Posts for 'Broadcasters'

Why is Fox doing this and why does it matter? According to TV Week's coverage, Mr. Liguori said: "The broadcast business needs a jolt. This gives viewers one less reason to change the channel." The first statement is certainly true, but the second seemed off somehow. If the programming's really compelling, it seems unlikely that viewers are going to change the channel (when did you ever change the channel in the middle of "24" for example?).

Switching channels doesn't seem to be the issue; rather, I think the more pressing concerns behind RFTV are ad-skipping from DVR usage and broadband's growing influence. But on the DVR side, if I'm a viewer watching programs like these in recorded mode, are fewer pods or shorter ads going to make me any less inclined to hit the fast-forward button to skip the ads? Doubtful. I only need to retrain myself to hit the "play" button sooner.

If that's the case, then it seems to me that "RFTV" should be interpreted as a response to viewers' preference for broadband's "limited commercial interruptions" model. But when Fox cuts these programs' on-air ad time in half, it needs to double its fees per ad to remain even. Fox is now talking to advertisers to see if it can turn that goal into a reality. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't. If it can't, then these 2 new programs' on-air monetization will be lower than traditional expectations. Could this mean that "RFTV" may actually end up representing broadband's first demonstrably adverse impact on the network TV business? Quite possibly.

In my post last week, "Does Broadband Video Help or Hurt Broadcast TV Networks?" I argued that while broadband offers short-term benefits, in the long-term it's going to force broadcast TV networks to fundamentally adjust to different economics. Broadband's limited commercial interruptions means far fewer ad slots to monetize. RFTV may be a harbinger that this approach may now be coming to on-air as well.

Though broadband delivery is still nascent, its implications are far-reaching. In this case, having moved most of their prime-time programs online, networks now need to show it brings positive results. That will be interesting to watch. Longer-term may be nearer than I thought.

What do you think of Fox's "RFTV" initiative? And how does it impact the network's business? Post a comment and let everyone know!

Yesterday's article in the NY Times, "In the Age of TiVo and Web Video, What is Prime Time?" was the latest of many about the changing landscape of broadcast network TV. An underlying question that receives a lot of attention, yet little in the way of clear-cut conclusions: Does broadband video help or hurt broadcast TV networks?

The jumble of conflicting data and opinions on this topic (as well as the related topic of DVRs' impact on the networks) is causing plenty of speculation during this important upfront week of when billions of dollars of networks' ads are bought and sold.

Here's a synopsis of how I think proponents of each would defend their answer:

Broadband video helps: The world is changing - consumers are more empowered than ever and it's pointless to resist. Broadband is a great way to catch up on episodes missed, conveniently sample programs, engender interactivity, transform viewers into viral promoters, etc. More exposure will translate into more on-air viewership. Plus as broadband audience size builds ad revenue will as well. Network programming is and always will be the most watched, most valued source of video entertainment and with broadband opening up all kinds of new revenue opportunities, there's ample reason to be optimistic.

Broadband video hurts: Broadband kills networks' success formula, driving profitable on-air viewership to profitless broadband viewership. It's pie-in-the-sky thinking to believe that broadband revenues will ever catch up. Since only a limited amount of ads can be included in online broadcasts, even the higher CPMs received per ad deliver nowhere close to the revenue per episode per viewer as the on-air model does. All the interactivity and engagement in the world will never offset this shortfall. As more programs move online and viewers can eventually watch these right on their TVs, the shift from on-air to online consumption will only accelerate, causing permanent erosion to the traditional economic formula.

So which is it - are networks helped or hurt by broadband? I think the answer is short-term it helps, but long-term it hurts. In the short-term, there is evidence that broadband expands audiences. For example, The Office's premiere last fall 9.7 million people tuned in, but another 2.7 million watched online.

Expanding viewership is great, but what happens to networks' revenues if next fall 7.7 million watch on-air and 4.7 million online? And 3 years from now, 5.7 million on-air and 6.7 million online? You can count on viewers to gravitate to the optimal viewing experience, and if online further improves, expect more eyeballs to shift. Again, since there are fewer ads online, the only way for total network revenues to keep pace are to show more ads online (see ABC's plan on that front), dramatically raise CPMs and/or dramatically raise viewership. My guess is that even the most optimal mix of these three will not deliver enough to offset on-air's revenue decline.

Further confirmation that the TV landscape is evolving is The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' (the organization that puts on the primetime Emmys) recent announcement that the Primetime Emmy for Interactive Media will include two new areas of competition that tie user experience to either fiction or non-fiction programming.

This is not a technology award, but rather an award that honors outstanding creative achievement. In addition to having been distributed by the traditional broadcast, satellite or cable platforms, the recipient of this award could have been born from a variety of new platforms including broadband and mobile, or a combination of platforms.

Why is this newsworthy? Because the door is now open for many broadband video-only programmers, such as Revision3, TikiBarTV, or perhaps LonelyGirl15, who haven't yet inked a deal with a studio, network, or pay TV operator. As long their content fits the interactive criteria, then programs like these could be submitted and become an Emmy contender. A seismic change from yesteryear's Emmy considerations.

To qualify, entries need to be an original program or series that were deployed commercially between June 1, 2007 and May 31, 2008. The Interactive Media Peer group will be judging in June and will select 5 finalists in the aforementioned categories. The Peer Group is looking for submissions that have participatory interactive features and demonstrate overall creative excellence, interactive storytelling, and a compelling user experience.

If you're reading this and you've produced a program or a series that fits this description, the May 30th deadline is fast approaching. And if you don't have content that fits these qualifications, get your game on for 2009. These are exciting times where the democratization of being a Primetime Emmy winner may no longer mean that you're of network ilk. Cool!

I'm just back from a couple days at Digital Hollywood Spring, one of the broadband industry's leading conferences. A key takeaway for me is that there are still many more outstanding questions about the broadband video industry's future - and their implications for other players in related industries - than there are concrete answers.

Here are 3 big ones worth considering:

What role will current video distributors play in an increasingly broadband-centric world?

The subscription video business, dominated by cable and satellite operators, generates approximately $80 billion/year, depending on whose data you use. The model is well-understood, and is a huge part of funding the value chain of cable networks, rights-holders and TV program producers. Bundling ever more channels (50,70,100+) into digital tiers and charging ever-higher prices for them has been a core industry revenue driver.

Yet data continues to show that out of all those channels, the average household still only watches 5-10 at the most. Couple that with the migration to broadband, DVR and on-demand consumption and one is left with the feeling that there is a significant disconnect between the way video is packaged and priced today with growing consumer expectations and behaviors. Is the current approach sustainable long term or are new players (e.g. Sezmi) going to successfully disrupt the formula? Any major disruption would have significant ripple effects.

Is the ad-supported business model for broadband video going to deliver for all the content providers relying on it?

I've been a big supporter of the ad-supported approach for a while and believe in it strongly in the long-term. Yet as I see more and more content providers, aggregators, social networks and others look to it as their primary business model, I'm growing concerned that in the short-term there isn't going to be enough money to go around to support everyone. To be sure, current growth rates are strong, yet at DH many of advertising's big hurdles to reach long-term success were mulled over: achieving scale, standardizing formats, understanding performance metrics, converting media buyers, targeting, proving interactivity's value and so on.

The efficacy of the broadband ad model online is particularly pressing for broadcasters. Though some research indicates on-air viewership is benefited from online program availability, long-term there can be no question that a substitution effect will take place as viewers decide "do I watch on-air OR online?"

Jeff Zucker, NBCU's CEO tersely captured the threat this poses in his now often-repeated question "are we trading analog dollars for digital pennies?" In other words, if someone watching an NBC show like The Office on Hulu currently brings NBC far less revenue than if they were watching it on-air, is the migration to broadband viewership actually causing a permanent down-sizing of broadcasters' ad revenue per minute viewed? A scary thought to contemplate.

What does all this mean for Hollywood?

Surely less subscription or ad revenue eventually means less money for everyone including the whole Hollywood apparatus that has been funded out of the traditional models. But how, when and to what extent does this play out?

Further, is the very nature of what's expected of Hollywood changing? Herb Scannell, CEO/founder of Next New Networks asserted in his panel that the current generation of 'auteurs' - multi-skilled and motivated people who can write, direct, produce, act and promote implies a far different role for how Hollywood creates value for itself in the future. In fact, Herb believes that technology-empowered talent is the biggest disruptive force to the traditional Hollywood equation.

The point was brought home to me in a offsite function I attended in which Bebo, the massive youth-oriented social network (recently sold to AOL for $850 million), outlined its big push into original entertainment (e.g. "KateModern," "Sofia's Diary," etc.). Their expectations of what they, creators and users will be doing to create value are starkly different from the Hollywood model.

 Do you have any answers? Post a comment and let everyone know!

In the heat of the Democratic primary, the five major Sunday morning talk shows have recently taken on greater prominence. For political junkies like me, even after a week's worth of endless campaign coverage, it is great sport to watch the candidates and their surrogates put the best face on the week's events, while eagerly trying to tee up issues for the coming week's news cycle.

The Sunday shows are also perfect fodder for broadband video consumption. On-air they are neatly segmented by guests and topics, their archives offer a vivid research opportunity for both editorial and user-driven curation, and the audiences that tune in are upscale and appealing to advertisers.

With all this going for them, I decided to investigate the online presence of the five Sunday morning shows, ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," CBS's "Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer," FOX's "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace," NBC's "Meet the Press with Tim Russert" and CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Though all of the sites had their strengths, as a group I found them to be surprisingly average initiatives, especially in comparison to the superb efforts these same networks have mounted for their online entertainment programming. (Note that all I found for "Late Edition" was a brochure page)

"FTN" would have to rank at the top of my list, primarily because it segments the show by its guests and topics and displays them in the user-friendliest manner. This allows the user to quickly zero in on desired segments. "This Week" and "MTP" do some of this as well, though I found their presentation not as straightforward. What's missing from all are related clips across episodes curated in a meaningful way. Presentation is very episode-centric.

While all the sites rely heavily on pre-roll ads, "FTN" gets credit for using some frequency capping. "This Week," seems to ignore the best practices that ABC.com follows in presenting its shows with limited interruptions. Not only does it not frequency cap, it also ran the same 2 ads - one for Intel and one for Verizon Wireless - over and over. Needless to say this became tiresome after clicking to watch several segments.

Meanwhile, navigation and available content on these sites are all over the board. "MTP" offers a link to watch the whole program with limited interruptions, while "FNS" offers a text transcript of the most recent program, but not a video of the whole program. "This Week's" main text navigation has links to pure text stories, text stories with embedded video clips, and video clips alone, but no way to sort the list by media type. Search on each site also yields highly diverse results - some video, some not. One missed opportunity is that none offer any user editing features. Putting together your own highlights reel to be embedded on a blog or social networking site would likely be great fun for many hard-core viewers.

The Sunday talk shows offer dynamite content, highly leverageable for broadband consumption. Hopefully as the political season rolls on we'll see the networks recognize this and continue to invest in new features and improved usability.

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

The news yesterday that Warner Bros Television Group plans to launch TheWB.com as an online outlet to offer its catalog of popular programs and KidsWB.com to house its animated favorites are further reminders that broadband's infinite shelf space creates all kinds of new opportunities for broadcasters and studios ready to experiment and be creative.

I regard these moves as the latest evidence that industry players are beginning to understand how programming in a broadband world differs from business-as-usual approaches. If there is one word that captures the essence of the traditional world it would be "scarcity." Scarcity of time slots, distributors, eyeballs, financing, brands, advertising dollars, ideas, etc. The whole broadcasting and studio paradigm is built on a zero sum - and legitimate - idea that only a very small handful of all creative pursuits can succeed at any one time.

Broadband explodes the scarcity model, introducing a world of abundance in which every scarcity constraint is alleviated or erased. Abundance thinking has guided online retailers for years: offering incremental inventory is dirt-cheap, and if made easily discoverable, it will find its buyers. In fact, as the incongruous popularity of "Arrested Development" on Hulu already shows, latent demand for catalog programming can actually be quite strong.

Evidence is growing that other video providers also understand the abundance concept. Recently other networks and studios have also launched their own efforts to monetize catalog programming. At my recent NAB panel, the head of CTV's 2012 Olympics coverage noted that ALL Olympic activity will be available for online viewing (their mantra is "Every Second Counts"). Also at NAB, I was introduced to a stealthy new initiative to make available high-quality archived video that has never been available online. I expect plenty more examples to come.

To be sure, broadband's abundance creates all kinds of new challenges: More audience fragmentation. New promotion and user navigation issues. More monetization complexity. New operational and management tasks. And so on.

Yet broadband's abundance should be viewed as a direct challenge to the historical scarcity model on which broadcasters' and studios' strategies have long been built. Industry participants who recognize the new world order and embrace it will be best-positioned to succeed.

What do you think of how broadband's abundance changes things? Post a comment and let everyone know!

Anystream, a long-time player in video transcoding, is announcing that its Media Lifecycle Platform has been implemented by 11 of Hearst-Argyle's 29 owned and operated TV stations.

The move suggests even more vigorous competition is coming to the video management/publishing space where players like thePlatform, Brightcove, Maven, ExtendMedia, PermissionTV, Akamai (StreamOS), WorldNow and others have focused.

I sat down with Anystream (note, a periodic VideoNuze sponsor) president Bill Holding and founder/chairman Geoff Allen recently to learn more about their expansion strategy.

Anystream is well-known in the digital media space as it Agility transcoding platform is deployed in over 700 companies. Leveraging this base of relationships and its knowledge of customers' work flows, Anystream is now "moving north" by focusing on the video management layer. The core technology comes from Anystream's 2007 acquisition of Cauldron Solutions, which has been built out, renamed as Velocity and integrated with Agility.

Anystream's new, broader positioning rests on its belief that the video "Produce-Manage-Monetize" lifecycle elements are deeply linked, and that ultimately a comprehensive, integrated solution will be prized by media companies serious about scaling their broadband video businesses. At the manage layer specifically, Velocity focuses on rights, scheduling, packaging, syndication and asset tracking.

Anystream believes metadata it gains access to, at the start of the video lifecycle through its transcoding role, is a unifying value driver in the video management and monetization phases.

Hearst-Argyle clearly saw the benefits of this approach, citing Anystream's metadata management as opening up new content re-use opportunities and creating competitive advantage. In the press release, Joe Addalia, H-A's director of technology projects, said H-A has cut its production and distribution to online channels "from 30 minutes to 3 1/2 minutes."

I continue to be impressed with how many companies are staking a claim in the broadband video management/publishing space. I'm constantly trying to discern the real competitive differentiators that separate industry players. Like many of you, I often find the landscape quite blurry, with overlapping capabilities. Each player tends to cite its traditional competencies as being the best building blocks from which to build a full scale management/publishing platform.

While it's tempting to say "they can't all be right," the fact that so many players are finding market success today indicates that content owners are not monolithic in their specific requirements and that a giant game of matchmaking seems to be occurring between content owners and video management providers. One day there may be a consensus on who truly has the "best" management platform, but for now that day seems to be far off.

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

One of the best hours I spent at NAB was the one listening to Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar. Too bad it was scheduled for 5pm on Day 3, resulting in a desultory crowd of only a 100 or so. Broadcasters and others could learn a lot from Kilar and Hulu's early experience.

Hulu, which was derisively referred to as "Clown Co" prior to its launch, is anything but. In my previous review of its beta, I gave it a B+. One month since its official launch, I now move it up a notch to A minus, and as I'll explain later, an A is within reach.

Hulu is as well-thought out a broadband video enterprise as currently exists, for at least three reasons:

Clarity of purpose - While Hulu evokes Google with its lofty goal, "to help people find and enjoy the world's premium content, when, where and how they want to," it has provided discipline to keep Kilar and his team focused on meaningfully supportive differentiators.

Relentless user-focus - Hulu is Apple-esque in its devotion to what Kilar called an "atypically strong user experience." The team has sweated over and uses every design and technology lever available to make Hulu easy and enjoyable and accessible to the mainstream market.

Organizational capability - Hulu has a startup mentality where every decision is do-or-die. It may feel intangible if you've never worked in a startup, but personal ownership is an incredibly important advantage. Inculcating this ethos despite a $100 million investment and $1 billion valuation is no mean feat.

Several recent spins through Hulu showed how these come together. Hulu now has 50+ content partners, but is uncluttered by UGC. This is a place for only high-quality programming. Finding and playing video is a snap. Graphics and fonts are simple and clear. As Kilar said the site's 16:9 graphics, differentiated from standard square thumbnails, suggest this place is different from the rest (no "Tokyo at night" orientation here). Here you can also easily clip and share favorite scenes, which Kilar says has been done 100k+ times on 12K sites since launch.

And how about this - do a search for "Lost" - the popular ABC program which is NOT available on Hulu - and you'll get results pointing you offsite to ABC.com. Talk about putting the user first!

Hulu's real lesson to broadcasters and others is that if you create a high-quality user environment, you open up real opportunities and options. These include getting above average CPMs from advertisers (through effective units like the 7 second introductory "brand slate"), wringing value out of programs no longer on-air (example "Arrested Development" was #1 or #2 most popular on Hulu), pre-empting non-revenue producing/non-branded environments like file-sharing sites and YouTube, allowing new programs to be easily sampled and last but not least, re-capturing users who prefer online over the traditional on-air model.

Hulu still has major challenges ahead: massively building out its content library, proving its syndication value to content partners who could as easily go direct to distributors, making its overall economics work, and of course, navigating the treacherous political waters of its big media backers. If it does all of these, it gets an A. Hulu's impressive progress to date gives me every reason to believe it will.

What do you think of Hulu? Post a comment!

During very informative presentations at my NAB panel discussion yesterday, there were 2 slides that really caught my attention. Both shared statistics, new to me, about video piracy and user behavior patterns. These statistics illustrate the important early online window just following when a TV program is aired. Capturing this audience spike can dampen video piracy and also be a big revenue opportunity for providers.

Note the far lower behavior in the other lines and it is clear that the 24 hour window during and after airing a new episode is critical. It's also interesting to speculate on whether some users are beginning to look at online availability as pure VOD. If so, that would have implications on DVRs (i.e. why record a show when you've come to expect they'll all be posted quickly online?)

The second attention-getting slide was based on recent research by Akamai and Vobile, which used its digital fingerprinting technology to track the availability of illegal copies of an episode a popular program and their download volume. In the slide below, it is clear that although illegal copies are available immediately, the volume of downloads jumps by more than 500% the following morning (13 hours after broadcast).

What all of this demonstrates is that there is a real window of opportunity for premium video providers to slow video piracy and drive many new video views. By satisfying the obvious demand that users have for this content with legitimate distribution, providers can chip away at, though admittedly not eradicate, illegal sharing. If users gain confidence over time that their favorite programs will be available quickly, in high-quality and with a positive user experience (i.e. not overburdened with ads), the rationale to pursue the illegal route lessens. Conversely, video providers not responding to these viewer needs continue to leave themselves highly vulnerable to illegal behavior.

Any question you may have had about whether the broadcast and broadband worlds are converging would be put to rest after spending a couple of days at the NAB Show being held in Las Vegas this week.

This year's NAB Show heavily emphasizes content in a technology-transformed world. For starters, NAB has set up "Content Central" a showcase section in the Main Central Hall featuring a cluster of new media vendors. Within the Content Central area is a specially created "Content Theater" where back-to-back discussion panels run throughout the show, including one I'll be moderating this morning entitled "Broadband Media Workflow: Hitting the Viewing Window," with executives from MTV, CTV and Akamai.

Elsewhere at the show, there are numerous sessions with titles like "The New Hollywood! A New World of Entertainment!", "TV 2.0 - Video When, Where and How You Want It" and "Video Search for Unlimited Channels." In short, NAB has gone full throttle toward content, which in my opinion is a very good thing. That's because a key NAB constituency, local television broadcasters, have seen their market positions impacted by broadband, particularly as network TV programs are now widely accessible online. Broadcasters today are feeling the beginning of what local newspapers have felt as the Internet's use has become pervasive.

But by elevating the focus on content, NAB is helping local TV broadcasters better understand how broadband presents opportunities, not just challenges. With strong expertise in video production, deep local roots and longstanding advertising relationships, local TV broadcasters are in some ways actually well-positioned to benefit from broadband.

The key challenge for local broadcasters is to take a fundamentally different view of their businesses. No longer constrained by their local market's boundaries, local broadcasters can play on a bigger stage, distributing compelling content to viewers living thousands of miles away. One syndication example, between CBS's stations and Yahoo, already generates over 13 million video views per month, all incremental to those at CBS's own site.

NAB's focus on content in a technology-driven world, follows a similar focus by the Consumer Electronics Association and NATPE at their respective shows over the past few months. Taken together, local broadcasters are being given many opportunities to understand the changing video landscape and how to profit from it.

The press releases began flying today, timed with NAB's kickoff. Here are a few that caught my eye:

Move Networks Raises $46 Million

Move continues its fund-raising prowess, raising a large C round. As more content providers push the HD quality bar, Move's content delivery services have increased appeal.

Signiant Powers Hulu's Distribution Efforts

Hulu, the NBC-Fox aggregator is using Signiant's media management platform to ingest content from the various content partners it works with.

Widevine Provides Content Security for Microsoft's Silverlight

For the first time Microsoft has used a third-party content security system to add a layer of protection for content providers using the company's new rich media plug-in.

EveryZing Introduced "RAMP," Signs Up Cox Radio

Building on its recent launch of EZSearch and EZSEO to enable video discovery, EveryZing has introduced a management console for the products for which Cox Radio will be the first customer.

Live Streaming Quality Bar Raised Via Mogulus-Kulabyte Partnership

Yesterday brought the public release of Adobe Media Player 1.0, first announced almost a year ago. AMP enters a very crowded space of other media players including its own Flash player, plus Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, QuickTime, SilverLight and others.

At a time when the broadband video industry in general and mainstream users in particular crave standardization and simplicity, can another media player, with a "walled garden" content strategy to boot, add new value? While it's awfully tempting to say "no," I think there are reasons why AMP could well matter, subject to how well Adobe delivers on its vision. Here's why:

AMP offers 2 things that, in my opinion, the market still needs. First, a widely used downloadable app that specializes in delivering on FREE video content. Before some of you jump up and say, "Will, what about iTunes?" keep in mind that iTunes offers primarily a PAID video catalog (though to be sure there are some free video podcasts). Second, and related, AMP' provides a download environment in which advertising can be properly inserted, measured and reported on.

These are important because together they open up an entirely new consumer use case for broadband video: offline, free, ad-supported viewing. I've been saying for a while that an odd dichotomy has taken root in the broadband industry, particularly for network programs: users can get either free, ad-supported streamed video at lots of places (provided they're online) OR they can get paid, downloaded video (iTunes model) which allows offline viewing. But this has meant that someone who wants to watch a show offline, but isn't willing to pay for the pleasure of doing so is out of luck (one exception is NBC Direct). Having media stored locally in AMP would allow the offline, free use case I'm describing. This would open up a boatload of premium ad inventory that advertisers savor.

If that's AMP's opportunity, then the question is how well are they executing on it? Though it's never fair to judge a version 1.0 on its first day, my experience with AMP shows there's room for improvement. First is the currently thin content selection that needs to be massively built out to be appealing and competitive. Second is an inconsistent user experience in which some shows are downloadable, yet many are not (e.g. CSI, Hawaii Five-O, Melrose Place). Third are getting the basics right. In my case, when I did download some episodes successfully (blip.tv's "DadLabs" and "Goodnight Burbank") they didn't show up in my download section at all. Ugh. I'm hopeful that Adobe will be able to address all of these.

On the ad side, I think there will be plenty of enthusiasm from ad technology firms to integrate with AMP as Adobe proves it can drive millions of AMP downloads (in fact Kiptronic announced its integration yesterday and other will surely follow). Plus, advertisers should be expected to get on board.

It should be noted however, that even for a mighty brand like Adobe, winning the hearts and minds of users to download and use AMP isn't a trivial undertaking. I have some personal experience with this from my early days consulting at Maven Networks, which offered an eerily similar download app as AMP when the company started up. Though that was in the Mesozoic broadband era of 2003 and Maven was an unknown entity, the company never got much traction with its download app and eventually transitioned over to a streaming model. Since then I've come to believe that premium content must drive the download process, not vice-versa. One successful example of this is ABC.com using its shows to drive millions of downloads of the Move Networks player.

Net, net, AMP is a timely product that could well matter. How well Adobe executes on its vision will determine to what extent it does.

Today, I'm pleased to welcome the first post from Colin Dixon, Practice Manager, Broadband Media at The Diffusion Group, who is also a longtime industry executive.

I also want to highlight that as part of The Diffusion Group's 4th anniversary today, it is offering a special promotion for new clients of 4 reports for $4,000 (reports are usually $2,500 apiece) which also includes a 30 minute consult with founder/principal analyst Michael Greeson. The opportunity will be available for 4 hours, 4 minutes, from 12 noon U.S. Central Time today. Enjoy!

BBC's iPlayer a Model for U.S. Networks?

by Colin Dixon, The Diffusion Group

There's a lot of angst in Hollywood at the moment over broadband video. With video advertising models online in their infancy, the content providers are rightfully concerned about cannibalizing their linear channel ad revenue for unproven broadband models. Will eyeballs follow if a content provider puts all of its shows online? What's the right balance between too little and too much online content? With the variable quality of broadband connections, should a viewer be able to download the show for free rather than streaming it? Questions such as these are the source of much hand-wringing.

But what would happen if a major network were to throw caution to the wind and put everything they broadcast online and let their viewers download the shows for free to watch when and where they liked? Perhaps we can learn some lessons from the UK where the BBC, unfettered by the profit motive, is doing just that.

Late last year the BBC released its iPlayer through broadband connections to the British public. This proprietary client, available on PCs and iPods throughout the UK, makes available for free download every show broadcast on all of the BBC's many radio and television channels. Once downloaded, a show can be watched, ad free, anytime over the following 30 days (although once you start to watch a show, you have 7 days to finish viewing it.)

The British public, apparently, love it. In January, they downloaded some 11 million shows with usage of the service peaking at over a half million downloads in one day. Over 2 million people are perfectly comfortable relaxing in front of the PC catching up with the latest episode of "Doctor Who" or "EastEnders." And because the show is downloaded, not streamed, the quality is always great and the shows can be watched when and where it's convenient.

But perhaps this is just a British thing. Surely the same rules don't apply to the US market? Far from it. As we found when we surveyed broadband video users, there is strong evidence that US users will embrace online delivery with the same fervor as their UK brethren. When we surveyed nearly 2000 US broadband users, we found that 40% were watching an hour or more of broadband video. More amazing still is that 12% of broadband users were watching 25% or more of their television online. If you have a teenager in your home, I'm sure this will not come as a surprise to you!

Numbers like this are noteworthy in themselves. But it's important to remember that, in comparison to the BBC's iPlayer, the online viewing experience in the US is a mess. Shows are scattered over multiple websites and free ad supported show downloads are rare indeed. Broadband video viewing is an incredibly variable, often frustrating experience. What is clear is that given the same circumstances, the BBC's experience is likely to be repeated here.

The message for US content providers is clear: if you put it all online for free, and let people download and watch whatever, wherever and whenever they want, the eyeballs will follow. But with large numbers of people already devoting 25% or more of their TV viewing online, the issue of cannibalizing existing linear broadcast ad revenues is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The ad revenues will migrate to the Internet anyway!

One can only speculate what can happen when, as we predict for 2011, there are over 100 million households worldwide that are watching broadband video not from their PCs, but from broadband-enabled TVs.

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

This morning CBS TV Stations is announcing the CBS Local Ad Network with a goal of widely syndicating CBS TV Stations' content into the maze of locally-focused web sites and blogs. A ground-breaking effort, it is the latest evidence that the local broadcast formula is being re-written by broadband's potential. I got an exclusive briefing on the CBS initiative last Friday from Jonathan Leess, President/GM of CBS TV Stations Digital Media and Aaron Radin, SVP, Ad Sales and Biz Dev.

As I wrote early last week in "CBS TV Stations Get Broadband," syndication is a key driver of video streaming growth for the company. Recognizing changing consumer behavior, the new Local Ad Network enables news "widgets" - small information badges carrying local headlines from CBS's 29 stations which can be easily selected and embedded by local sites and bloggers. When users click on a link in the widget they are carried back to the local CBS station site. See the right column in the below example:

Each widget carries ads which are sold by CBS, with a revenue share back to the local site. Radin is excited about the ad network because it has the potential for vastly expanded and targeted ad inventory, which can be sold to many different types of advertisers depending on their goals. For example for AT&T, a charter advertiser, the network provides a national player with enhanced local access. Additionally, the ad network can provide the local CBS station's digital sales team with more in-depth coverage for a local advertisers.

The significance of the CBS initiative is that it continues to show that broadband is opening up new opportunities for local stations to go well beyond their traditional broadcast models. The concept of local newscasts in the morning, evening and late night is increasingly irrelevant. Also gone is the concept of finite air-time. The CBS deal shows that the "shelf space" on which CBS local content sits doesn't even have to be owned by the station any longer. Now the shelf space could just as easily be a 15 year-old local kid's popular blog on local sports who wants to provide a customized feed of high-quality local video to his visitors. Think about how that expands a local station's business model.

The whole area of local content syndication is really heating up. In this deal, CBS has partnered with SyndiGo, a new unit of Seevast to build out the ad network's local web site and blog distribution network. For other local broadcasters seeking to pursue syndication there are other choices. For example, WorldNow (note: a VideoNuze sponsor), which now supports 260+ stations around the U.S. has also stepped up its syndication activity, in addition to technology provisioning. It recently launched Supernanny-related content into its lifestyle channel, enabling more choice and ad inventory.

WorldNow, like other 3rd parties, believe that, in these tumultuous times, local broadcasters should be focused on content, ad sales and distribution, not technology development. With technology and the market moving so fast, that logic makes a lot of sense. WorldNow and others present the classic "buy" vs. "build" option for stations. While CBS and others may "build," there's no question for many other who want to syndicate and drive new ad sales, they'll prefer to do it in a "buy" scenario. All of this activity will have the effect of spurring continued innovation in the space.

I had 3 key takeaways from the 2008 Media Summit which just wrapped up in NYC. The event just keeps getting better - great keynotes, terrific informal hallway chit-chats/networking and tons of well-directed energy. Though the event's agenda is broad, I was focused on the video-related elements. Here are 3 takeaways:

1. Iger and Moonves Get Tech; Lots of Innovation/Growth Ahead

A clear highlight for all attendees was the 2 morning keynote interviews, day 1 with Disney CEO Bob Iger and day 2 with CBS CEO Leslie Moonves. Both were ably conducted by senior Businessweek editors. Until a couple years ago, big media was in a defensive crouch regarding technology's uninvited incursion into their businesses. No more. Iger and Moonves are obviously convinced that technology, the Internet and broadband video delivery are now their companies' friends. Iger in particular really pounded this theme home.

An example of how technology helps which Iger repeatedly touched on was how Disney will leverage the platform of Club Penguin, its recent acquisition, to build communities for other properties (e.g. "Cars", "Pirates," etc.). These moves are intended to engender ever-greater levels of engagement. By the way, if you're a parent of youngsters and you've ever bemoaned how Disney's gotten its hooks deeply into your kids, you ain't seen nothing yet!

Moonves was emphatic that the Internet extends the value of CBS properties. March Madness was an example he offered. Three years ago it generated $250K of broadband subscription revenue. Two years ago CBS converted to ad-support and generated $4M. Then last year it generated $10M and this year is projected for $23M. And as Moonves pointed out, other than bandwidth, it's all incremental profit for the company. Echoing another conference theme, he further added that "the Internet should not be used to just regurgitate TV," but rather for the medium's unique capabilities.

Iger's and Moonves's mantras are no doubt being sent down to the troops from the executive suite. That suggests we can all expect a whole lot of tech-based innovation springing from these media giants.

2. Engagement and Originality: Buzzwords or More?

Two touchstones in many sessions were "engagement" and "originality." Both reflect the evolving viewpoint that broadband video has its own unique capabilities and that breaking through requires going far beyond traditional, passive programming approaches. With respect to engagement, the concept of introducing "social media" opportunities was often cited as the key tactic. An amorphous term, social media refers to all manner of user participation: content sharing, interactivity, personalization, mashups, uploading, commenting, rating and so on. Basically it's anything that gets viewers to do more than just sit back and enjoy the show. (For those looking to learn more, note next week's webinar on social media, presented by VideoNuze sponsors KickApps and Akamai)

Regarding originality, this relates back to Moonves's comment about not using the medium for regurgitation of TV shows (though to be sure there's value to that). Many people echoed that theme, emphasizing broadband must be used for original programming. The proliferation of independent "broadband studios" is encouraging early evidence that the originality bar will keep rising, prompting established and startup players to harness broadband's limitless possibilities.

3. Missing in Action: Paid business models

It wasn't that long ago that discussions about broadband video business models focused evenly on paid and ad-supported. No more. The paid model was completely missing in action at the event. I think I can count on one hand the number of times the concept was raised in sessions. Also MIA was DRM, the paid model's enabler (or torturer, depending on your perspective).

I detect a broad consensus that the broadband video industry has hitched its wagon to free ad-supported video for the foreseeable future. Many of you know I've been a long-time and enthusiastic proponent of this approach and I'm extremely happy to see things unfold this way. Though the broadband video ad model is still immature, all macro trends point to a bright future. One in particular is video syndication, which I wrote about 2 days ago. Syndication was a dominant theme, as panel representatives from both large and small content providers enthusiastically embraced it. See my post earlier this week, "Welcome to the Syndicated Video Economy" for more on this.

Ok, there you have it. There's plenty more tidbits I took away from the summit, so feel free to ping me if you'd like. And if you attended, post a comment and share your takeaways as well!

I am ever mindful of the old adage about "missing the forest for the trees" as I try daily to understand the often minor feature differences between competing vendors or the nuances of startups' market positioning. As we all know, when you get too close to something, it's quite easy to lose the larger perspective. So periodically I think it's essential to take a huge step back to try to identify the larger patterns or trends that crystallize from the daily frenzy of deals and announcements.

As a result, I've come to believe that recent industry activity points to an emerging and significant trend: the early formation of what I would term the "syndicated video economy." By this I mean to suggest that I'm seeing more and more industry participants' strategies - in both media and technology - start from the proposition that the broadband video industry will only succeed if video assets are widely dispersed and revenue creatively apportioned.

For content providers the notion of widespread video syndication big change in their business approach. In the past year I think we've observed content providers of all stripes transition from "aggregating eyeballs", to "accessing eyeballs," wherever they may live now or in the future: portals, social networks, portable devices, game consoles, etc. Underlying this shift is the realization that advertising-based revenues are going to fuel the broadband video industry for the foreseeable future. The ad model requires scale and syndication is the best way to deliver it.

This shift by content providers has been accompanied by a loosening of traditional tightly-controlled, scarcity-driven distribution strategies, an acknowledgement that fighting newly-empowered consumers is a futile exercise. The evidence of this shift abounds. Consider the broadcasters like CBS, NBC and Fox, which through their affiliates (Hulu, CBS Audience Network) are syndicating programming to many portals/aggregators (e.g. Yahoo, MSN, AOL, YouTube), social networks (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Bebo) and others. And Disney's Stage 9 digital studio, which premiered with YouTube and explicitly plans to tap into broadband video hubs. And cable networks like MTV Networks, which is pursuing a plethora of distribution deals. And traditional news-gatherers like local TV stations, newspapers and news services (e.g. Reuters, AP) which have stepped up their activity to scatter their video clips to the Internet's nooks and crannies. And the list goes on and on.

Taking their cue from the media companies' strategy shift, technology entrepreneurs and investors have ramped up their focus on this market opportunity. The prospect of the syndicated video economy blossoming drives news/information distributors such as Voxant, ClipSyndicate, Mochilla, TheNewsMarket and RedLasso, an ad manager such as FreeWheel, and a content accelerator such as Signiant, plus many others. Then there are more established companies guiding areas of their product development process by the prospect of the syndicated video economy's growth: Google, WorldNow, Akamai, thePlatform, Anystream, Maven Networks, Brightcove, PermissionTV and plenty of others (apologies to those I've left out!)

All of this suggests that the eventual "value chain" of the broadband video industry will look quite different than the traditional one (for more on this, I've posted some my slides from late '07 here.) As with all economies, in the nascent syndicated video economy there is vast interdependence among the various players, not to mention shifting market positions and degrees of pricing power and negotiating leverage. It is far too early to gauge who will emerge as the syndicated video economy's winners and losers. But make no mistake, lots of energy and investment will be expended trying to nurture its growth and exploit its opportunities.

Do you see the syndicated video economy forming as well? Post a comment and let us all know!

(Note: This is the third in a series of posts with companies participating in the 2008 Media Summit, a premier industry event starting tomorrow in NYC. VideoNuze has partnered with Digital Hollywood, the Media Summit's producer, to provide select analysis and news coverage.)

A few months ago, in a post I wrote called "Broadcast TV Stations Most Threatened By Broadband/On-Demand," I asserted that broadband was bringing a perfect storm to the world of local TV stations.

These thoughts were in the background when I spoke last week with Jonathan Leess, President and GM of CBS TV Stations Digital Media Group. CBS owns 29 stations around the U.S. mostly in bigger markets. Leess has been in his role since April '04 and by all accounts has done an admirable job leading the CBS stations into the broadband era.

Most significant is the delicate balance he's tried to strike in centralizing certain online/broadband responsibilities while keeping others at the local level. This is no easy feat. Succeeding online requires scale and common technology platforms. Yet historically local stations enjoy wide autonomy in decision-making as long as they meet their numbers.

Leess explained that in broadband he's focused his corporate group on accessing and providing new non-local content, creating an internal syndication network for stations, developing technology and tools for all stations to use, focusing on national ad sales and training for local sales reps, and importantly generating new viewership by syndicating local stations' video to third parties.

A key part of executing the balancing act has been a relentless focus on work-flow and supporting technologies. Leess explained that the broadband activities at CBS TV Stations are a 24/7 operation involving hundreds of people around the country. Turning all of this into a well-oiled operation, particularly in the context of long-standing operational biases, has been an enormous operational challenge that Leess seems to have embraced.

His efforts seem to be paying off. CBS TV Stations drove 89 million video views from their own sites in '07, an average of around 8 million video views/mo from their own sites, a 71% increase over '06. It's gaining an additional 10 million video views/mo through syndication partners. The primary current contributor to syndication is Yahoo, with whom CBS TV Stations partnered in Oct '06. To put this in context, today's WSJ carried the adjacent graphic of select broadcasters' video views. Putting aside CBS TV Stations' 10 million monthly syndication streams, its '07 monthly average traffic would appear to rank it in the top 5, right around Discovery.com.

In addition, video clips are a big part of CBS TV Stations' success, as it is posting around 520/day and now offers a searchable library of 350K clips.

Meanwhile the Yahoo deal has been so successful that CBS TV Stations has clearly gotten syndication religion, with several significant announcements planned for the coming weeks. Leess explained how these syndication deals drive unprecedented consumption from out-of-market viewers while also creating valuable ad inventory. For pre-rolls, CBS is getting between $28-75 CPM, with banners fetching $8-18 CPM. Importantly, CBS TV Stations are aggressively bundling on-air/online/broadband packages, having sworn off broadband as a pure "value-add" some time ago.

While I stand by my assertion that local TV stations are most vulnerable to broadband's rise, it is also true that broadband offers stations fresh opportunities. CBS TV Stations' offensive approach shows that with the right leadership, strategy and operational plan, executing a successful transition to the broadband era is quite possible.

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

Disney/ABC Television Group's official announcement this morning of Stage 9 Digital Media, an experimental new media content studio, is another key milestone in the fast-moving broadband video industry.

I got a short briefing about Stage 9 late yesterday from Disney/ABC because it asked me to provide some analyst context to the LA Times' Dawn Chmielewski, who's done a great piece here. Stage 9 is Disney/ABC's key initiative to reach the coveted 18-34 audience in synch with this audience's unique media consumption patterns. Programming will be short, funny, well-produced, episodic, and widely distributed through popular broadband sites, social networks, mobile and download services.

I interpret Disney/ABC's move, when coupled with recent initiatives by other big media companies into original broadband video production, as further evidence of two key trends: that broadband video has come of age as a key priority for the largest media companies and that it is impossible to appeal to today's younger audiences simply by hewing to the traditional rules of the media game.

Also of significance is that Disney/ABC announced that "Squeegees," which is Stage 9's first release, will be co-exclusively premiered on ABC.com and YouTube starting today and sponsored by Toyota. Yes, you read that right. YouTube! The scruffy user-generated phenom that big media was threatening to sue out existence not so long ago, and which of course is now owned by Google, big media's most anxiety-inducing "frenemy," has been elevated to launch partner status for Stage 9's first program.

The "Squeegees" co-premiere is quite an accomplishment for YouTube. It shows that YouTube's methodical efforts to gain legitimacy (and a business model!) by establishing partner channels with media companies are beginning to pay off. David Eun, Google's VP of Content Partnerships has repeatedly explained this game plan to me, and others over the last year. The Stage 9 launch partnership should certainly be regarded as a major win for the young company. It is also another data point I'd use to support my contention that in the broadband age, traditional conceptions about copyright monetization need to be radically re-thought (Viacom, are you listening?).

I'm enthusiastic about the Stage 9 initiative, as I believe it holds lots of potential for Disney/ABC. It gives the company inroads to the elusive 18-34 set, offers the prospect of innumerable and invaluable insights about how to effectively program in the broadband age, provides a whole new internal breeding ground for developing new on-air programming (a possible double win, as this might help fix the broken and expensive traditional pilot process, though my enthusiasm on this point is tempered by news today of Quarterlife's NBC ratings fiasco) and creates new and exciting multi-platform sponsorship opportunities.

Jeff Zucker, NBCU's president and CEO gave a stirring, candid keynote at the NATPE show yesterday, in which he essentially said that all the rules that the broadcast TV industry has lived by for six decades have now changed. It was a pretty blunt assessment, given in terms not often heard from PR-cautious CEOs.

I thought Zucker nailed it on the head when he said that "technology is transforming every part of our business," suggesting that to succeed in the future the company must re-engineer itself from top to bottom. The technology drivers - DVRs, broadband distribution, VOD, mobile and inexpensive production equipment are all leading to fundamental changes in distribution, advertising sales, marketing and content development.

Zucker said that the "historic economic model supporting broadcast TV is wounded." This is well exemplified in the broadband space, where networks have eagerly pushed their hit programs online. Yet in referring to its broadband initiatives, Zucker acknowledged, "Our challenge with all these ventures is to effectively monetize them so that we do not end up trading analog dollars for digital pennies," noting "This is the Number 1 challenge for everyone in this industry today."

I believe many of the steps Zucker's taking will help surmount this challenge. They include: Improving the allocation of resources and efficiency of the pilot process to help NBC maximize the opportunity that the mass-scale broadcast business still provides. Expanding the marketing of its programs beyond traditional influencers to help tap into the water coolers of the digital age. Broadening the role of its stations encompassing all local media opportunities instead of just selling TV ad space to enhance their competitiveness. Setting up digital studios to produce content geared for the broadband and mobile to tap new audiences.

Listening to Zucker, I felt myself being optimistic about his leadership and the likelihood that his game plan will ultimately lead to a successful transformation of the business. It won't come without plenty of bumps in the road, but it did strike me as clear-headed thinking which was sensitive to the network's traditions, but not obsequious to them. Throughout his keynote, he repeatedly reminded the audience that great storytelling and content is what all matters. The story of how NBC and the other networks will learn to succeed in the broadband era is definitely one worth following.

Bob Pittman will be presenting at next week's NATPE conference. A long time media executive, he is a founding member of Pilot Group LLC, a consumer brand focused private investment firm based in New York. Among other prior roles, he's served as President and COO of America Online and was also a co-founder of MTV and later CEO of MTV Networks.

Yesterday I caught up with him for a pre-NATPE briefing. Read on to learn why he's bullish on broadcast TV stations, skeptical about broadband video's impact on the TV business and emphatic that convenience rules.

VideoNuze: Pilot has been a buyer of broadcast stations. That's somewhat contrarian. What do you see in the industry?

Bob Pittman: Broadcast stations are greatly unappreciated. TV is America's hobby. Look at any category, the biggest is always the most important. So we want to invest in place where most people are. It is a fantastic advertising medium. There's no substitute for TV advertising. It works like nothing else. It's still wildly cheap - for the most part it's a $7-8 CPM, compared with newspapers and magazines which are $25-30, and it outperforms by every measurement - reach, time spent, effectiveness. It's still wildly underpriced.

We have focused on small market television, where local advertising is the predominant revenue stream. We have done that because we believe national advertisers will slow down spending in economic downturns, whereas in local market when you're dealing with a local retailer he still has to sell everything that's on the shelf, come good times or bad. And we believe that in small markets, newspapers and yellow pages are getting wildly disproportionate share of the revenue, so we think there's a great growth opportunity as well. In smaller markets the station's coverage area nicely matches the advertiser's reach goals. It's also a fantastic free cash flow business.

VN: Is broadband video a net positive or a net negative for broadcast stations, or is it not clear yet?

BP: We have to be really careful about broadband video, it's still a very small percentage of use for most people. Most of what people talk about is still 3 minutes or shorter clips on YouTube, many sent to you by a friend in email. The idea of people sitting down and watching their computer is a small part of the overall audience. So we have to be careful not to talk about fringe uses as if they're going to be major uses.

However, we think it presents an opportunity for our stations and we've pursued that, by setting up what are in essence "newspapers online." And in our smaller markets, we're not competing with Google or MSN, so we can get large local audiences, which allow us to better serve our advertisers. But I don't think broadband is competitive with TV, putting TV shows on the Internet is nice, but you're talking about small audiences.

VN: What will the impact of services like Hulu and CBS's Audience Network on broadcast stations' audience size?

BP: Well, you may occasionally watch a program online if you can't get to your TV, or it wasn't available, or you're a little geeky, but as a replacement offering, I don't think so. TVs are big screen, public viewing devices, computers are not. They're 18 inches away and are private experiences, you don't want people looking over your shoulder at it. They're completely separate uses and devices, so to try to put the wrong kind of programming on either one limits your audience severely.

BP: If it's completely invisible to the consumer then yes things change, but if people have to do a whole lot of work then it's not going to be big. The one thing that motivates the consumer through every product category is convenience. The easiest thing to get is what people will use, even if the quality is lower.

I think it's going to be pretty hard to get something in the home that's easier to use than pushing a button on my TV set that I already know how to do and I'm set up to do. To start connecting a box and moving stuff around, then my rule of thumb is about 10% of the population will adopt new technology because it's cool and neat, but it will be hard to get past that threshold.

VN: So it sounds out like you're not that bullish on these new boxes succeeding?

BP: Right now these require a step or two more, and my experience from the Internet is that just one more click means a lot less response. You think, well it's just one more click. But for example, when I was at Time Warner, we had 2 options for ordering PPV - one to click a button and one to call an 800 number. The response rate for the former was three times the latter - that's the power of ease of use and convenience.

VN: How about broadband's larger impact on the video industry - who's helped and who's hurt?

BP: Short form appears to be working very well. If there's a nifty little video that's great, but get above 3 mintues and you start to lose people - certainly you lose me. So who's advantaged - people who have short clips that they can build a business out of. But I still think the best thing to do online is to read and write, because it's quiet, it's personal, you can do it with others in the room. Importantly, it's not sequential. Internet is like a newspaper - it's random access - if I don't like sports I can skip that section. But video by its nature is sequential, it's linear, you have to have a story arc, you have to sit through the whole thing. So I think you're asking people to make a different sort of commitment.

VN: Your take on user-generated video?

BP: I think it's great. Probably 99.9% of it is crap, but the rest of it is brilliant. If you have a way of editing it down to the brilliant stuff and also allowing people to discover it easily, then it can be very appealing. So when you look at YouTube for example, and you can look at the "most viewed" and can skip my neighbor's kid's birthday party, that's great.

VN: Does user-generated video compete at any point with professionally produced content?

BP: Well, what's happening with the level of technology that's now in the hands of consumers plus their ability and knowledge of how to edit makes you ask the question, "who's really the professional now?" So I think you're going to see some shows on TV by what were once considered "amateurs." Professionals are anyone that has a good idea and other people want to see their stuff.

So I think the world is opening up and that's very healthy. When the studios have a set list of actors, writers and directors, by definition you're limiting the innovation process. When you've got those capabilities in the hands of everyone, you're now opening up to the possibility of some real breakthrough innovations. And that's good for the TV business, because if they do it in a 30 or 60 minute form, the best way to watch it is on the TV. And that's the medium that can pay the most for it, and has the biggest audience.

VN: What's your message to NATPE attendees?

BP: I'll be trying to put broadcast television into perspective. You hear so many negative stories yet I think it's one of the most misunderstood mediums out there today. So the idea is to try to point out how it relates to Internet, newspapers, magazines, what the trendlines are and explain why believe it's actually a very good business with a brilliant future.

People keep talking about Internet as if it's competing with TV. But what the Internet has really done is replace print - things like yellow pages, newspapers and traditional research books. It's also replaced communications - phone calls, voice mail. So when you hear these stories about the Internet replacing TV, I think they've got it all wrong.

VN: Thank you and see you in Las Vegas.

(Bob Pittman's NATPE presentation is Tues, Jan 29th at 10am)