networks. And at the beginning of this month in "Taste of Home Forges New Model for Magazine Video," I outlined how a plucky UGC-oriented magazine is using new technology to elbow its way into space dominated by larger incumbents.

New entrants are using broadband to target incumbents' audiences; these companies need to bring A-game thinking to their broadband initiatives.

2. Purpose-driven user-generated video is YouTube 2.0

In September I further advanced a concept I've been developing for some time: that "purpose-driven" user-generated video can generate real business value. I think of these as YouTube 2.0 businesses. Exhibit A was a company called Unigo that's trying to disrupt the college guidebook industry through student-submitted video, photos and comments. While still early, I envision more purpose-driven UGV startups cropping up in the near future.

Meanwhile, brand marketers are also tapping the UGV phenomenon with ongoing contests. This trend marked a new milestone with Doritos new Super Bowl ad contest, which I explained in "Doritos Ups UGV Ante with $1 Million Price for Top-Rated 2009 Super Bowl Ad." There I also cataloged about 15 brand-sponsored UGV contests I've found in the last year. This is a growing trend and I expect much more to come.

3. Syndication is all around us

Just in case you weren't sick of hearing me talk about syndication, I'll make one more mention of it before September closes out. Syndication is the uber-trend of the broadband video market, and several announcements underscored its growing importance.

For example, in "Google Content Network Has Lots of Potential, Implications" I described how well-positioned Google is in syndication, as it ties AdSense to YouTube with its new Seth MacFarlane "Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy" partnership. The month also marked the first syndication-driven merger, between Anystream and Voxant, a combination that threatens to upend the competitive dynamics in the broadband video platform space. Two other syndication milestones of note were AP's deal with thePlatform to power its 2,000+ private syndication network, and MTV's comprehensive deal with Visible Measure to track and analyze its 350+ sites' video efforts.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but regardless of what part of the market you're playing in, if you're not developing a syndication plan, you're going to be out of step in the very near future.

That's it for September, lots more planned in October. Stay tuned.

What do you think? Post a comment!

Here's a classic example of how broadband is causing traditionally distinct worlds to collide: on Friday night the NYTimes.com opened up a dedicated streaming video window on their home page, where the presidential debate played for the full hour and a half. I watched the first half of the debate there, before switching on the TV and watching it on CNN HD. While HD was obviously superior, the NYTimes.com's video was more than adequate (though disappointing there was no full screen option).

Saturday morning and NYTimes.com is offering the video on demand, with an accompanying full written transcript. You can search (try typing "wrong" to see), to get how many times each candidate used that term, and then jump to the points in the video when it was used (alas, it would be great if the Times gave the ability to clip that specific segment and virally distribute it). The Times does offer a "check point" feature, where it fact checks the candidate's assertions. Note that other sites like ABCNews.com and CNN.com have the debate on demand today as well, but not the interactive features that NYTimes.com has.

Stop and consider how significant all of this is - a print publisher using broadband to offer a clear alternative to broadcasters and cable networks in carrying high-quality video. It's a great value proposition just for people without access to TVs at the moment of the live event, but more important, it provides a glimpse of some very interesting additional opportunities for NYTimes.com.

For example, the site could host its own post-debate punditry show, assembling its all-star lineup of daily Times columnists. Dedicated Times readers would no doubt love to see a roundtable with Frank Rich, Tom Friedman, William Kristol, Maureen Dowd and others dissect the candidates' performances, rather than waiting for their thoughts to come in columns over the next several days. Also think about how this type of show would scoop Sunday talk shows like NBC's "Meet the Press" or ABC's "This Week with George S." in bringing serious punditry to political junkies who can't wait.

In fact, the NYTimes.com could even offer viewers the ability to interact with their columnists, building on the wildly popular commenting feature already available with each daily piece in the paper itself. This type of immediacy and interactivity would be very compelling. The site could also offer the live debate video stream with a companion chat area that would enable viewer engagement during the debate itself (see Paltalk for an example of how this could work).

And last but not least, NYTimes.com could offer a single premium sponsorship slot to underwrite its whole debate coverage. Think Mercedes, Four Seasons, Cartier or other upscale brands might be interested?

As I've said many times, broadband blurs previously siloed worlds, bringing more competition to traditional players like broadcast and cable networks. They now need to deliver more to stay competitive. For video entrants like NYTimes, broadband creates enormous new opportunities to both leverage core assets/talent and pioneer new and different ways to create value. Another reminder why broadband is so disruptive for so many.

What do you think? Post a comment.

ABC's Sarah Palin interview from late last week may have been a broadcast ratings success, but in my opinion ABCNews.com has missed out on many big broadband opportunities. ABC's broadband implementation shortfalls span the full gamut of navigation, usability and delivery quality, offering a further data point that many media companies have not yet recognized or capitalized on broadband's full potential.

The biggest interview of the political season was tailor made for on-demand consumption. No doubt millions of people flocked to ABC.com (the site most people would associate with ABC) to find the interview. However, ABC.com is the company's entertainment site, and there is currently no promotion of the interview at all. The visitor is required to guess that clicking on the "news" link in the main navigation will get them to the interview.

Oddly, clicking on the banner brings you to a 2,300 word text story about the interview, with a few thumbnail images sprinkled about. That's a key implementation error in my opinion. Instead of text, that page should be a well-laid out assortment of videos, beginning with the option to watch the full interview either by its 3 segments or as one long episode. A link to ABC's text story would be great to offer, but not be the main focus of the page when users were expecting video.

Clicking on one of the various thumbnails launches the ABCNews.com video player, which then displays the 3 segments' thumbnails at the bottom. Here the issue is that there are no bite-sized clips displayed with specific interview topics (e.g. earmarks, abortion, foreign policy) of likely interest. Plus there is no way to search on those topics specifically. You'd have to watch each of the full 6-8 minute segments the Q&A section to happen upon the part you're particularly interested in. (Note that creating topical clips from the full 22 minute interview using a metadata management tool like Gotuit's VideoMarker Pro would have probably taken ABC News just an hour or so.)

Meanwhile, there's also no way for the user to clip out custom segments, as Hulu and other sites currently allow. Enabling this would have been wildly popular among bloggers - and led to lots of viral distribution. The lack of topical clips creates another missed opportunity as ABC could have aggregated comments and video from other sites tightly related to these specific clips in order to create a really comprehensive user experience on a topic-by-topic basis.

Net, net, it's great that ABCNews.com is making the Palin interview available online. But taken as a whole, the user experience ends up being little more than a TiVo-like interview replay, leaving tons of engagement opportunity - and revenue - on the table. I recognize that doing the kinds of things I'm describing requires a robust content management system and staff. Many companies have not yet made these kinds of commitments to broadband - which just provides more evidence of how nascent the broadband medium still is.

What do you think? Post a comment.