Posts for 'Devices'

This past Wednesday, Starz, the Liberty Media-owned premium cable network, licensed its "Starz Play" broadband service to Netflix. The three year deal makes all of Starz's 2,500 movies, TV shows and concerts available to Netflix subscribers using its Watch Instantly streaming video feature. Very coincidentally I happened to be at Starz yesterday for an unrelated Liberty meeting, and had a chance to speak to Starz CEO Bob Clasen, who I've known for a while, to learn more.

On the surface the deal is an eye-opener as it gives a non-cable/telco/satellite operator access to Starz's trove of prime content. As I've written in the past, cable channels, which rely on their traditional distributors for monthly service fees, have been super-sensitive to not antagonizing their best customers when trying to take advantage of new distribution platforms. This deal, which uses broadband-only distribution to reach into the home, no doubt triggers "over-the-top" or "cable bypass" alarm bells with incumbent distributors.

Then there is the value-add/no extra cost nature of Netflix's Watch Instantly feature. That there is no extra charge to subscribers for Starz's premium content (as there typically is when subscribing to Starz through cable for example) raises the question of whether Starz might have given better pricing to Netflix to get this deal done than it has to its other distributors.

But Bob is quick to point out that in reality, the Netflix deal is a continuation of Starz's ongoing push into broadband delivery begun several years ago with its original RealNetworks deal and continued recently with Vongo. To Starz, Netflix is another "affiliate" or distributor, which, given its tiny current online footprint does not pose meaningful competition to incumbent distributors. With only about 17 million out of a total 100 million+ U.S. homes subscribing to Starz, broadband partnerships are seen as a sizable growth opportunity by the company.

Further, Starz has been aggressively pitching online deals to cable operators and telcos for a while now, though only the latter has bit so far (Verizon's FiOS is an announced customer). Cable operators seem interested in the online rights, but have been reluctant to pay extra for them as Starz requires.

Bob also noted that Starz's wholesale pricing was protected in its Netflix deal, and that for obvious reasons of not hurting its own profitability, Starz has strong incentives to preserve incumbent deal terms in all of its new platform deals.

To me, all of this adds up to at least a few things. First is that Netflix must be paying up in a big way to license Starz Play. I assume this is an obvious recognition by Netflix that it needed more content to make Watch Instantly more compelling (see also Netflix's recent Disney Channel and CBS deals). Since it's not charging subscribers extra, Netflix is making a bet that over time - and aided by its Roku and other broadband-to-the-TV devices - Watch Instantly will succeed and as a result, will drive down its costs by reducing the number of DVDs the company needs to buy and ship. That seems like a smart long-term bet as the broadband era unfolds.

And while I agree that Starz Play on Netflix doesn't represent real competition to cable, telco and satellite outlets today, it's hard not to see it as a signal that traditional distributors are losing their hegemony in premium video distribution. (for another example of this, see Comedy Central's licensing of Daily Show and Colbert to Hulu). As I've said for a while, over the long term, the inevitability of broadband all the way to the TV portends significant disruption to current distribution models. I see Netflix at the forefront of this disruptive process.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

thePlatform, the video management/publishing company that's been a part of Comcast since early '06, had a very good day yesterday. First it jointly announced with Time Warner Cable a deal to power the #2 cable operator's Road Runner portal. And the Wall Street Journal ran a story stating that it has also signed deals with the cable industry's #3 player Cox Communications and #5 player, Cablevision Systems, which thePlatform corroborates.

Netting all this out, thePlatform will now power 4 of the top 5 cable industry's broadband portals (all except Charter Communications), with a total reach exceeding 28 million broadband homes, according to data collected by Leichtman Research Group. That also equals approximately 44% of all broadband homes in the U.S. And it's a fair bet that thePlatform's industry penetration will further grow.

I caught up with Ian Blaine, thePlatform's CEO yesterday to learn a little more about the deals and whether the industry's semi-standardization around one broadband video management platform harkens a serious, and I'd argue overdue, industry push into broadband video delivery.

Ian noted that of its various customer deals, the ones with distributors like these are particularly valuable because of their potential for "network effects." This concept means that content and application providers are more likely to also adopt thePlatform if their key distributors are already using it themselves. Ian's point is very valid, as I constantly hear from content providers about the costs of complexity in dealing with multiple distributors and their varying management platforms. Yet the potential is only realized if the distributors actually build out and promote their services, offering sizable audiences to would-be content partners.

This of course has been the aching issue in the cable industry. While they've had their portal plays for years, they've been eclipsed in the hearts and minds of users by upstarts ranging from YouTube to Hulu to Metacafe to countless others, each now drawing millions of visitors each month. While solidly utilitarian, cable's portals (with the possible exception of Comcast's Fancast) are not generally regarded as go-to places for high-quality, or even UGC video. That's been a real missed opportunity.

Ian thinks the industry is experiencing an awakening of sorts, now recognizing the massive potential it's sitting on. This includes its content relationships, network ownership and huge customer reach. Of course, all of this was plainly visible in 1998 as broadband was first taking off, yet here we are 10 years later, and it somehow seems discordant to think the industry is only now grasping its strategic strengths.

Some would explain this as the cable industry being more of a "fast follower" than a true pioneer, a posture that has helped the industry avoid hyped-up and costly opportunities others have chased to their early graves. Others would offer a less charitable explanation: the industry's executives have either been asleep at the switch, overly focused on defending traditional closed video models against open broadband's incursion, or both.

In truth, and as I've mentioned repeatedly, the broadband video industry is still very early in its development, making a "fast follower" strategy still quite viable. Semi-standardization on thePlatform gives the industry a huge potential advantage in attracting content providers. It also gives the industry a more streamlined mechanism for bridging broadband video over to the TV, an area of intense interest now being pursued by juggernauts including Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Panasonic and others.

Late last week came news that SanDisk has discontinued its TakeTV device and companion Fanfare content aggregation web site, which were unveiled last October. TakeTV was an inexpensive USB PC-TV connector that allowed users to grab video from Fanfare, for easy playback on their TVs.

I gave TakeTV and Fanfare a moderately positive review and thought that as a low-end product it could gain some traction. I thought of it as having "stocking stuffer" appeal - a relatively cheap gadget that would find its market. I've done a little asking around to try to understand what happened.

From what I've gathered, it sounds like SanDisk ultimately recognized the reality that TakeTV was really peripheral to their core focus of marketing memory products. Too much customer education would be required to move this product, especially in the face of quasi-competitors like AppleTV, Vudu, Xbox and others. In addition, minimums from Hollywood to gain top-notch content has continued to raise the bar for startup devices like these to succeed.

Yet, my bet is that we haven't seen the last of SanDisk's involvement in the broadband video market. Like hard-drives, processors and PCs themselves, memory products rely on ever-larger applications to drive the consumer purchase cycle. For SanDisk, video has to be right at the top of their list in terms of the apps that will create demand for its increasingly capacious storage products. So stay on the lookout for SanDisk to resurface somewhere in the video landscape.

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.

The last few days' news about Akimbo and Starz's Vongo service, two of the earliest players in broadband video delivery, shows how risky the broadband video market can be for pioneers.

Akimbo - which has closed its doors after raising approximately $50 million since 2003 - demonstrates that misjudging the key characteristics of an early market can be devastating. Akimbo's faulty assumptions included:

• Anticipating that consumers would be willing to buy a broadband-only set-top box, despite overwhelming research to the contrary.
• Expecting that consumers would be willing to pay yet another monthly subscription fee, although broadband's value proposition was still in its infancy and consumers were already complaining about the high cost of cable/satellite subscription services.
• Building its initial content strategy using a pure "Long Tail" approach of aggregating lots of niche programmers, not grasping that Long Tail models only succeed when "head" content - in this case from broadcasters and cable networks - is also included.

As these misjudgments became obvious, the box was dropped, select cable programming was added to the content lineup, pricing was changed and management was overhauled. Ultimately in February '08, the whole company strategy was blown up, as Akimbo unsuccessfully tried to get a toehold in the already over-crowded white-label content management/publishing business. But once a startup is in a deep hole, it's almost impossible to climb out.

Meanwhile, Starz's announcement yesterday with Verizon, of its first "wholesale deal" for broadband delivery of its programming, shows additional risks for early players. Yesterday I caught up with Bob Greene, EVP of Advanced Services at Starz, for whom I did some consulting work several years ago on Vongo's predecessor service, Starz Ticket.

Starz launched Vongo in early '06 as a broadband-only subscription and download-to-own service, featuring programming it had under contract, plus other categories it later added. Vongo went to market direct-to-consumer and through device partners like HP, Samsung, Toshiba, Creative and Archos, but Vongo's growth has been modest as the broadband subscription category has yet to really take off.

Vongo's larger goal was getting deals done with existing service providers like cable, telco, and broadband ISPs. But this aspiration ran into the buzzsaw of incumbents' intransigence, illustrating that reliance on ecosystem partners, who often have divergent motivations, can be very risky. In this case, Vongo's would be distributors perceived Vongo as less as an opportunity to grow the market and tap new consumer behaviors, and more as a potential long-term end-run, with immediate threats to profit margins and cash flow contribution.

Online movie delivery is back in the news, but dramatic change is still well down the road in this space as usability, rights issues and incumbent business models/consumer behaviors pose formidable hurdles.

Yesterday Netflix announced a $99 appliance with Roku, enabling the company's "Watch Instantly" streaming service on TVs. That news follows Apple's deals with a number of big studios in early May obtaining "day-and-date" access to current titles. And today brings news that Bell Canada, that country's largest telco, is formally launching its Bell Video Store, also providing day-and-date delivery, of Paramount titles to start (and soon others), plus portable viewing on Archos devices.

Netflix, which I last wrote about here, took a shot across the bow of Apple TV and Vudu by introducing the Roku box, the lowest-priced broadband movies appliance yet. Apples-to-apples comparisons aren't fair as the stripped-down Netflix/Roku box doesn't have a hard-drive or equivalent processing. That inevitably means lower quality delivery vs. locally-stored content with the others, plus uncertainty about HD-delivery. Netflix/Roku's big advantage is that it's a value-add service for current Netflix subscribers, meaning no new fees as with the Apple TV/Vudu approaches.

However, Watch Instantly has older titles and amounts to less than 10% of Netflix's total catalog. I don't see that changing much; Watch Instantly runs smack into studios' incumbent windowing approach and deals with HBO, Showtime and Starz for premium TV. Netflix's model is built on the home video window, so new online delivery rights must be obtained which will be a tough road. However, with Paramount, MGM, Lionsgate and others splintering from Showtime recently to set up their own premium channel, it's possible that some studios' rights may loosen up, but of course at a price.

Still, I don't see the Netflix/Roku box breaking 10% penetration of Netflix's sub base any time soon, barring a box giveaway. Enlarging the value proposition by licensing the Roku technology for inclusion in other devices (e.g. Blu-ray) could also help drive adoption.

Meanwhile, today Bell Canada is announcing the formal launch of its Bell Video Store. In beta since late '07, it offers 1,500 titles, now including day-and-date delivery from Paramount (and others soon according to Michael Freeman, Bell's director of product management who I spoke to yesterday). This is noteworthy, as it appears to be the first time a service provider has received day-and-date online access from any studio. If other providers follow suit we may finally witness some internal competition with sacrosanct-to-date Video on Demand initiatives.

By using ExtendMedia's platform, Bell is also enabling downloads-to-own directly to Archos portable devices. With a couple million satellite homes and fiber IPTV fiber-based deployments continuing, there are multiple three screen options looming for Bell. Yet for now these are limited. Michael confirmed Bell has no plans to offer a branded movie appliance a la Netflix/Roku, meaning it will dependent on XBoxes and other PC-TV bridge devices.

I recently bought and set up a Harmony One universal remote control. I had heard about the Harmony products from many friends over the years, but had resisted purchase for a variety of reasons. Now, having completed a new family/TV room with home theater, I bought the latest model, the Harmony One. If you've never seen this device in action, it's a really neat marvel of consumer electronics.

And for the many companies trying to figure out how to build devices to bridge broadband video and TVs for mainstream consumers, it offers many usability lessons. I think that if they remember some of Harmony One's key design philosophies, their probability of eventual success would only be enhanced.

I think these are as follows:

Solve a pain point - The Harmony remotes solve a clear consumer pain point - multiple confusing remotes. The benefits are messaged clearly, starting with: "One-touch access to your entertainment. Enjoy easy, one-touch access to the home entertainment activiites you love." The current pain point in broadband is that you're practically locked to your computer to watch video. Resolve this pain point and message it properly and consumers will quickly "get it."

Make it easy to use - Everything about the Harmony One is easy and intuitive: set-up, use, updates. Nothing has been left to chance by its designers. In consumer electronics, "easy" almost always wins the day. Broadband devices need to execute on the "easy" value proposition. Of course there will be some crawling-behind-the-TV involved, but minimizing the hassle and speeding the process to realizing the benefits is essential.

Replacing may be better than augmenting - When it comes to entry strategy, it's often tempting to augment, rather than replace existing devices and services. That's a more evolutionary and seemingly likely path to success. Sometimes it is. But Harmony shows that a proposition of replacing existing devices (in this case, current remotes from cable operator, DVD player, A/V receiver, etc.) can actually the better way. Think how much more complicated Harmony's marketing task would be if they weren't able to make the simple but powerful claim of being able to replace ALL remotes. It no doubt took them a lot of extra work to execute on this, but it is well worth their while.

Similarly, for broadband device makers, addressing how not just broadband video, but also traditional TV gets delivered to the home may indeed the better way. Of course, that's a far bigger nut to crack, but at least initially, for a certain early adopter audience, the value proposition would likely resonate more clearly. The proposition changes from educating the customer about how the new box fits in, to a more straightforward all-encompassing pitch - "We know you love TV and broadband. Now you can easily get it all, on your familiar TV."

Conclusion

To be fair, figuring out how to bring broadband to the TV is a more involved task than building a universal remote control. There are more stakeholders, technical issues and usability challenges. While adhering to Harmony One's few simple design tenets won't guarantee eventual success it will certainly enhance the likelihood of it. For consumers looking to enjoy broadband video on their TVs, that would be great news.

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

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!

Builidng B, the stealthy, well-funded startup I wrote about last December, is at last pulling back the curtain today, unveiling "Sezmi" as its new name and releasing details of its end-to-end system for delivering traditional television programming and broadband video directly to the TV.

I got a preview of Sezmi (pronounced "SaysMe") at a private briefing with company executives at NAB 2 weeks ago. Upfront I want to offer a huge caveat that I only saw the system in demo mode so I cannot vouch for its performance in actual, scale situations. That said, if the system works as described, then I would rank Sezmi as the most promising approach I've yet seen for bridging the currently separate worlds of broadband video and TV. Sezmi could well be the first bona fide broadband/on-demand competitor to cable TV and satellite operators.

First things first. Sezmi should not be confused with broadband appliances seeking to bridge broadband and TV, such as AppleTV, Vudu, Akimbo and others. I am an avowed skeptic of all of these. Sezmi does not focus on delivering broadband video as an add-on to existing cable/satellite subscriptions. Rather, it is looking to replace these providers by combining the best of the traditional linear broadcast/cable network model with broadband, on-demand, digital video recording, personalization, social networking and ease-of-use that many of us now consider second nature.

Sezmi is a complete system, providing an antenna, set-top box and remote control to the consumer. One of Sezmi's key innovations is "FlexCast," which leverages multiple delivery networks to get broadcast/cable channels and broadband video into the home. In fact, the traditional channels are the bedrock of Sezmi's service offering, enabling it to be a true competitor to incumbent video providers. Sezmi leases digital broadcast space from local stations to efficiently deliver these channels, which can be watched in either familiar linear mode, or in recorded on-demand mode (note the initial set-top box comes with 1 terabyte of storage, soon to be 2 terabytes). For broadband video, it makes use of the existing broadband ISP connection.

Sezmi creates an entirely new, and exciting user experience that digital media enthusiasts will instantly recognize, and I believe, value. These include the remote control with an iPod-like scroll wheel, no numeric keypad and one-touch personalization for family members. There is also the on-screen navigation, which groups shows by episode, and presents them in personalized home page-like settings. And there's targeted contextual advertising, allowing familiar click-through options.

Recognizing that a direct-to-consumer approach would be costly and slow to scale, Sezmi has adopted a partner-centric go-to-market strategy. It is working with ISPs, telcos and others who seek entry to the video services business. Buno Pati, Sezmi's CEO/co-founder told me he expects consumer pricing would be approximately half of today's digital cable tier, including HD and DVR capability. I suggested that might imply a $35-40 per month fee. While not confirming that number, he said he wouldn't disagree with my estimate.

If Sezmi can work out its economics with partners and deliver that pricing to consumers, it would be a very compelling alternative to today's cable/satellite offerings. The key is to whom? In my briefing many types of customers were mentioned: analog subscribers, new HD TV purchasers, over-the-air households, and others. Given how ground-breaking it service is, in my opinion Sezmi needs to go after digitally savvy audiences first.

Today the company is announcing only that it is commencing trials in pilot markets and expects commercial launch with partners later this year. All eyes will be on Sezmi to see if it can execute on its bold vision. If it does this is a company that has major disruptive potential.

(Note - very coincidentally, Sezmi CEO/co-founder will be on my Digital Hollywood panel next Wed, May 6th at 10:45am)

As I mentioned at the end of February, each month I plan to step back and recap a few key themes from recent VideoNuze posts. Here are three from March '08. (And remember you can see all of March's broadband news, aggregated from across the web, by clicking here)

The Syndicated Video Economy: An Introduction

In March I introduced the concept of the "Syndicated Video Economy" ("SVE") to describe how the broadband video providers are increasingly coalescing on a strategy for widespread distribution of video through myriad outlets. In the SVE media companies shift their focus from "aggregating eyeballs" in a centralized destination to "accessing eyeballs" wherever (and whenever) they live. The SVE is a big departure from traditional tightly-controlled, scarcity-driven distribution approaches. Investors have responded by funding SVE-oriented content and technology startups.

In March I provided several examples of SVE initiatives. CBS launched its Local Ad Network to distribute content to local bloggers and web sites. 60Frames, a new broadband studio, is explicitly focused on partnerships for distribution, and is not even building destination web sites for its programs. And FreeWheel is developing management tools so that content can be optimally monetized across a content provider's sprawling network of syndication partners.

The SVE resonated strongly with VideoNuze readers; many are focused on it and vested in its further development. Expect to hear a lot more about the SVE from me in coming posts. I'll also have supporting slides I'm developing for upcoming webinars on the topic.

Over-the-Top: Getting Broadband Video to the TV

Bringing broadband video all the way to the TV by bypassing existing service providers (so-called "over-the-top") continues to be the big elusive prize for many. This past month YouTube and TiVo announced a partnership to let a subset of TiVo owners gain full YouTube access on their TVs, a welcome move.

Following that, in "YouTube: Over-the-Top's Best Friend" I suggested the YouTube, with its dominant market position and brand loyalty could in fact be the linchpin to over-the-top devices gaining a foothold with consumers. Google-YouTube executives' vision for YouTube as a video platform, powering experiences wherever they are, lends support to my proposition. Lastly on over-the-top, new contributor Michael Greeson, founder of market researcher TDG, proposed that adapting low-cost devices like DVD player may well be the best way to bridge broadband and TV.

Social media and video: 2 sides of the same coin

This past month also continued an escalation of interest in the intersection of social media and broadband video. At the Media Summit there was intense focus on engagement, and how broadband can uniquely create new user experiences that deeply involve the user. These social experiences include sharing, personalization, commenting, rating and so on. In this vein, Maginfy.net introduced new social features to support its specialized user-created channels, a smart evolution of its product.

And in a follow-up to "The Intersection of UGC and Brand Marketing?" I clarified the opportunities that brand marketers may or may not have to get involved with this hot space. For those interested in more on this subject, new VideoNuze sponsor KickApps provided an informative webinar which is still available here.

So that's March's recap. There will be plenty more on all of these and other broadband video topics in April and beyond!

I am pleased to welcome Michael Greeson's second contribution to VideoNuze. Michael is president of The Diffusion Group, a leading analytics and advisory firm helping companies in the connected home and broadband media markets.

Words Matter: Rethinking Messaging for Home Networks

Michael Greeson, President, The Diffusion Group

Since its arrival in the consumer market earlier this decade, the home network has been envisioned as a linchpin for the delivery of all types of IP-based residential services including video, data, entertainment, control, and communications. Despite this lofty vision, however, home network diffusion has fallen far short of expectations. Why has this happened?

For mainstream consumers, the phrase "home network" still spurs comments such as "never heard of them," "sounds too complex for me," or (worst of all) "don't see much value in having one." So how can these perceptions be changed? Here are a few thoughts that, while far short of being exhaustive, are no doubt relevant to this discussion.

(1) Ease-of-use must be a common property of every device and service. We've been talking about plug-and-play forever yet we're light-years away from making it a reality. A "solid-state experience" is essential to mainstream diffusion, meaning that home networks must be as easy to connect and use as yesterday's consumer electronics.

(2) There must be a compelling array of benefits uniquely enabled by home networking such that consumers feel they must have one. In this area, bridging broadband video directly to the TV could be particularly valuable.

(3) Market messages must reject the language of networking - in other words, stop calling it a "home network."

This last aspect is especially important, for regardless of how the technology and cost structures improve, if marketers aren't crafting their messages in language that speaks to consumers, all this innovation is for naught. To give you an example of just how important the issue of messaging is for the future of home networks, consider the following. During a recent national survey we conducted, consumers were informed of what a home network is and does (and in very simple language), then asked how likely they would be to purchase a home network in the next six months. The phrase "home network" was used three separate times in the description. The result? Only 11.1% expressed any degree of interest, with only 4.4% being highly or extremely likely to purchase.

Right after this first question, we asked their interest in purchasing a solution that enabled them to wirelessly connect their desktop and notebooks PCs to the Internet from any room in their home - we didn't use the phrase "home networking" nor did we explain in any detail the virtues of owning a home network. We simply asked about the likelihood that they would purchase a "wireless Internet solution" sometime in the next six months. The results? More than 54% expressed an interest in purchasing, with 36% being highly or extremely likely to purchase. That's a five-fold increase in total interest and an eight-fold increase in high levels of interest - simply by removing the phrase "home network" and focusing on one particular application that we believed to be of primary importance to today's consumer.

Think of it this way: I might have no interest in a home network (assuming I actually know what a "home network" is and does), but I am extremely interested in an inexpensive, easy-to-set/easy-to-use solution that allows me to wirelessly connect to the Internet regardless of where I am in my home. This may be particularly true for mainstream apps like video.

Whether in marketing CE devices or political candidates, sometimes we need to be reminded of just how much words do matter.

Click here to learn more about TDG's new report, "The Future of Home Networks"

The announcement a couple of weeks ago that YouTube was partnering with TiVo got me to thinking that YouTube is probably the best friend that so called "over-the-top" or "cable bypass" aspirants could have.

As a quick refresher, "over-the-top" and "cable bypass" refer to the emerging category of devices and service providers seeking to bring broadband video to the consumer's TV, but without the involvement of existing video providers such as cable and satellite. Some of these efforts (Apple TV, Vudu and Internet-enabled TVs) are positioned as augmenting incumbent providers, while some (Building B, others) are meant to compete directly.

Today's players share the common trait of being closed, "walled gardens," offering only certain content that they select. This contrasts with the open Internet/broadband model, where users are able to access any content they choose. Many of you know that I have been a strong proponent that open is the winning competitive path for aspiring over-the-top players.

If the over-the-top crowd adopts the open approach, YouTube is their perfect ally; it is the best-known brand name in broadband video, has the largest library of both user-generated and increasingly premium video and has huge loyalty. Positioned properly it could be a killer value proposition for over-the-top players. I've previously argued that Apple missed the boat by not adopting this positioning for Apple TV.

I talked last week with David Eun, VP of content partnerships at Google and Chris Maxcy, head of biz dev for YouTube, and they both made clear that the goal is to morph YouTube from a consumer destination site to a full-fledged video platform distributing video everywhere - devices, mobile, web sites, others. To this end, YouTube recently published an expanded set of APIs to allow 3rd parties to gain easier access to YouTube's content. This of course is great news for over-the-top devices, who should have considerable flexibility for how to incorporate YouTube into their offering. For now TiVo is leading the way in offering YouTube, albeit to a very small audience.

If you were wondering whether YouTube or Google itself will enter the device business, that seems unlikely. David and Chris were clear in saying that devices are not their core competency, and they'll leave it to others to decide how to implement the YouTube APIs and create and test various user experiences. Meanwhile with more premium content flowing into YouTube, its value as an over-the-top partner only increases.

What do you think? Post a comment!

Hurray for TiVo and YouTube, which yesterday announced a partnership to allow certain TiVo users to watch YouTube videos on their TVs. While the actual number of homes which have the right TiVo model and have it connected to broadband numbers under a million, TiVo-YouTube shows there is still hope that the worlds of broadband video and TV will indeed converge.

Some of you will remember that in December '07 I wrote a post entitled "Broadband Video on TV is a Mirage" in which regrettably concluded that the mass availability of broadband video on TVs was nowhere on the horizon. In that post I wrote:

"The minority of consumers who will actually see broadband video on their TVs will either (1) shell out big bucks to buy a broadband appliance such as Vudu or Apple TV, (2) tackle the challenge of connecting their TVs via wireless networks (3) use a device built for another primary purpose, such as Xbox 360 or TiVo, to selectively augment their viewing with broadband-delivered choices or (4) use a service provider that has decided to throw in a few morsels of broadband video."

With the YouTube deal, TiVo continues to deliver on option 3, augmenting an already impressive array of broadband video available on select TiVo models. TiVo enhances its overall reputation for innovation (although still absent resounding market success or profitability), with a particular focus on broadband video. TiVo has previously offered up Amazon Unbox, TiVoCast, Music Choice, Home Movies, etc. Providing access to YouTube, the world's most popular video site, is another notable accomplishment for TiVo.

I continue to believe that whichever company cracks the code on how to deliver wide open broadband video access to the TV - coupled with a strong user experience - is going to hit it big. At the risk of looking too far backward, at the end of 2006 I conjectured that Apple's then still-to-be-launched Apple TV product could be a resounding success if it got the content strategy right (i.e. offering open broadband access and even focusing particularly on easy YouTube access through the device). Instead Apple TV has turned into yet another walled garden and to date has been a market failure. Apple continues to miss the open broadband market opportunity which is sitting right in front of it with a big bulls-eye plainly visible.

The TiVo-YouTube partnership will hopefully have the effect of accelerating the wake up call to other market participants that this gigantic opportunity awaits. Broadband video to the TV is a natural. It simply extends the cable/satellite model of the last 30 years: offering ever more video choices right to the TV.

As I've often said, as amazing as the growth curve has been for broadband video consumption over the last 5 years, even more amazing is that virtually all of this consumption has happened on the computer - a completely parallel world to the traditional TV viewing platform. Nobody could have imagined this level of consumer adoption for a non-TV viewing platform. So then look forward and imagine the possibilities when broadband video and the TV are fused for the masses.

Some of you may have noticed that Vudu announced last Thursday that it was cutting the price of its box by over $100 to $295. I recently wrote about Vudu in "Apple TV Improves, Vudu in its Crosshairs." Looks like it didn't take long for Vudu to start feeling Apple's heat. It's a good move, but I still remain skeptical about this box's mass appeal.

Two weeks ago, in "Here Comes the Video Experience Era", I argued that in the future consumers' satisfaction with video will have less to do with traditional yardsticks. I tried to explain it this way: if you are a TV manufacturer, traditional consumer satisfiers have included "how big is my set and how great is the picture quality" while if you are a content provider, traditional satisfiers have been "how funny is that show, or seeing well-loved actors/actresses."

But in that prior post, coming at the conclusion of CES, I suggested that consumers are beginning to shift from using these metrics to gauge their own satisfaction with video. Instead they are increasingly looking for new and compelling video experiences, many of which are not yet well-defined. These might include how well do broadband-delivered video choices integrate with the overall TV experience, how can I interact with the content and with other viewers, or how can I move it around from device to device depending on my lifestyle?

I raise all of this again today because just this week I was provided with a very tangible data point supporting my assertions. A good friend of mine recently bought a 50 inch plasma HDTV (his first HDTV set). He doesn't work in the technology or content industries. To understand his technical orientation better, if on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 was a technology Luddite and 10 was an uber-geek, he'd be about a 5. He's not afraid of technology, but hardly rushes out to get every new thing. And note, he's 44 years old, not 14 or 24.

With is new TV in place, one of the first things he did was begin figuring out how to connect it to his PC. Since the TV didn't have a VGA port, he researched and found a relatively inexpensive adaptor to convert VGA output to component inputs for his TV. When done, he excitedly emailed me saying that, by his count, he's now playing 10 different formats on his TV (linear TV, broadband content - both free and paid, Netflix Watch Instantly, podcasts from his iTunes library, DVD, Blu-ray DVD, DVR, VOD, CD Music and radio). And he's psyched to read surf the web on his TV, and move files around. Talk about a plethora of choices and experiences!

To understand the emerging mindset of today's consumer, the example of my friend is illustrative. It was not just the 50 inch plasma TV that got him excited. Rather, it was the impetus to expand his video choices and to add new energy to pre-existing options. Here again, the interplay of technology and content is what is cool to him. Not just one or the other in isolation. I believe his mindset is becoming more common each day. It embodies what marketers and product managers in the "video experience era" will need to grasp if their companies are to succeed.

What's your reaction? Post a comment and let us all know!

Yesterday TiVo and Comcast announced that their joint service offering, known as "Comcast DVR with TiVo" is now available to Greater Boston residents. The announcement comes almost 3 years since the partnership was announced. Multichannel News recently reported that Comcast has funded $24 million of co-development work to date. I have had the service since late October as part of the beta test, but the companies had asked me to stay mum until its official launch.

The first thing to know about this new service is that it really is familiar, lovable TiVo inside a Motorola cable set-top box. I am a long-time TiVo Series 2 owner, and as best I can tell all of the core TiVo features are available (e.g. Season Pass, Wish List, Suggestions) along with the inimitable TiVo blooping sounds effects. The box has a dual tuner so you can record one show while watching another. The navigation also incorporates all of Comcast's VOD selections, so all linear and VOD programs are considered in your searches. It's an HD-capable box, which can hold 15-20 hours of HD video. The peanut-shaped remote control is virtually unchanged.

What's not included are all the wonderful broadband features (e.g. TiVoCast, Amazon Unbox, Rhapsody, Music Choice, Photos, Home Movies, etc.) and network features (e.g. remote scheduling, whole house service). The absence of broadband content (CNET, The Onion, NY Times, etc.) in particular will be missed. TiVo has gradually been introducing this over the last couple years. I've written a lot about broadband-to-the-TV solutions recently, and TiVo's approach has been very solid. However, Comcast obviously wanted to retain strict control over what video gets pumped into the set-top box. I have discussed this "closed" vs. "open" mindset earlier - hopefully something that will change down the road.

The service itself has mostly worked well. There were some initial hiccups requiring the Comcast service techs to return to the house and for me to call in for service. There are a few small issues that have persisted. These include periodically getting a green screen which requires me to turn the box on and off. I can't continuously lower the volume or change channels by suppressing the appropriate button on the remote control (this is possibly a TV-specific issue). I also find the service just a little less responsive than my Series 2 box - my fingers have had to adjust their muscle memory somewhat when working the familiar remote control. None of these are deal-breakers, but I do intend to have Comcast come out a take a look one of these days.

Comcast has priced the service at $2.95/mo, on top of its plain vanilla DVR service fee of $12.95/mo. I continue to believe that for consumers this proposition makes a lot of sense when compared with buying a standalone Series 3 box. It's a $3 delta over paying the monthly service charge directly to TiVo, but you avoid buying the Series 3 box (about $600 street price around $400) and potential maintenance and obsolescence issues. And it means one less box in your rack. The downside is the missing TiVo features described above.

If Comcast markets the TiVo service aggressively and correctly I think they can shift a lot of current DVR subscribers over plus add plenty of new ones down the road. It's a meaningful competitive advantage for a company caught up in a brutal battle with satellite and telco competitors. For TiVo, which has also done a deal with Cox (and others in the future presumably), it's a great shot at migrating itself out of the hardware business, into software and solutions.

As widely expected, yesterday Apple launched movie rentals in iTunes, with titles from all the major studios. Steve Jobs also announced price cuts and a number of key enhancements to Apple TV, squarely repositioning the device as a "broadband movies appliance" (my term). Apple TV now allows direct ordering (no computer needed) and a much improved UI prominently featuring movies. The message from Apple is clear: the primary value proposition for Apple TV's prospective buyers is convenient movie rentals through iTunes.

In the last few weeks there has been much buzzing about which companies might feel the most competitive pressure from Apple's launch of movie rentals. Here's how I see it: when rentals are combined with Apple TV's new features, the company that has to be waking up this morning most nervous about Apple's news yesterday is Vudu, because it has the most obviously similar value proposition.

Some of you may not be familiar with Vudu. It is a recently launched combination online movie/TV on demand service and companion box that has gained a lot of favorable early reviews. The company is backed by Benchmark and Greylock, two huge and highly regarded venture firms. While any startup faces long odds of success, with Vudu now going up against the Apple branding and marketing juggernaut, Vudu's odds seem even more daunting. In fact, one wonders how the folks at Benchmark and Greylock, when considering their original Vudu investment, weighed the very question of Apple's entry into this market, as it was somewhat inevitable.

To step back for a moment, as many of you know, I'm skeptical about all appliances meant to bridge the broadband and TV worlds, as I think they have only narrow consumer appeal and create new inconveniences. Apple TV and Vudu are even more specifically-directed at people who are focused on premium movie and TV content, not gaining access to the wider world of broadband video (note Apple TV does provide some access to YouTube videos and podcasts). In effect, purchasers of either of these products value the instant viewing gratification they offer more than the selection, portability, unlimited viewing windows and "extras" that DVDs provide. And of course there are a broad array of choices and models for accessing DVDs (e.g. Netflix, Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, etc.).

However, for interested buyers, my sense is that both Apple TV and Vudu do an admirable job at delivering online movies and TV programs. The issue is that, if I was considering a purchase, and was obviously only going to buy one, I'd be hard-pressed to see why I'd pick Vudu over Apple TV. Consider: Apple TV is cheaper ($329 vs $399 for Vudu, albeit with smaller storage space), provides access to your music library and podcasts already configured in iTunes, allows easy display of your photos, has a familiar iPod/iTunes UI and enables transfers to these devices for portable viewing. Apple TV is also backed by a strong and well-known brand, giving additional comfort that the company will be around for a long time to come, which is always a nagging question when buying anything from a startup.

The whole category of broadband movie appliances is going to remain pretty small until the key limitations are resolved (small selection, 24 hour playback, 30-day expiration, no portability, no "extras", etc.). When these are fully addressed, online delivery of movies and TV programs will happen in a big way, no question.

Netflix announced this morning that it was removing the usage cap on its "Instant Watching" feature for unlimited plan subscribers. This feature allows subscribers to choose from 6,000 titles (and growing) to stream and view on their PCs. Up until now subscribers received an allocation of streaming hours based on their monthly subscription level (e.g. 17 hours if subscribing at $17/mo). Now the hours will be unlimited. It's a smart move for Netflix and a great value proposition for Netflix subscribers.

AP first reported the change yesterday and is depicting it as a preemptive move against Apple, which is anticipated to announce tomorrow that movie rental downloads will be available in iTunes. The price point is expected to be $3.99/download. This is a major departure for Apple's iTunes, which has, of course, stuck religiously to its purchase download model for both music and videos.

Others have also depicted Apple's move as a direct strike at Netflix, but I think this battle is illusory. Rather, I view Apple's introduction of rentals as clear competition for the likes of Movielink, CinemaNow, Amazon Unbox, XBox LIVE and other rental stores, but not a blow to Netflix. The value propositions are very different. That's because Netflix very wisely has made the Instant Watching feature a value add for its subscribers, not an incremental fee.

As a $16.99/mo subscriber myself, I love the fact that Netflix is unmetering Instant Watching, and am hard-pressed to see why anyone would drop their subscription in favor of Apple's rental model, unless they envision consuming a lot of movies on their iPods (now there's a slim segment of the population!).

From an economic standpoint alone, the breakeven is only 4+ movies, which is likely well below the monthly consumption of most of Netflix's full unlimited subscribers. And with Apple's rental model, users are still subjected to all the same online movie limitations all the other services have suffered from: no easy playback on TVs, lack of portability, viewing window limits, etc. Granted iTunes downloads enable watching on-the-go (vs. Netflix's streams), but I don't see that as a big differentiator. With Netflix you get the best of DVDs' advantages and now unlimited online delivery.

Now, if Apple were to pursue subscriptions, that would be a direct attack on Netflix. Yet even this approach might not be that successful. The fact is, Netflix has spent heavily on marketing over the years, and its strong brand awareness and 7 million subscriber base are quite meaningful advantages.

Online movie delivery, whether rental or owned, still has a long way to go to achieve mainstream success. Apple will certainly nudge the category forward, but not dramatically. Still, Netflix needs to remain aggressively on offensive to retain its leadership mantle. This is a category with lots of moves yet to be made.

Am I missing something? Post a comment and let everyone know!

OK, one last post related to CES, and then I promise to shut up about the show.

Observing the goings-on this week, it is evident that both content and consumer electronics firms have come to the same basic conclusion: each industry's success is inextricably tied to the other's. Each recognizes that the business dynamics of the future requires a new way of differentiating their products than they are accustomed. That means, for example, that TV makers can no longer just boast about better pictures. And that content companies can no longer bank on bigger stars or funnier sitcoms to deliver audiences and profits.

Rather, both industries recognize that we are moving into what I would call the "experience era" for video. That's to say, success with consumers is going to rest more on these industries' ability to deliver superior experiences which integrate content and technology in new and compelling ways. Rather than oohing and ahhing about their new TV's picture quality or how hilarious a certain episode was, going forward consumers will increasingly cite "how cool" something is.

"How cool" are code words for "how compelling is the experience". The new currency of video hipness will require that when I invite friends to my house and want to show off, I need to have more than just a honking-big screen or a digital collection of old programs - those will be commonplace. Instead, the experiences are what will matter. Things like seamlessly accessing broadband content on my TV, interacting with it -- along with other viewers -- from my couch, and moving it around my house for playback anywhere, in a snap. Delivering these types of experiences (and more) is the new competitive bar that content and technology firms should be aiming for.

My sense is these industry executives know this, and the partnerships we saw unveiled -- and those yet to come -- demonstrate this recognition. Listen to what Bob Scaglione, Sharp's SVP Marketing said in this NY Times piece: "We already all have beautiful HD televisions. How do you differentiate? One way to provide some really unique differentiation is to provide new content. That's why we're fighting to find the right content providers."

And then what Beth Comstock, president of NBC Universal Integrated Media said: "You can't talk about consumer electronics without talking about content.....We try every new technology that comes along."