Posts for 'Broadcasters'

Yesterday's post, "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband Video is Accelerating Demise of their Business Model" spurred some great comments on the site, and as usual, a flurry of private emails to me from folks who don't want to comment publicly (this is a recurring VideoNuze phenomenon I've mentioned before...).

Since there's substantial interest in this topic and I thought some of my comments from yesterday needed some clarification, I want to dig in a little further today.

First I want to address the numbers I outlined, especially the benchmark of $1 of ad revenue per viewer per episode that I asserted NBC derives from "Heroes" on-air. I've had some push back that this number is too high and that it more likely is 50-75 cents/viewer/episode. As I refined my assumptions further, I do think I was probably a bit too optimistic, particularly regarding the actual number of ad units NBC sells. I do think all of these numbers are somewhere in the ballpark, but what they actually are on a show-by-show basis is obviously only known only to NBC itself.

That all said, the gap between today's "analog dollars" and the revenue being derived from online distribution (the so-called "digital pennies") may still be pretty close to what I suggested yesterday. That's because I also had push back on my assumption that Hulu is generating an effective CPM of $60 (note, I had characterized that as "generous"). According to some folks, it's possible their eCPM could in fact be closer to $30 - or less. This is all private data, so again, it's really hard to pin this down.

One point I'd like to make again, so nobody's left with any misimpressions: I don't believe networks have been wrong in pursuing online distribution of their shows. I applaud their proactivity. Rather, my problem is that I think the way they've chose to monetize broadband delivery - with such a paucity of ads - is not only under-monetizing and undervaluing their product, but also creating a set of consumer expectations about the online medium that are going to be hard to reverse.

For Hulu to put the equivalent of 1 1/2 minutes of advertising against "Heroes," when NBC can command premium on-air rates for about 20 minutes of ads, strikes me as seriously out of whack. At the risk of sounding anti-consumer, I think Hulu is hurting its parent company's financial interests by over-emphasizing its user experience. The consequences of Hulu's "limited commercial interruptions" policy are really the thesis of yesterday's post: I believe the networks own use of broadband is accelerating the demise of their traditional ad model.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Heroes on Hulu should carry 20 minutes of ads, but I do think it can carry more than 1 1/2 minutes. As important, its ad model needs to quickly evolve to include better targeting, more engagement, more creative units, etc, to break from a purely CPM-based paradigm. I know that many folks are hard at work on these items.

Net, net, these are incredibly complicated times for networks. As the Portfolio piece says, NBC's Zucker is "unsparingly harsh about the prospects for broadcast television..." And NBC's issues don't end with broadband; as commenters to yesterday's post noted, it's also being buffeted by the effects of DVRs, VOD and fragmentation driven by social networks, mobile and other shifting consumer behaviors.

I love Zucker's sense of honesty and urgency about the network business. I thought NBC's hardheaded approach to obtaining variable pricing from iTunes was terrific. And as many of you know, I think Hulu's site execution has been world-class. But Hulu, NBC, and the other networks must recognize that their current approach to ad-supported broadband delivery is undervaluing their own product and hastening the demise of their traditional P&L.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Last weekend I finally got a chance to read "Zuckervision," the splashy cover page piece about NBCU's CEO and president Jeff Zucker in the September issue of Conde Nast's Portfolio magazine. It's a pretty candid expose of the challenges that Zucker faces turning around the flagship NBC brand. More broadly though, it describes the challenges that all network executives have in trying to profitably navigate the digital era.

Zucker says, "Predicting what the media world is gonna look like in eight years is incredibly daunting. I defy anybody to that." He's right, and I'm not going to take him up on his offer. What's more salient though is to focus on the here and now - on what networks are doing with ad-supported broadband distribution today. From this perspective I think it's fair to conclude that broadcast networks' current use of broadband is accelerating the demise of their business model.

That's right. For all of Zucker's and his compatriots' lament about "analog dollars being turned into digital pennies," as best I can tell, the networks themselves are actually the ones most responsible for turning this fear into a reality. I touched on this in a previous post, but here are the numbers explaining why.

When each of us, watches an episode of NBC's "Heroes," for example, on-air, NBC generates approximately $1.00 of advertising revenue (assuming NBC sells 75% of the 22 minutes of ads at a CPM of $30). That $1/viewer/episode figure obviously varies by program, but it's a good benchmark to use. (Note: per the following post, I think these assumptions are a little high, a more accurate range for NBC's revenue/viewer/episode is probably $.50 - $1.00.)

Now consider what happens when we watch "Heroes" on Hulu, NBC and Fox's well-respected aggregator. There are 5 ad breaks with just one 15 second ad in each break. There's also a 7 second "brand slate" at the beginning of each episode ("The following program is brought to you by....") and a display ad at the conclusion. Rounding up, let's say that totals three 30 second ads. Assuming Hulu sells all the ads at a generous $60 CPM (note that's 2x the on-air rate), the revenue/viewer/episode is 18 cents. That means that when you watch Heroes on Hulu, NBC is generating less than 20% of its customary revenue (hence the "digital pennies" fear).

Hulu's ad implementation is not unique - if you look at the other network sites, their ad models are roughly comparable. I don't know who came up with this ad approach, but I would contend that in their zeal to move prime time programs online, the networks have all gone too far in emphasizing a user-friendly experience over sound business discipline.

Of course, as consumers this new ad model is great. We get high-quality, free content at our fingertips, with minimal interruptions. For the vast majority of consumers, this value proposition beats buying and downloading an episode at iTunes any day (all the more so as popular shows like Heroes are bound to cost even more under NBC's new variable pricing relationship with Apple).

With the current model, NBC needs for Hulu to get more 5x its current CPM (which would be more than 10x NBC's current on-air CPM) just to stay even with its traditional ad model. That's a pipe dream. It doesn't matter how much interactivity or exclusivity Hulu can give an advertiser (and by the way Nissan already had full exclusivity in the Heroes episode I watched) no advertiser is going to pay 10x on-air rates. Simply put, Hulu's and others' minimal quantity of ads cannot be compensated for using higher prices.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle with the networks' online ad model, it's going to be awfully hard to make major modifications to it. As eyeballs inexorably shift from on-air to online, NBC and the other networks' top line ad revenues is going to get pinched. Also poised to bear the brunt is the whole Hollywood community accustomed to benefiting from on-air economics (Zucker's aggressive attempts to reduce expenses are also discussed in the Portfolio piece).

Bottom line: the way NBC and other networks have implemented broadband accelerates the vast change that is buffeting the broadcast business.

What do you think? Post a comment!

Welcome to September. Before looking ahead, here's a quick recap of 3 key topics from August:

1. Advertising model remains in flux

Broadband video advertising was a key story line in August, as it seems to be every month. The industry is rightly focused on the ad model's continued evolution as more and more players in the value chain are increasingly dependent on it. This month, in "Pre-Roll Video Advertising Gets a Boost from 3 Research Studies," I noted how recent research is showing that user acceptance and engagement with the omnipresent pre-roll format is already high and is improving. However, as many readers correctly noted, research from industry participants must be discounted, and some of the metrics cited are not necessarily the best ones to use. I expect we'll see plenty more research - on both sides of pre-roll's efficacy - yet to come.

Meanwhile, comScore added to the confusion around the ad model by first highly ranking YuMe, a large ad network, very high in its reach statistics, only to then reverse itself by downgrading YuMe, before regrouping entirely by introducing a whole new metric for measuring reach. In this post, "comScore Gets Its Act Together on Ad Network Traffic Reporting," I tried to unravel some of this mini-saga. Needless to say, without trustworthy and universally accepted traffic reporting, broadband video is going to have a tough slog ahead.

2. Broadband Olympics are triumphant, but accomplishments are overshadowed

And speaking of a tough slog, the first "Broadband Olympics" were a huge triumph for both NBC and all of its technology partners, yet their accomplishments were overshadowed by a post-mortem revenue estimate by eMarketer suggesting NBC actually made very little money for its efforts. This appeared to knock broadband video advertising back on its heels, yet again, as outsiders pondered whether broadband is being overhyped.

The Olympics became a hobbyhorse of mine in the last 2 weeks as I tried to clarify things in 2 posts, "Why NBCOlympics.com's Video Ad Revenues Don't Matter" part 1 and part 2. These posts triggered a pretty interesting debate about whether technology/operational achievements are noteworthy, if substantial revenues are absent. My answer remains a resounding yes. But having exhausted all my arguments in these prior posts, I'll leave it to you to dig in there if you'd like to learn more about why I feel this way.

3. Broadband's impact is wide-ranging

VideoNuze readers know that another favorite topic of mine is how widespread broadband's impact is poised to become, and in fact already is. A number of August's posts illustrated how broadband's influence is already being felt across a diverse landscape.

Here's a brief sampling: "Vogue.TV's Model.Live: A Magazine Bets Big on Broadband" (magazines), "Tanglewood and BSO Pioneer Broadband Use for Arts/Cultural Organizations," (arts/culture), "American Political Conventions are Next Up to Get Broadband Video Treatment," (politics), "Citysearch Offering Local Merchants Video Enhancement," (local advertising) and "1Cast: A Legit Redlasso Has Tall Mountain to Climb" (local news).

I expect this trend will only accelerate, as more and more industries begin to recognize broadband video's potential benefits.

That's it for August and for the busy summer of '08. Lots more action to coming this fall!

Two days ago, I posted "Why NBCOlympics.com's Video Ad Revenues Don't Matter." I'll take the risk today of "beating a dead dog" by writing again about this same topic, for a couple of reasons.

First, there were some great comments on the site and I received many emails both supporting and challenging my arguments. (As a sidenote, I've discovered an interesting dynamic with VideoNuze - though I've repeatedly tried to encourage readers to post comments so all readers are able to see, folks seem more comfortable just emailing me directly for a one-on-one dialogue. I'm not going to resist human nature here, but again, I would love even more if you share your reactions by posting a comment so the whole community benefits!)

Second, the real trigger for writing a follow-up part 2 today is an incident I experienced yesterday. I gave a presentation about broadband video to a group of investors. These were mainly people who are familiar with broadband video, but not necessarily steeped in it. Upon finishing up and opening the Q&A, an early question/comment was, "Hey Will you lay out great points about broadband, yet I just read somewhere earlier this week that even NBC's Olympic video, which should have been a big revenue opportunity if ever there was one, generated little money for NBC and looks like it was a total failure for them. Given that, why should people bother investing in this medium? It doesn't seem promising."

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. This is exactly the perception that I sensed would be created out of the blogosphere's and mainstream media's coverage of eMarketer's NBCOlympics.com revenue estimate. And why it is so vital that people interested in broadband video not get distracted by this single data point. Instead, maintaining perspective about where the industry stands and what needs to be done to grow should be the real focus.

I totally get the point made by people in their comments and emails that video providers must show they can make real money in the broadband medium. Ultimately, that's paramount. In particular it's key that broadband not get tagged as the "digital pennies" medium, in contrast to the traditional "analog dollars" model.

But I'll continue to insist that the path to industry revenues and profits begins by demonstrating the technical/operational viability of the broadband medium, massive user adoption of it and differentiated engagement with it. To be sure, progress is being made on all fronts. Still, there is still a long road ahead to drive significant shifts in advertiser spending to broadband. If you're a media buyer today, you're very intrigued by broadband and are likely experimenting with it.

But you're looking for more proof points before making bigger spending commitments. Can broadband's architecture scale to handle massive traffic loads, or are the Chicken Littles right that the Internet will crash under video's massive weight? Can broadband video's quality compare with TV, and HD in particular? Given the broadband choice, will users in fact shift their consumption patterns? And if they do, how different will their awareness and engagement with ads be? Importantly, when is broadband video actually going to be widely and easily available on TVs, not just computers?

These are but a few of the questions repeatedly being asked. And many of these are what NBCOlympics.com has helped to answer. NBC could have done lots of things to squeeze more money out of its Olympics video (though my guess is that no matter what revenue they generated cynics would have still said, "Is that all?"). Instead they focused on user value/experience and pushed the broadband envelope considerably. Others are doing the same. More needs to be done, and I believe it will.

As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." So too with this exciting new medium. Revenues will not gush immediately. Staying focused on the core building blocks is the key. In short, I'm bullish long-term, but highly realistic short-term.

What do you think? Please post a comment! Or send me an email if you really prefer!

TheWB.com's curtain is finally going up, with the site set to officially open for public beta at 11am Pacific Time today. Along with fellow analysts and press, I was given a sneak peek at the site and so I'm able to offer some initial impressions. At first blush, and after having some of my specific questions answered by a WB spokesman, my reaction is that the site is executed well, but that its strategy seems fuzzy.

As many of you know, TheWB TV channel went off the air in September, 2006. In April, 2008 Warner Bros. Television Group announced that it would launch TheWB.com as an online network. The new site contains a mix of about 20 classic WB and Warner Bros. programs and a slew of forthcoming original web-only programs created by big-name talent. Many of the classic programs have cult-like followings and will no doubt find an ardent online audience.

In addition, TheWB site has some nifty features such as a mashup capability called "WBlender" powered by Adobe Premiere Express, video search powered by Digitalsmiths (including full scene-by-scene indexing of all programs which allows search at the dialogue, character, location, episode, session and series level) and a pretty deep Facebook app allowing users to share content back and forth.

While these features all will eventually raise the bar for other sites, certain aspects are not yet fully implemented. For example, WBlender today only offers users a paltry 30 or so pre-selected clips and just 6 soundtracks to mash. Later this year the selection will widen when the WBlender is married to the video search feature, allowing all scenes from all shows to be mashed together. It's not clear whether users will be able to clip specific segments themselves from favorite episodes or not.

Overall, the site's execution is solid except for a few minor personal quibbles that aren't worth spending time on here. I believe a far bigger issue is the site's fuzzy strategy. A WB spokesman told me that "TheWB.com is not meant to be an archival library of every episode of every show ever made, but rather an entertainment destination that gives our viewers a lot of great entertainment, along with a reason to come back again tomorrow." This is meant to give "our programmers the ability to create themed programming blocks that mesh with our audience's sensibilities."

 

Yet how TheWB.com actually translates this strategy into which programs and episodes are available on the site at any given time is where I think it's going to generate considerable user frustration, not to mention a lack of competitiveness with its own syndication outlets.

Three shows "Friends," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" illustrate the point. With "Friends" just 7 episodes are currently available on the site, inexplicably from 7 different seasons. If there's a thematic thread, it is neither stated on the site, nor intuitive to me. If I want to watch a specific episode from a particular season, I'm out of luck. Meanwhile TheWB.com shortchanges "Angel" and "Buffy" fans by offering just the first 5 episodes of each, while Hulu, as one example, already offers 22 and 34 episodes each program, respectively.

I think it will quickly become evident that TheWB.com's strategy to "program" its online network is at odds with the on-demand desires of users seeking unfettered access to the full catalog of all programs. Here we see legacy linear TV thinking being grafted onto a high-potential online platform, with the result being a confusing sub-par user experience.

I know I've said this before, but I continue to believe that Hulu is the reigning broadband video user experience king. Having cracked the code on how to deliver fast growth and user loyalty, TheWB.com would be wise to go to school on Hulu and borrow liberally from lessons it has already learned and acted on well.

Still, in fairness, this is still just the beta of TheWB.com. There's a lot to be excited about here, but getting the site's strategy aligned with user expectations is a key building block to eventual success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

There was much reporting yesterday of eMarketer's estimate that NBC generated revenue of $5.75 million from its broadband Olympics video. The firm's press release dismissively called the sum "a passable performance." Others, from the blogosphere to mainstream media piled on, characterizing NBC's video revenues as underwhelming, using terms such as "pittance," "piddling," and "unimpressive."

Let's hold on a second here. At the risk of sounding like an irrepressible NBC supporter, I'd like to offer the alternative viewpoint: NBCOlympics.com's video ad revenues actually don't matter.

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to high-stakes Olympics broadcasting - and a sagging economy to boot - every dime counts. Rather, my point is that by focusing on the broadband ad number (which at virtually any level would have been a mere rounding error on NBC's $1 billion+ of overall Olympic ad revenues) we are getting distracted from NBC's real and very valuable broadband accomplishments.

Consider this: there were more on-demand and live sports choices for Olympics viewers than ever, NBC and its technology partners conquered herculean operational challenges without any major snafus and the foundation was laid for broadband to play an increasingly important and integral role in all future iconic programming events.

Focusing just on the operational achievements for a moment, a conversation I had yesterday with Brick Eksten, President of Digital Rapids, the company that provided all of the video encoding and streaming technology for NBC's live streaming events was a reminder of all the complexities NBC and its partners took on. There were up over 100 live simultaneous feeds that needed to be ingested, encoded in multiple bit-rates and delivered in real time across the globe to the right distribution points. All of this had never been done before.

Unlike domestic implementations or those focusing mainly on on-demand delivery, live broadband delivery from China meant spec'ing out all the delivery systems in advance and then shipping all of the gear well in advance of the event itself. There were many unknown variables, beginning with the vast potential range of concurrent users. So long hours were invested by partners modeling different scenarios to meet targeted delivery quality goals. Compounding matters, Brick explained that due to space, manpower and time limitations, Digital Rapids and others were challenged to push their systems to do things not previously done.

Meanwhile, NBC faced a pioneer's balancing act, simultaneously trying to preserve the value for its on-air broadcast rights/supporting advertisers, while meeting consumers' expectations for broadband on-demand access to everything. NBC could have chosen to charge for broadband access (as CBS originally did with March Madness, and as MLB continues to do) or provide only highlights clips or nothing via broadband at all. Instead, it offered up - at no charge - 2,200 hours of live streaming and 3,000 hours of on-demand.

Some fans on the sidelines have groused this wasn't enough. Now some analysts are saying that NBC could have generated more ad revenue if it had opened the broadband spigot further. These comments miss the bigger point: NBC moved the broadband market dramatically forward with its Olympics coverage. Focusing on what NBC proved with the first "Broadband Olympics," rather than what attributable revenue it generated, is what's most important for all of us to remember.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Last Friday, in "Get Ready for the Broadband Olympics," I posited that the '08 Beijing Games would be looked back upon as the first "Broadband Olympics." NBC has made a massive investment in delivering the portions of the Games both live and on-demand via NBCOlympics.com and other outlets. A week into the Games, the broadband coverage and user experience is exceeding my and others' expectations.

First the numbers, which are staggering. NBC has been pumping out news releases on a daily basis touting their Total Audience Measurement Index or "TAMi" rating, broadcast audience records and online usage. Focusing just online, through yesterday NBCOlympics.com has attracted 25 million unique visitors, driving 456 million page views and 22 million video streams which total 3.5 million hours of video consumed. These figures easily outpace the '04 Athens Games.

A major drawing card in the '08 Games is of course Michael Phelps's drive for 8 golds. And so far the peak dramatic event in the Phelps narrative was the 4x100 freestyle relay in which teammate Jason Lezak swam the split of his life. That thrilling video alone has been viewed over 2 million times, providing a textbook example of how unique Olympic moments are tailor-made for broadband on-demand coverage. (Note, while not a big swimming fan myself, I have to admit I've watched the last leg of that race a half dozen times. If you haven't seen it, it's an absolute must)

Meanwhile, the live streaming has been a fun element of NBCOlympics.com. I've found myself periodically perusing the little red "LIVE" flags on NBC's home page and tuning in briefly to sample sports I have no affiliation to, but are neat to dip into briefly (e.g. women's badminton or table tennis).

Overall, the user experience is excellent. Beyond the well thought-out navigation, a key part of the experience owes to Microsoft Silverlight which enables totally new broadband video capabilities. Picture-in-picture, 4 live concurrent streams, zero-buffer rewinding, and of course glorious video quality (even in large-screen mode) are all breakthroughs. So far I haven't seen or heard about any delivery or viewing glitches.

Last Monday's decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a lower court's March 2007 ruling that Cablevision's plan to deploy a Network Digital Video Recorder (nDVR) violated copyright law has huge potential implications across the video landscape. DVR, Video on Demand and broadband video are all close cousins jockeying for position in the race to provide on-demand choice to consumers. So for those interested in broadband's deployment, it's important to understand ongoing developments in DVR and VOD as well.

Today, I'm pleased to have Mugs Buckley and Colin Dixon, analysts at The Diffusion Group weigh in with their thoughts on last week's ruling.

The Cablevision nDVR Decision: Winners, Losers and How it Relates to Broadband

by Mugs Buckley and Colin Dixon, The Diffusion Group

The August 4th Cablevision nDVR decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals opens up the possibility that the company will be able to move ahead with its original nDVR plan, much to the dismay of the plaintiffs, a group of major studios and TV broadcasters. For a primer on the significance of the decision, we offer the following thoughts:

WHAT'S AN nDVR vs. a DVR?

The root of the nDVR case is where a TV viewer's recorded show gets stored: on a hard drive in a DVR located in the home (as is the current model) or on a hard drive in a cable operator's network (as Cablevision and other network operators prefer).

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

To the viewer, it doesn't; since using either approach allows recording and playback of programs.

But since the correlation between digital recording and ad-skipping is well-documented, the studios' and networks' key concern is that nDVR could dramatically accelerate recording usage, thereby accelerating the ad-skipping trend. That would be a big blow to their economic model. For Cablevision and other operators, it's all about cost. Storage in the network is much cheaper than a truck roll to a customer's home and individual DVR box deployments. nDVR also allows the operator to leverage their huge investment in VOD systems.

WHERE DO THINGS GO FROM HERE?

While Cablevision won its appeal, the ruling is far from conclusive. The next step is for the lower court to revisit this ruling, so when Cablevision will actually be able to roll out the nDVR service is totally unknown. They must wait for the lower court to decide if they agree with the upper court's decision, which is not expected before the end of 2008. And of course we expect the studios and content providers to file subsequent appeals.

WHERE DO OTHER OPERATORS STAND?

If Cablevision wins, other cable and telco network operators will implement nDVR too. For example, Time Warner Cable's CEO Glenn Britt told Multichannel News on August 6th, "We've said for a long time that a centralized network DVR is a better engineering solution than having hard drives all over everybody's home. If this particular court case is upheld, we will deploy that."

AND THE BROADBAND IMPLICATIONS?

Should the ruling stand, a company like TiVo could possibly be able to capitalize on it by delivering the nDVR experience over broadband. Of course, TiVo's been shifting its model to work with service providers anyway, so this may not be a strategy it would pursue.

As for other broadband implications, this is where the interplay between nDVR, VOD and broadband video can get murky. For instance, sites like Hulu and ABC.com are already storing programs in the network (albeit in a way that they control) for on-demand consumption. This obviates the requirement that the consumer take the action to record say the latest episode of "The Office" in a DVR or nDVR environment.

And of course, the content providers control the ad insertion (although presumably they could do that for nDVR as well). Other than making ALL TV programs available vs. just the subset currently available for broadband delivery (and VOD) and the fact that nDVR can be viewed easily on TVs, which is not currently the case for broadband, the differences between nDVR and broadband start to feel quite blurry.

As you can see, nDVR has lots of implications for everyone in the video value chain.

Bottom line: Much more to come. Stay tuned.

Through NBC's massive investment in broadband coverage, consumers are going to enjoy a completely different Olympic experience, obsoleting many of our traditional responses around missing key Olympic moments: "I just couldn't stay up so late to see that one" or "Hopefully they'll replay that one, I'd really like to see it, or "My kids wanted to see that one but it was during school."

It's hard to imagine a sporting event, or any other event for that matter, better suited to broadband coverage. The two key challenges of Olympic broadcast coverage have always been the limited shelf space that just one broadcast channel provides (leading to coverage of only the most popular sports, and even then mainly the final rounds) and the time zone differences, which have created an awkward scheduling mix for U.S. prime-time.

NBC, which has been touting its broadband Olympics coverage for months, has addressed these by offering a package of 2,200 hours of live streaming and 3,000 hours of on-demand highlights. The scale of NBC's broadband undertaking is unprecedented, and will easily create a new case study for future broadband event producers.

To get a little glimpse of how just the on-demand portion of coverage will work, yesterday I spoke with Anystream's CEO Fred Singer and COO Bill Holding. Anystream is a key media production and publishing partner of NBC's, essentially handling all of the work flows for the 10,000 video assets that will be available on-demand.

Fred and Bill gave me a sense of the massive complexity involved in ingesting video from the other side of the planet, processing it in a fraction of the customary time allowed, and then distributing it within minutes - according to an elaborate set of rights and business rules - to 16 partners in multiple formats. Often I speak of the complexity involved in the Syndicated Video Economy; there is no better example than the distribution of Olympics' video.

Lastly of course, there are all of us consumers. While unprecedented coverage is available at NBCOlympics.com and elsewhere, to actually enjoy it entails getting down the learning curve of what, where, when and how individual sports will be offered. In short, massive choice requires consumer involvement. Nevertheless, I expect we'll be hearing about some very impressive broadband stats from NBC over the next two weeks and thereafter.

Let the Games begin!

I continue to be surprised that more long-form premium content providers have not pursued initiatives to slice and dice their programs into a non-linear user presentation. This is what "The Daily Show" has done at its site, deconstructing every episode into searchable clips. I think it's a big opportunity to drive more fan engagement, new ad inventory and provide insight about new programming ideas.

While this idea is a natural for archived sports and news programming, I think the model applies to scripted programs as well. Here's an example:

As I've written before, my wife and I were huge fans of "The West Wing" during its seven-year run on NBC. While we now own the full DVD collection, periodically I'll talk to someone about the show and reminisce about a specific moment from years back. (In fact, TWW seems cosmically related to the current election cycle, given the show's last narrative around 2 candidates - one younger and one older - battling to succeed Bartlet.) This spurs many of those, "boy, I'd love to see that scene right now!" moments.

So wouldn't it be awesome if NBC or Warner Bros. (its producer), or whoever has the rights, were to create a site where all the episodes were archived and fully indexed for searching? This would go far beyond the show's current lame-o web site. I could type in "Bartlet speeches," "Josh meltdowns" or even "C.J.-Danny fights" and instantly see collections of relevant clips.

Before you accuse me of being geeky, stop and consider that we all have our favorite programs and love to relive memorable lines and moments. I'd argue that a really vibrant community could be built at these sites, attracting traditional advertisers eager to continue their audience relationships. Then of course there's the opportunity to embed clips into Facebook and MySpace pages, extending the community further. And think about what this ongoing loyalty would do to drive up the value of broadcast syndication rights.

The big challenge here is indexing the archive. The process must rely heavily on accurate metadata generation, but in a highly scalable, cost-effective manner. That's a mouthful of requirements, so clearly this isn't easy stuff. Various players are trying to crack this nut; two which I've previously written about are Gotuit (which is announcing a partnership with Move Networks today) and EveryZing, but there are others too. Recently I've had briefings with 2 companies that are investing in this area and will have news in the coming months.

Long-from premium providers are facing an onslaught of competition from short-form alternatives while also commonly experiencing a shortage of available inventory. Non-linear presentations of their content addresses both these issues, while delighting loyal fans. I see this as an emerging and sizable opportunity.

Am I missing something here? Post a comment now!

Survey results being released this morning by Frank N. Magid Associates, a research consultancy, and video aggregator Metacafe provide fresh evidence that short-form video dominates online video consumption. Notably, the survey also goes a step further, finding that 28% of respondents who watch online video report watching less TV as a result.

Meanwhile though, on the same day earlier this week that I was talking to Mike Vorhaus, managing director at Magid, and Erick Hachenburg, CEO of Metacafe about this new survey, Mediaweek was reporting a separate Magid survey, commissioned by CBS, which found that "35% of the nearly 50,000 streamers surveyed...reported that they are more likely to view shows on the network as a result of having been exposed to content on the web."

As I learned from Mike, there's no actual contradiction in these 2 surveys' findings, but you do have to squint your eyes a bit to make sure you're understanding the data accurately.

First, the findings on short-form's domination. The Metacafe survey asked respondents about the most commonly viewed types of video and presented them with category choices. The top 5 selected were all short-form oriented: Comedy/jokes/bloopers (37%), music videos (36%), videos shot and uploaded by consumers (33%), news stories (31%) and movie previews (28%). TV shows comes in at #6 (25%), followed by more short-form categories of weather, TV clips and sports clips.

That short-form, snackable video dominates is not really a huge surprise, given YouTube's market share and the preponderance of virally shared clips. Yet Mike emphasized that short-form does not equal UGC, a point that Erick also highlights. Rather, Mike sees short-form as a legitimate alternative entertainment format that creatives are embracing and audiences are adopting. It is causing further audience fragmentation resulting in the TV audience erosion that the survey also uncovered.

Which of course begs how Magid's CBS survey data squares up. Mike explained that the key here is that the CBS survey is based solely on users of CBS.com. These people naturally have a greater affinity for CBS programming and their likelihood of watching CBS shows on TV will be far higher than randomly-selected audiences (such as in the Metacafe survey). Here's the CBS press release for more details.

So the CBS data suggests that networks should be encouraged that streaming their shows builds loyalty and broadcast viewership, and therefore that they should keep on doing it. Nevertheless they need to be mindful that their shows now compete in a far larger universe of video choices, and that short-form - as a new genre - is something they too should be looking to exploit. Appropriately, all the networks, and many studios, are doing exactly that.

There is no shortage of research concerning consumer media behavior floating around these days. As the two Magid surveys show, superficially data may appear to be conflicting, though in reality it is not. Observers need to make sure they're digging in, and taking away the right lessons.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Yesterday came a further positive sign that user-generated video may be elevated from the domain of karaoke-singing cats, faux-skateboarding accidents and exploding soda bottles.

That positive sign was MySpace, NBC and MSNBC's announcement of a new citizen journalism initiative dubbed the "Decision '08 Convention Contest." In it, MySpace users are encouraged to submit short videos answering one of three questions, "Why do you vote?" "Why are you the best person for this job?" or "How will you stand out in the crowd and get the scoop no one else can?"

The submissions will first be judged by a panel of experts from MySpace and NBC, with five finalists revealed for the MySpace community to vote on. Two winners will be selected, one to attend the Democratic convention this summer, and the other to attend the Republican convention.

To learn more about the contest and the motivations behind it, yesterday I spoke to Liba Rubenstein, MySpace's Manager of Public Affairs, who is essentially the product manager for the IMPACT channel, MySpace's hub for civic and social engagement. Liba explained that MySpace has used this type of contest frequently, and to much success. MySpace community members love getting involved and expressing their creativity. The two level judging process is meant to balance the experts' high editorial standards with members' passion and enthusiasm. Liba added that in particular MySpace and NBC are gaining insights about how to fuse traditional media with web 2.0. (And in a classic "doing well by doing good" vein, maybe NBC will discover the next Tim Russert in the contest.)

I like the Decision '08 contest for a variety of reasons. First and most importantly, it allows UGV to be directed to an important social use: increasing citizens' involvement in the democratic process. In this way it continues on what YouTube's YouChoose '08 pioneered by allowing its users to upload video questions in the recent primary debates. It may sound somewhat idealistic, but I really like the notion of broadband video doing its part to strengthen the functioning of America's democracy - even more so as we approach July 4th in this election year.

Further, I think the convention contest provides an example for how others outside the political realm might consider harnessing the creativity and passion of their members to use UGV in a directed purpose. One example that comes right to mind is in the education field. For example, wouldn't it be cool if educators uploaded UGV of themselves in action, explaining and demonstrating their proven teaching methods? I got a glimpse of some of this happening already, while doing a project last summer for the George Lucas Educational Foundation. There's no shortage of other examples.

There has been much hand-wringing about whether UGV can ever be monetized through advertising, a debate that will no doubt rage on. Alternatively, I for one would like to see more energy put into purpose-driven UGV projects like the MySpace-NBC convention contest. While I enjoy the cats, skateboarders and soda bottles as much as the next guy, I continue to believe the UGV medium can ultimately be so much more.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

More evidence this morning of the Syndicated Video Economy playing out, as Disney is announcing it will distribute both ABC and ESPN programming to Veoh, the broadband video aggregator. This follows ESPN's first and recent syndication deal with AOL.

Last week in "Disney/ABC's Cheng is Confident About Broadband Video Advertising," I explained how Disney places a huge emphasis on its video player, so that it can present a consistent user experience and also control advertising. The Veoh deal is aligned with that thinking. Veoh users are exposed to Disney programming, but once they want to view, the Disney video player launches.

In fact it's interesting, if you compare what's been implemented so far at Veoh vs. how ABC shows come up at Hulu (an aggregator that Disney does not have a deal with), there's not that much difference. Recall that Hulu is just taking a feed of Disney's program-related metadata, but again, if you actually want to view, you'll launch the Disney video player.

I'm guessing the major difference here, and why some money changes hands with Veoh, but not Hulu, is that Veoh must be making some kind of commitment to promote Disney programs. Though you never want to judge a deal by how it's implemented on day 1, for now Disney doesn't seem to getting much visibility. I noticed a Jimmy Kimmel thumbnail rotate through the Veoh home page, but when I drilled down through the "TV Shows" and "Channel" tabs, I didn't see any extra promotion of ABC programs. In fact the only ABC program even listed in Veoh's generic alphabetized directory was "Ugly Betty." I found a few full-length episodes when I drilled down through an "ABC" link I found with the Kimmel video, but couldn't find that link anywhere else.

All of this is a reminder that there's a very interesting minuet going on between established networks looking to broaden their online reach and the big video aggregators that have grown dramatically and raised lots of money, but are still unprofitable. The Disney-Veoh deal shows that aggregators may be willing to agree to networks' desires for online control in exchange for the potential to generate high-margin promotion-based revenue (remember they're not hosting or delivering the Disney video, so for Veoh in this case there's very little expense involved) and incremental on-page ad revenue. Of course too many of these kinds of implementations and the aggregator's user experience will look quite inconsistent.

No doubt there will be many more network-aggregator deals yet to be done, demonstrating how this market will eventually shape up.

Though broadcast TV networks have been aggressively pushing their shows online, there has been simmering angst about what impact this will ultimately have on their traditional economics.

I have explored this issue recently in "Does Broadband Video Help or Hurt Broadcast TV Networks?" and in two posts on Fox's "Remote-Free TV" initiative here and here. NBCU's CEO Jeff Zucker has helped to stoke this concern, publicly calling broadcasters' #1 challenge the risk of exchanging "analog dollars for digital pennies."

Thus I was both a bit surprised, but also encouraged, to hear Albert Cheng, Disney/ABC's EVP of Digital Media tell me in a recent briefing that despite the fact that online revenue per program per eyeball is currently less than it is for on-air, he's confident that online will eventually catch up and surpass on-air. I don't regard these comments as idle boasts. A thick PowerPoint deck covering its online video strategy, which Disney/ABC shared with me, reveals the meticulous thought and in-depth audience research that is guiding Disney's online video initiatives. Not to mention ABC.com is the most-used network web site.

Cheng is quick to point out that Disney/ABC has followed a careful and consistent strategy since it moved into online distribution a few years ago (note Disney/ABC was the first network to work with iTunes and first to offer programs for free. Other networks quickly followed). The focus has been on continued learning and refinement.

From a strategy standpoint, Disney/ABC's video player, powered by Move Networks, is the centerpiece. The focus is on delivering a high-quality, consistent user experience in which ads are engaging, but not intrusive. While other networks have received more ink for their syndication efforts Cheng is quick to point out that access to Disney/ABC's player has always been open, allowing other sites to refer their users, if not actually integrate the player.

By making an RSS feed available of its online programs' meta-data, Cheng believes Disney/ABC can achieve much of what others gain through syndication deals (see how Hulu displays results for a "Lost" search below, subtly noting "Watch at ABC" This is the same concept I noted in my recent Hulu vs. Comcast post), while avoiding the downsides of ad sales conflicts, business rules implementation and delivery overhead.

By controlling their own ad inventory, Disney/ABC avoids the sometimes one-sided revenue sharing deals widely-discussed in the industry (Hulu alone is rumored to keep 90%) and the channel conflict that inevitably results from having two sales teams calling on the same media buyers. Cheng does see a role for online aggregators, but mainly for library or off-network product, especially as a backstop for traditional syndication.

Cheng's rationale for broadband's eventual revenue superiority to on-air ultimately boils down to this: since broadband can offer both superior targeting and engagement vs. on-air, by definition it deserves higher pricing. But getting to that vision from today's reality is where Disney/ABC's hard work of evangelizing to advertisers and ongoing testing is key (and where the company's recently announced "Ad Lab" comes in).

What do you think? Post a comment and let everyone know!

In my recent post "Revisiting the Long Tail and Broadband" I explained how broadband is the next step in an evolution of video distribution systems and that now, after many years of growth, cable networks' niche, but collective audiences are exceeding those of the broadcasters.

Several readers emailed suggesting I append an important footnote to this analysis: there is a key business model difference between today's fledgling broadband video providers and cable networks. That difference is that cable networks benefit from monthly "sub fees" or "affiliate fees" that all distributors (cable TV and satellite operators, telcos, etc.) must pay to carry cable's programming. These fees are collected in addition to the advertising these networks sell. No such sub fees are available to broadband video providers (or broadcasters for that matter), at least not yet.

Having been in and around the cable industry for 20 years, I fully appreciate that sub fees matter a lot to cable networks. Since the beginning of the cable industry, they have served as a financial firewall for networks. Sub fees now range from pennies per month to over $3 for ESPN. Even on the low-end a "fully distributed" cable network (reaching approximately 80 million+ U.S. homes) reaps millions of sub fee dollars per month. And remember, that money comes in regardless of how well the network's ratings were that month. (btw, for an explanation of the genesis of sub fees, have a look at "Cable Cowboy," Mark Robichaux's biography of TCI's John Malone).

Cable networks' financial security continues to be translated into improved programming quality. Recently, in "Golden Age for TV? Yes, on Cable," the NY Times' David Carr lamented that broadcast TV seems to be on a degenerative slide to offer "all manner of contests and challenges," yet noted that cable is ascendant with Emmy and Oscar-winning talent dotting its innovative new dramas. No surprise to anyone, financial muscle translates into programming quality.

All this helps to explain why, whenever I moderate a panel including cable network executives, they fall all over themselves to declare their allegiance to their current, paying distributors. Cable networks are stepping gingerly into the broadband era, careful not to upset their enviable business model.

Conversely, broadband upstarts have no incumbent customers to consider. While this frees them to strike creative and wide-ranging distribution deals, as best I can tell, they're going to be totally dependent on advertising for a long time to come. This is why I continue urging that broadband video advertising must mature further, and fast.

While broadband upstarts scramble and broadcasters struggle, cable networks will keep chugging along, nicely fueled by their consistent sub fees.

Though I've been predicting a wave of consolidation among broadband vendors for a while, deals in the space have only been sporadic. I think that's been due to investors continuing to fund independent companies and a sufficient amount of business to go around for most everyone.

One deal that did close in the last few months was Entriq's acquisition of DayPort. I recently had a briefing with Guy Tennant, Entriq's COO and Cory Factor, DayPort's former CEO and now CTO of the combined entity to understand their joint strategy and a recently-expanded deal with Inergize Digital Media.

I've been familiar with Entriq for a while as it was primarily focused on enabling media companies to support paid business models. It specialized in things like rights management, DRM, security, business rules and the like. Yet as advertising as emerged as the business model of choice for many, Entriq has been on a bit of a roller-coaster; there has been some senior management turnover and also I've heard of layoffs.

By acquiring DayPort, which supports advertising, Entriq expands its capabilities, allowing it to serve customers regardless of business model choice. This would also include hybrid pay/ad-supported models, which I continue to hear more and more about. The combined company is focusing on verticals like broadcasting (where DayPort always had a presence), independent producers and long-form content, particularly sports. Syndication is another key focus of the combined companies, mirroring the trend that I've written about in the past.

The recently-expanded deal with Inergize builds on a prior relationship DayPort had with the company. Inergize itself provides online solutions to broadcasters and Entriq has now integrated its combined capabilities more deeply with Inergize to serve the market. The two companies are also trying to deeply tie in to existing broadcast work-flow and production operations. One joint customer Guy and Cory cited was Newport Television, which recently acquired the Clear Channel TV stations which as deployed the Inergize/Entriq products.

Entriq-DayPort is competing in the very crowded broadband video content management/publishing space, which I've described previously. Yet by combining, the two companies have certainly strengthened their hand. As the market continues to evolve, they'll be fighting for their share.

Two-and-a-half weeks ago, in "Fox's 'Remote-Free TV': Broadband's First Adverse Impact on Networks" I asserted that Fox's decision to cut in half the number of ads it will include in two new programs was influenced by the limited ads shown in networks' broadband initiatives.

By giving "RFTV" a try, Fox was catching on to the idea that fewer commercial interruptions improves the viewer experience. I pointed out that the challenge RFTV posed is that cutting ad time in half means that Fox would have to double the CPMs it charged just to remain whole. Could Fox do that?

Yesterday's piece in Adweek provided at least a preliminary answer: No. Adweek, quoting unnamed media agency sources, reported that Fox is getting only a 35-40% premium for the "RFTV" ad inventory. If my math is right that would imply that Fox is grossing 30-33% less total ad revenue than it would have under its traditional ad model.

Broadcast networks, having moved much of their programming online, have engendered new viewer expectations for fewer ads. The early results from Fox's "RFTV" initiative may indeed be evidence that these new expectations are at odds with sustaining broadcasters' traditional margins and profits.

Way back in the dark ages of March, 2005, I wrote a newsletter entitled, "The Long Tail of Video is About to Get Longer - What Role Will Cable Play?" I thought of it yesterday when I read an article in Multichannel News "Cable Bests Broadcast - Basic Networks Steamroll Into Summer with Lion's Share of Audience." I continue to believe that cable TV provides a lot of lessons for those thinking about broadband video's future.

First, a quick refresher on the idea of The Long Tail. In October, 2004, Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, wrote an article which later turned into a book, asserting that once physical limitations (e.g. manufacturing, distribution, inventory, etc.) are removed - thereby allowing all products with niche appeal to be readily available to consumers - it turns out that the aggregate sales of these niche products are greater than the few "mass" products which were always available in traditional distribution channels. When this effect is plotted on an XY graph, the line depicting the tiny sales per niche unit extends indefinitely, forming a "long tail."

The Long Tail was an important contribution in understanding how the world of digital economics works. Anderson cited multiple examples where the Long Tail was evident (e.g. Amazon, Rhapsody, etc.). In my March '05 piece I explained that the Long Tail concept was familiar to anyone in the cable TV business: the traditional "head" content was the broadcasters, the long tail was the constellation of niche-oriented cable TV channels.

When I wrote the piece, as a group, basic cable TV's total audience had just nudged past the collective audience of the broadcasters for the first time (i.e. The Long Tail effect was becoming evident). While each cable channel's audience was small relative to each broadcaster's, cable's total audience was now greater. It had taken 30+ years for cable audience to reach this point.

Flash forward 3+ years to the Multichannel article revealing that in May sweeps period, cable's audience share had surged to 60%, compared with 40% for the broadcasters. And it's interesting to note that a key part of cable's May win is due to cable co-opting traditional broadcast programming: in May TNT's airing of NBA playoff games accounted for 12 of the month's top 20 most-watched programs.

What does all this have to do with broadband video? As I explained back in '05, in reality, broadband distribution is essentially extending the long tail of programming. Broadband allows startups and established players (including cable and broadcast networks!) to utilize newly available broadband infrastructure to reach their audiences. The result is a massive proliferation of new programming and new viewer behaviors, further fragmenting audiences to ever-smaller niches.

Today's cable channels will eventually be seen as the "mid-tail" with broadband as the hyper-niche long tail. Given their own first-hand experience of the last 30 years, cable operators, cable networks and broadcast networks should all have a pretty clear view of the challenges and opportunities that broadband creates. How well they respond will determine who will be the winners and losers of the next 30 years.

Looking back over two dozen posts in May and countless industry news items, I have synthesized 3 key topics below. I'll have more on all of these in the coming months.

1. Broadband-delivered movies inch forward - breakthroughs still far out

In May there was incremental progress in the holy grail-like pursuit of broadband-delivered movies. Apple established day-and-date deals with the major studios for iTunes. Netlix and Roku announced a new lightweight box for delivering Netlix's "Watch Now" catalog of 10,000 titles to TVs. Bell Canada launched its Bell Video Store, complete with day-and-date Paramount releases, with others to come soon. And Starz announced a deal with Verizon to market "Starz Play" a newly branded version of its Vongo broadband subscription and video-on-demand service.

Taken together, these deals suggest that studios are warming to the broadband opportunity. This is certainly influenced by slowing DVD sales. Yet as I explained in "iTunes Film Deals Not a Game Changer" and "Online Move Delivery Advances, Big Hurdles Still Loom" broadband movies are still bedeviled by a lack of mass PC-TV connectivity, no real portability, well-defined consumer behavior around DVDs and the studios' well-entrenched, window-driven business model. Despite May's progress, major breakthroughs in the broadband movie business are still way out on the horizon.

2. Broadcast TV networks are embracing broadband delivery - but leading to what?

Unlike the film studios, the broadcast TV networks are plowing headlong into broadband delivery, yet it's not at all clear where this leads. In "Does Broadband Video Help or Hurt Broadcast TV Networks" and "Fox's 'Remote-Free TV': Broadband's First Adverse Impact on Networks?" I laid out an initial analysis about broadband's pluses and minuses for networks. I'll have more on this in the coming weeks, including more in-depth financial analysis.

On the plus side, in "2009 Super Bowl Ads to Hit $3 Million, Broadband's Role Must Grow," "Sunday Morning Talk Shows Need Broadband Refresh" and "Today Show Interview with McClellan Showcases Broadband's Power," I illustrated some opportunities broadband is creating. On the other hand, "Bebo Pursues Distinctive Original Programming Model" and "More Questions than Answers at Digital Hollywood" explained how exciting new programming approaches are taking hold, challenging traditional TV production models. Broadcasters are in the eye of the broadband storm.

3. Advertising's evolution fueled by innovation and resources

Last, but hardly least, I continued on one of my favorite topics: the impact broadband video is having on the advertising industry. Over the last 10 years the Internet, with its targetability, interactivity and measurability has caused major shifts in marketers' thinking. With broadband further extending these capabilities to video, the traditional TV ad business is now ripe for budget-shifting. We'll be exploring a lot of this at a panel I'm moderating at Advertising 2.0 this Thursday.

In "Tremor, Adap.tv Introduce New Ad Platforms" and "All Eyes on Cable Industry's 'Project Canoe'" (from Mugs Buckley), key players' innovations were described along with how the cable industry plans to compete. Content providers are being presented with more and more options for monetizing their video, a trend which will only accelerate. Yet as I wrote in "Key Themes from My 2 Panel Discussions Last Week," many issues remain, and with so many content start-ups reliant on ads, there may be some disappointment looming when people realize the ad market is not as mature as they had hoped.

That's it for May. Lots more coming in June. Please stay tuned.