Posts for 'Advertising'

WHAT TYPE OF ONLINE ADS DO YOU BUY?

We buy pre-rolls, mid-rolls, in-line video ads. The only thing we have not bought much of are ads around user-generated content.

WHO ARE SOME OF YOUR CLIENTS?

Sears, K-Mart, Fidelity Investments, Amtrak, Tyson, Choice Hotels, Volvo, Air France, and Reckitt Benckiser, to name a few.

ARE ALL OF YOUR CLIENTS BUYING VIDEO ADS?

Many of our clients are placing ads in online video.

IS IT A "MUST HAVE" ON THE MEDIA PLAN?

We're definitely see it grow in importance and yes, it is a "must have" on some media plans. What I can say with more certainty is that online video advertising is becoming, and for some clients is, as important as display advertising. What remains a more consistent "must have" are search buys.

WHAT ARE THE SIZES OF SOME OF YOUR BUYS? WHAT ARE THE CPM TRENDS?

A buyer considers two things: scale (will it reach enough people) and the size/cost of a buy. It depends on the overall size of the campaign. For instance, in a large campaign a buy is south of $50K, may not make the plan, unless we're going to do it for the intelligence of the buy or because the CPM is very discounted. On a smaller campaign $50K might be the entire campaign so you will see much smaller video purchases. There is a huge swing for CPM range depending on the content. Everything hinges on the content. We see CPMs ranging from $15-$40 for non-UGV content in-stream units. UGV, the lower-end quality content CPMs tend to be in the single digits. In-banner video is generally on the lower end of the single digit range.

HOW LABOR INTENSIVE IS AN ONLINE VIDEO AD BUY?

Relatively speaking, it is a lot more labor intensive than a broadcast buy. In the online world, there are a lot of steps in the process to create, buy, optimize, build and analyze a video ad campaign.

WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR SELLERS TO KNOW BEFORE THEY COME AND PITCH YOU?

I'd like sellers to be informed about our clients, their campaigns, and goals so we can build the best possible idea. I want someone to bring me a solution, not just sell me their unsold inventory.

IS THE "BUY" ALL ABOUT SCALE?

I think it's about audience fragmentation, the inverse of scale. People buy TV because they can aggregate a large audience; it is the best mass media vehicle. As TV ratings decline, a buyer has to buy an increased mix of television to achieve the same scale they did previously. Now the consideration shouldn't just be TV, it should be all video.

WHO DOES THE BUYING? BROADCAST BUYER? ONLINE BUYER?

Both online buyers and broadcast buyers do the buying but like anything, it depends on the buy. Pure online purchases (like Hulu, Veoh, YouTube), the online buyers are in the lead. On the network side (such as buying from ABC), it's a little bit different because there are instances where media is bought by network buyers with the assistance of online buyers.

WOULD YOU BUY FROM AN INDEPENDENT WEB STUDIO OR THEIR CONTENT?

I would consider such a buy but it goes back to the issue of scale. Would we buy directly from the programmer or buy from a network? In a world where I'm trying to aggregate reach, they may fall out of the category due to their limited audience size.

QUOTE

"We're bullish on online video, the performance we've seen from it is highly encouraging."

The Super Bowl ads are continuing to generate all kinds of buzz and continued chatter. In the spirit of "everything's been said, but not by everyone," here are a few additional broadband-related thoughts.

Doritos user-generated contest is a big winner - Doritos snagged 2 of the top 5 placements in the USA Today Ad Meter popularity rankings, displacing Anheuser-Busch for the first time. The fact that the Herbert brothers of Indiana could have created an ad more popular than all of those by the pros is impressive enough. More interesting though to me is Doritos is steadily morphing its brand into one which its customers control. This was the 3rd time Doritos handed over its Super Bowl advertising to fans to both submit ads and also vote on them. I've written about other brands' UGV contests, but Doritos is clearly the furthest along in embracing this concept. It's a great differentiator for the brand and will only build further momentum in the future.

The ad development process usually starts with identifying key brand attributes (e.g. "convenient," "affordable," "wide variety," "hip," etc.). Did the Hulu marketing team start with attributes like "deceitful" or "creepy" or "offbeat?" Seemingly so. Although the spot was fun, it didn't do anything to articulate Hulu's great value proposition. Further, is Hulu now going to pursue this creepy positioning further? If they do, does that make sense for the brand? But if they don't, wasn't the ad a waste of effort, with little continued momentum? I'm not an ad expert, but I'm not clear on what Hulu was trying to do here, other than get some great yucks.

How about some more "behind-the-scenes" and "making-of" video - Ad executives don't seem to understand what filmmakers discovered with DVDs years ago - that the backstory around the final cut is often even more interesting to fans. Since DVDs offer the capacity to provide director's notes, explanations of special effects, outtakes, actor interviews, etc they often do. This stuff is fascinating. Same with broadband; it offers brands the ability to provide a lot more video than just the ads themselves on their web sites, which some did indeed do.

But many others who could have done so, did not. Two that come right to mind: Coke, whose fascinating ad with insects stealing a sleeping man's bottle had some of the best special effects ever. How about some interviews with the computer animation team that did them? That would be fascinating. The other: E-Trade's talking babies. How'd they do that? Would love to know.

Should ads be rated or filtered? Ok, here's something controversial to think about - should Super Bowl ads be rated or filtered somehow? This is supposed to be family entertainment after all, isn't it? Does the woman getting stripped in the Doritos "Bus" ad or the suggestive GoDaddy girls belong in prime-time? I wonder. Or maybe the online galleries should rate the ads somehow? Maybe the racier ones deserve a parental warning? Just a thought.

Ok, that's it for the '09 Super Bowl, on to other topics...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in January:

Broadband video marches to the TV - At CES in early January there were major announcements around connecting broadband to TVs, either directly or through intermediary devices (a recap of all the news is here). All of the major TV manufacturers have put stakes in the ground in this market and we'll be seeing their products released during the year. Technology players like Intel, Broadcom, Adobe, Macrovision, Move Networks, Yahoo and others are also now active in this space. And content aggregators like Netflix and Amazon are also scaling up their efforts.

Some of you have heard me say that as amazing as the growth in broadband video consumption has been over the last 5 years, what's even more amazing is that virtually all of it has happened outside of the traditional TV viewing environment. Consider if someone had forecasted 5 years ago that there would be this huge surge of video consumption, but by the way, practically none of it will happen on TVs. People would have said the forecaster was crazy. Now think about what will happen once widespread TV-based consumption is realized. The entire video landscape will be affected. Broadband-to-the-TV is a game-changer.

Broadband video advertising continues to evolve - The single biggest determinant of broadband video's financial success is solidifying the ad-supported model. For all the moves that Netflix, Amazon, iTunes and others have made recently in the paid space, the disproportionate amount of viewership will continue to be free and ad-supported.

This month brought encouraging research from ABC and Nielsen that online viewers are willing to accept more ads and that recall rates are high. We also saw the kickoff of "the Pool" a new ad consortium spearheaded by VivaKi and including major brands and publishers, which will conduct research around formats and standards. Three more signs of advertising's evolution this month were Panache's deal with MTV (signaling a big video provider's continued maturation of its monetization efforts), a partnership between Adap.tv and EyeWonder (further demonstrating how ecosystem partners are joining up to improve efficiencies for clients and publishers) and Cisco's investment in Digitalsmiths (a long term initiative to deliver context-based advanced advertising across multiple viewing platforms). Lastly, Canoe, the cable industry's recently formed ad consortium continued its progress toward launch.

Broadband Inauguration - Lastly, January witnessed the momentous inauguration of President Barack Obama, causing millions of broadband users to (try to) watch online, often at work. What could have been a shining moment for broadband delivery instead turned into a highly inconsistent and often frustrating experience for many.

In perspective this was not all that surprising. The Internet's capacity has not been built to handle extraordinary peak load. However on normal days, it still does a pretty good job of delivering video smoothly and consistently. As I wrote in my post mortem, hopefully the result of the inauguration snafus will be continued investment in the infrastructure and technologies needed to satisfy growing demand. That's been the hallmark of the Internet, underscored by the fact that 70 million U.S. homes now connect to the 'net via broadband vs. single digit millions just 10 years ago. I remain confident that over time supply will meet demand.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Once again it was an incredibly exciting Super Bowl. And once again, the ads were a broadband fumble. I've been saying for three years now that broadband has introduced a whole new opportunity for Super Bowl advertisers to derive more value and drive engagement, making the ridiculous $3 million per ad that they pay far more worthwhile. Regrettably, the brains behind most of the Super Bowl's ads seem hopelessly oblivious to this notion.

I've watched all 56 ads this morning to see which ones had a broadband or online component. Here's what I found:

• 37 of the ads (66%) were tagged with the advertiser's URL (though some of them went by so fast it would have been nearly impossible to remember or write them down). Akamai has reported traffic spikes for many of these sites. For the online sites like Priceline, Overstock, Monster and CareerBuilders, tagging works very well to reinforce the brand.
• 19 of the ads (34%) were not tagged with the advertiser's URL. Oddly, this includes all of the Budweiser ads. From the people that brought us Bud.tv one would think they'd have a little more appreciation for the role of the web.
• Of the 37 ads with a URL shown, only 6 contained an explicit call to action to visit the web site (GoDaddy "Continues at GoDaddy.com," Disney-Pixar "Up" movie, "To see a special first look go to Disney.com," Universal Heroes, "Visit site for a free 7 day ticket," Monster.com, "Never been a better time to go to Monster.com,", Frosted Flakes, "Help decide where at FrostedFlakes.com," and Vizio, "Visit us at Vizio.com to check out 55 inch million dollar event."). These show solid attempts at engaging the audience beyond the on-air ad itself.
• Upon visiting the web sites of the 37 advertisers who tagged their ads with their URLs, 29 of them contained some video. But of these only 13 offered some video beyond just a replay of the ad. That means that of the total 56 ads, just 23% leveraged broadband video in some meaningful way.

What are a few examples? GoDaddy was surely a hands-down video winner again, by urging viewers to visit their web site, presumably for even more titillating video of the GoDaddy girls and Danica Patrick. Bridgestone Tires offered behind the scenes of how their Potato Head ad was created. Three films, "Year One, " "Up" and "Monsters vs. Aliens" all provided some first look or behind the scenes video. Gatorade introduced the "MissionG" reality series that the brand is sponsoring. NFL.com which showed the winner of its "Super Ad Contest" (Usama Young) also has the full gallery of all the players' ads. In addition, Discovery told me that Toyota has a very cool "Making of" video for its Killer Heat ad for its Tundra playing on HowStuffWorks.com. Unfortunately, there was no promotion of it during the ad itself, or even on Toyota.com.

Three years ago I thought for sure this would happen, and as a result I was speculating that Super Bowl ads could eventually fetch $10 million. But with each passing year I'm getting a little more skeptical that big brand advertisers and their agencies actually understand what's happening with broadband video and how it opens up new horizons for them. Maybe 2010 will be different...

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Pixsy, a white label video search provider made an interesting announcement yesterday about the launch of its new "Premium Feed" service, which I think is another example of the Syndicated Video Economy that I've been talking about for a while now. I talked to Pixsy CEO Chase Norlin about Premium Feed to learn more.

For those of you not familiar with Pixsy, it has been quietly building one of the largest video indexes since its founding in 2005. To date it has mainly focused on licensing the index to partner sites which wanted to offer easy video discovery to their users. As more content providers have offered embedding, Pixsy also enabled found videos to be played right on its partners' sites. Even though activity has grown well, Chase is pretty candid about monetization to date being difficult.

Premium Feed takes embedding to the next level by creating a subset of Pixsy's video index that is both higher-than-average quality and has accompanying pre-roll and overlay ads. Then Pixsy is developing an economic relationship between the content provider and its publisher network by signing redistribution and revenue-sharing deals with both. Chase says that to date the publisher network has 45 million unique visitors/mo and that 1-2 million videos are in the Premium Feed.

One of those publishers is EgoTV, and I chatted with founder/president Jimmy Hutcheson to find out how they're implementing Premium Feed. If you look in the lower right corner of their home page you'll see 3 new "channels," Ego Cars, Ego Comedy and Ego Travel. Each of these are constructed solely of Pixsy Premium Feed videos that are curated by an EgoTV editor. In another example at Ego People, the 300x250 ad in the right column is now populated with the Premium Feed. This is a simple "highest-and-best-use" real estate decision: Jimmy explained that Premium Feed is yielding 2-4x as much net revenue for EgoTV as it would receive if it sold rich media ads in this position.

Yet each of these initiatives has its own somewhat differentiated value proposition and underlying technology approach. As syndication grows in importance, sites with strong traffic and an interest in incorporating video will have many choices. As to how they'll decide, Chase makes a good point: simplicity and one-stop shopping are always valued by resource-constrained sites. Providers that can address as many of these sites' potential needs will be in a strong position.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

This is quite funny, but also very embarrassing. Yesterday I was watching coverage of President Obama's first day on the job at Politico.com, one of my favorite political sites. Politico eschews pre-rolls in favor of overlays which is great because most of their videos are short clips.

But look at the graphic below and note the overlay running while President Obama is discussing the serious matters of governmental transparency and senior staff pay freezes. It is promoting a diet technique, and includes the obligatory "before" (flabby) and "after" (flat) tummy pictures. Clicking through brings you to a faux-blog page which is in turn a promotion for Nature's Best Acai Berry weight loss pills.

Hey Politico: what in heaven's name is this ad doing running during President Obama's somber remarks? Did Obama get tagged with "fit" or "great abs" based on his recent Hawaii vacation, thereby mapping any ad with "belly" or "diet" to him? If so, someone needs to tweak the system. And by the way - this is the kind of stuff that really undermines your brand. If you're going to expand into video, make sure someone is tasked with knowing what ads you're running so they don't end up embarrassing you!

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Adap.tv and EyeWonder, two key players in the broadband video and rich media ad space are announcing a partnership today, meant to further streamline ad sales and monetization for video content providers. The partnership follows on the deal I wrote about last week between Panache and MTV also highlighting these points.

Particularly given the tough economy, video content providers are focused more than ever on maximizing the value of their inventory with the least possible amount of effort and cost. On the flip side, ad technology companies are trying to figure out how to cover more customer ground more cost-effectively. Inevitably these forces will lead to more partnerships, and likely some industry consolidation. Panache, Adap.tv, Tremor Media and others are among the companies driving the broadband ad market forward. I'll have more news on this front in the coming days.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

In 2008, Canoe Ventures, the JV of six large U.S. cable operators, became one of the hottest topics of conversation in the cable, programming and advertising industries. Last week, I was fortunate to get time with Vicki Lins, Canoe's Chief Marketing Officer, to learn more about the company's plans. Though Vicki has been pulling double duty between her role at Comcast Spotlight and Canoe in recent months, she had only just started full time with Canoe, so she readily admitted that she's still getting up-to-speed.

Ordinarily Canoe's advanced TV advertising mission would be off-center for VideoNuze's strictly broadband video-centric focus. But the reason it's relevant to understand is because I think long-term, the world that Canoe is trying to create on top of cable's digital set-top boxes is on a collision course with the world that broadband video is trying to create. I see both eventually competing for the same viewers, ad dollars and mind-share.

Canoe is critical to the cable industry because it recognizes that ever-better targeting, interactivity and ROIs are driving ad spending decisions. For 10+ years now, the Internet (and Google in particular) has been resetting marketers' expectations, thereby placing ever-greater pressure on TV ad executives to improve their game.

Vicki explained that first and foremost, Canoe is a service bureau, helping advertisers, programmers and cable operators wring more value out of their ad inventory. It does not intend to sell any ads itself. Canoe's key is leveraging its access to its cable partners' digital set-top boxes. First up is what's called "Creative Versioning" or zone-based addressability - the ability to break down users into logical segments that get specific ads. Another focus is productizing the viewership data being captured by those set-tops to out-Nielsen Nielsen (while of course respecting users' privacy). A third is trying to enable user interactivity - the ability to get deeper information, zero in on a product feature in an ad, order an item, etc.

All of this would benefit cable and broadcast networks seeking to more effectively monetize their ad inventory, as well as cable operators which sell a portion of cable networks' ad inventory locally. Clearly these are key constituencies, but as Vicki points out, Canoe must also address ad agencies, brands, cable technologists, local operations teams where Canoe's technology is actually deployed, cable marketers and others who have a stake in this process. It's a pretty long list, and one wonders whether a start-up is able to handle all of this at once.

But there are two even bigger issues that I see. First, I find myself wondering whether Canoe is even aiming at the right target with these initial plans. Instead, why doesn't Canoe just focus 100% of its energies on monetizing these cable operators' billions of current VOD streams? It's amazing to me that years after VOD's launch, I don't see any ads on Comcast (my cable company) VOD. My kids watch lots of Ben 10, Hannah Montana, Wizards of Waverly Place, etc on VOD yet never see a single ad for a sugared cereal or wizzy new toy. As a parent this isn't something I'm complaining about, but if I were a Comcast shareholder it would sure have me scratching my head. It seems like such a big missed opportunity...is there something I don't understand here?

As Denise Denson, MTV's EVP of Content Distribution and Marketing recently told Multichannel News, "We have over a billion VOD orders this year on Comcast alone, but we've made virtually no money in advertising in that space....With the convergence of TV and the Internet, there is a danger that the Internet's interactive content could usurp it. It's unfortunate, but programmers will have to put their content where they can actually monetize it."

And that brings us back to broadband video's challenge to Canoe. The fact is that broadband is a parallel and fast-growing VOD platform that is generating significant content provider interest because of it offers substantial control of the user experience and relatively robust monetization. As I wrote yesterday, broadband advertising innovation is being adopted by major media companies like MTV. And because broadband ad innovation is diffused over many companies (as is all innovation in the hyper-competitive Internet realm), there are rapid and continuous improvements. Conversely, by concentrating its set-top box ad efforts through just Canoe I think the cable industry is limiting the platform's vast potential.

Denise Denson hit the nail on the head: resources are finite and programming networks will focus their attention on platforms that offer the best scale and monetization opportunities. With broadband coming to TVs very soon, it will soon be a de facto competitor to cable's digital set-top box delivery. To preserve the value of its video platform, cable needs to shore up its VOD advertising and user experience and not let broadband surpass it. For my money, that seems like the most productive place for Canoe to first focus its attention.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The video ad insertion and management landscape continues to evolve as Panache is announcing this morning that its platform will be deployed across MTV Networks' sites. I caught up with Steve Robinson, Panache's president yesterday to learn more.

As Steve explains it, as major media companies have grown their broadband video usage, operationalizing the business has become increasingly complex. This is no surprise and I've heard it from others as well: multiple organizations including technology development, ad operations, ad sales and programming have had to learn to work together to deploy and monetize broadband video offerings.

This is important stuff, not just because of the potential for missed revenue, but because users can quickly notice when the organization's gears are grinding. How often have you seen the same untargeted ad play repeatedly? Or not seen any ads at all? Or have had a 30 second pre-roll ad in front of short 45 second news clips you're sequentially watching? As the broadband stakes have gotten higher, large media companies have increasingly focused on how to streamline their processes in order to scale and monetize more effectively.

That's where Panache comes in. In the MTV example, Panache first integrates with MTV's standardized video player. Once integrated, ad operations is able to use the Panache tools to create ad programs and logic, including campaigns, flights, formats, etc. This becomes the playbook for ad sales as it interfaces with customers, and can be readily modified to suit custom requests. A key benefit is that MTV's development organization doesn't need to get involved each time some part of the ad offering is changed. Improving the back-end processes helps ramp up sales, which for major media companies like MTV Networks is handled mostly by internal teams.

But the need for streamlining broadband video ad operations goes beyond the major media companies though, and there are other offerings with similar capabilities on the market too. For example in the past year Tremor Media has launched Acudeo, and Adap.tv has launched OneSource. Both are technology platforms for video providers that can pull ads from multiple sources (direct sales, ad networks, etc.) with an eye to maximizing fill rates and CPMs.

One key difference is business model: Panache and Adap.tv don't have ad sales organizations, whereas Tremor, as an ad network, does. For Panache or Adap.tv that means relying on some mix of licensing/platform usage fees and/or receiving a revenue share from customers, whereas for Tremor it means obtaining a chunk of the inventory to sell itself. There are no doubt feature-for-feature differences as well, but not having worked in ad ops myself, some of this is beyond my scope and would require specific due diligence.

For sure as the broadband video ad business becomes more integral to large and mid-sized content providers we'll continue to see more innovation and business process improvements in this area. Just as TV ad insertion has been refined to a science over the years, so too will broadband video.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

If you haven't noticed, the theme at VideoNuze this week has been broadband-enabled TVs, since this has been one of the main themes of this week's CES. On Monday, when the dust has settled, I'll recap some of the key deals. For today though, I want to inject a small dose of reality into the hype that's starting to build up around broadband-enabled TVs.

First off, I'm thrilled to see an ecosystem of technology leaders, TV set manufacturers, content providers and aggregators taking shape around broadband-enabled TVs. It's looking increasingly inevitable that broadband access is going to be a staple feature of HDTVs in the years to come. Just as you wouldn't consider buying an HDTV without multiple HDMI ports today, at some point in the future you'll be unlikely to buy one without broadband capability. That's pretty cool.

Still, what's missing from the flurry of this week's announcements is how the exciting new broadband path to the TV will actually be monetized by video content providers. I know that mundane questions like this aren't what people tend to focus on at glitzy CES, but they are critical nonetheless. With services like Netflix or Amazon VOD - which have been in the middle of several announcements - it's obvious enough how they'll benefit. The more pertinent question is how video that is ad-supported is going to work, especially since ad-supported video will always represent the lion's share of the average consumer's viewership time.

The broadband video ad model itself is still nascent, and this week's J.P. Morgan report shows that there's no shortage of lingering skepticism still overhanging it. Nonetheless, I'd argue we're at least at a point now where most market participants have a pretty good handle on broadband video advertising's basics - serving technologies/vendors, formats, expected delivery quality, CPMs, user preferences, click-throughs, etc. In short, I believe the foundation is pretty well in place for a strong ramp up of spending (notwithstanding the larger economic issues) as the broadband video world exists today.

But how much of that foundation will still be valid for broadband-enabled TVs vs. how much will need to be re-built (as is the case with mobile video)? Many of the answers are driven by the chips from Intel, Broadcom and others that are going into these TVs. Understanding their respective capabilities and how they'll support broadband video advertising's existing ecosystem is key.

One needs look no further than cable's VOD experience to date to recognize how important the building blocks for an effective advertising model are. While billions of VOD streams are now consumed, very little of it is monetized due to still-inadequate ad capabilities. Years after VOD's launch, these monetization constraints are curtail content providers' interest in participating in VOD. In fact, I'd argue that broadband has actually been a beneficiary of VOD's deficiencies: faced with a choice of where to allocate resources, many content providers have shifted attention to broadband because its monetization mechanisms are so robust.

Anyway, you get the point. Broadband-enabled TVs are very exciting. But to reach their potential, they must deliver a robust user experience and allow advertising to work effectively. In these penny-pinching, resource-constrained times, something that's cool is no longer enough to gain interest. People need to understand how they'll make money from it.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

There's been a lot of buzz over the last couple of days about J.P. Morgan's just-released "Nothing But Net - 2009 Internet Investment Guide," including many references to Morgan's distinctly bearish commentary on online video. I'm always interested in what other analysts are saying about video, so I downloaded the document yesterday. Though it's 340 pages, only 2 pages (81-82) are devoted to online video specifically. (And incidentally, as best I can tell, that's 2 pages more than the "Nothing But Net - 2008" devoted to the video industry.)

I have to say I found Morgan's write-up to be quite superficial, with a generally dismissive tone regarding online video's opportunity. Like many Wall Street analyst reports I've previously read, it seems more focused on near-term financial prospects than longer-term strategic opportunities. An investment professional without in-depth knowledge of online video trends who read the report would likely conclude that it's not worth spending much time on online video, at least in the near term. That would be a critical mistake, because, as I've said many times, online delivery is the single most disruptive influence on the video industry today.

Morgan's analysis is strictly focused on the ad-supported model. No attention is paid to broadband's impact on the multi-billion dollar multichannel subscription TV or home video markets which companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and others are pursuing with disruptive fervor. As for advertising, while Morgan acknowledges that online video usage has taken off, it believes that "performance-based marketers and brand advertisers are looking at three variables in determining their investment: reach, content quality and performance measurability." In Morgan's view, today's "advertising formats do not appropriately address these three variables."

It's important to note that a key Morgan theme is that performance-based advertising models like search are more desirable than CPM-based models like display, and most video ads today. Morgan believes (and I do agree) that performance and ROI-tracking will become even more important in the down economy where ad dollars are scarce and must deliver real sales results.

Still, the reality is that over time, online video ad dollars are most likely to be shifted from TV, which is a CPM-based medium. And online video ad units offer far greater interactivity than TV ever has. But this still misses a larger point - video is a CPM-based medium because video is the pre-eminent media format to make an impression on a consumer. Nothing packs the same emotional impact as video, and that's why brands have always been drawn to TV advertising. In short, while the overall online ad market is shifting to performance, brands will always need a visual medium. With all the challenges traditional TV has (e.g. DVR-based ad skipping, audience fragmentation, etc.), online video formats that are engaging, non-skippable and interactive will gain in appeal.

If brands' interest in online video advertising is so challenged, you wouldn't know it from actual experience. In 10 minutes of random sampling this morning here are ads I saw: Oreos (MTV.com), HP (ComedyCentral.com), Blackberry, Target (Hulu), Gillette, IBM (ESPN.com), Ritz, Sears (ABC.com) and Dunkin' Donuts, Robitussin (Yahoo). I'm not suggesting that the online video medium doesn't have its challenges in attracting brands, but based on everything I continue to hear, the premium video sites in particular - like those cited above - are holding up pretty well even in this environment. Even much-maligned user-generated video may have some unexpected silver linings; just yesterday it was reported that Japanese anime producer Kadokwa Group Holdings is pulling in $110,000/mo from its YouTube channel stocked with user-created material.

Far from being the uninteresting medium that the Morgan report depicts, online video has already become a bright spot for many established content providers whose traditional models are under pressure. It is also opening up new opportunities for new ad-supported entrants. And it is threatening to completely upend the paid part of market through improvements in "over-the-top" technologies and consumer services.

To be sure, the medium is still in its adolescence. But that's all the more reason why savvy investors, entrepreneurs and other market participants who look past cursory industry reports, and instead choose to dig in and understand the massive disruption online video is causing will do quite well in the long term.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

1. Advertising business model gains further momentum

I saw '08 as a year in which the broadband ad model continued growing in importance as the paid model remained in the back seat, at least for now. I think that's pretty much been borne out. We've seen countless new video-oriented sites launch in '08. To be sure many of them are now scrambling to stay afloat in the current ad-crunched environment, and there will no doubt be a shakeout among these sites in '09. However, the basic premise, that users mainly expect free video, and that this is the way to grow adoption, is mostly conventional wisdom now.

The exception on the paid front continues to be iTunes, which announced in October that it has sold 200 million TV episode downloads to date. At $1.99 apiece, that would imply iTunes TV program downloads exceed all ad-supported video sites to date. The problem of course is once you get past iTunes things fall off quickly. Other entrants like Xbox Live, Amazon and Netflix are all making progress with paid approaches, but still the market is held back by at least 3 challenges: lack of mass broadband-to-the-TV connectivity, a robust incumbent DVD model, and limited online delivery rights. That means advertising is likely to dominate again in '09.

2. Brand marketers jump on broadband bandwagon

I expected that '08 would see more brands pursue direct-to-consumer broadband-centric campaigns. Sure enough, the year brought a variety of initiatives from a diverse range of companies like Shell, Nike, Ritz-Carlton, Lifestyles Condoms, Hellman's and many others.

What I didn't foresee was the more important emphasis that many brands would place on user-generated video contests. In '08 there were such contests from Baby Ruth, Dove, McDonald's, Klondike and many others. Coming up in early '09 is Doritos' splashy $1 million UGV Super Bowl contest, certain to put even more emphasis on these contests. I see no letup in '09.

3. Beijing Summer Olympics are a broadband blowout

I was very bullish on the opportunity for the '08 Summer Games to redefine how broadband coverage can add value to live sporting events. Anyone who experienced any of the Olympics online can certainly attest to the convenience broadband enabled (especially given the huge time zone difference to the U.S.), but without sacrificing any video quality. The staggering numbers certainly attested to their popularity.

Still, some analysts were chagrined by how little revenue the Olympics likely brought in for NBC. While I'm always in favor of optimizing revenues, I tried to take the longer view as I wrote here and here. The Olympics were a breakthrough technical and operational accomplishment which exposed millions of users to broadband's benefits. For now, that's sufficient reward.

4. 2008 is the "Year of the broadband presidential election"

With the '08 election already in full swing last December (remember the heated primaries?), broadband was already making its presence known. It only continued as the year and the election drama wore on. As I recently summarized, broadband was felt in many ways in this election cycle. President-elect Obama seems committed to continuing broadband's role with his weekly YouTube updates and behind-the-scenes clips. Still, as important as video was in the election, more important was the Internet's social media capabilities being harnessed for organizing and fundraising. Obama has set a high bar for future candidates to meet.

5. WGA Strike fuels broadband video proliferation

Here's one I overstated. Last December, I thought the WGA strike would accelerate interest in broadband as an alternative to traditional outlets. While it's fair to include initiatives like Joss Wheedon's Dr. Horrible and Strike.TV as directly resulting from the strike, the reality is that I believe there was very little embrace of broadband that can be traced directly to the strike (if I'm missing something here, please correct me). To be sure, lots of talent is dipping its toes into the broadband waters, but I think that's more attributable to the larger climate of interest, not the WGA strike specifically.

6. Broadband consumption remains on computers, but HD delivery proliferates

I suggested that "99.9% of users who start the year watching broadband video on their computers will end the year no closer to watching broadband video on their TVs." My guess is that's turned out to be right. If you totaled up all the Rokus, AppleTVs, Vudus, Xbox's accessing video and other broadband-to-the-TV devices, that would equal less than .1% of the 147 million U.S. Internet users who comScore says watched video online in October.

However, there are some positive signs of progress for '09. I've been particularly bullish on Netflix's recent moves (particularly with Xbox) and expect some other good efforts coming as well. It's unlikely that '09 will end with even 5% of the addressable broadband universe watching on their TVs, but even that would be a good start.

OK, that's it for '08. On Monday the focus turns to what to expect in '09.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Two weeks ago when I first glanced at the pitch email I received from ATG's PR rep it looked like a ho-hummer. However, I gave it a slightly closer read and was intrigued enough to set up a call and demo. I'm glad I did. After talking to Shari Solis, VP of ATG's Media Business and giving Video Connect a spin, I think the product could add real value to broadband video advertising. Importantly, it could really improve the business cases being presented by broadband content providers to agencies and advertisers each day.

Here's how it works: the Video Connect player presents an icon or other message inviting the viewer take action. These actions can include clicking to call, IM, email, go to web site, etc. When the user clicks, the underlying video minimizes to a corner of the player and a simple pop-up appears. If you select "call us now", you then enter your phone #. Within seconds your phone rings, and within seconds after that another voice patches in from the advertiser.

In the demo a search was done in SuperPages.com for restaurants in Washington, DC which yielded a list of options. Many displayed a video camera, denoting video information was available. I selected the video for Ruths Chris Steak House and clicked to call. In a few moments I was on the line with the restaurant, asking for my reservation. The loop from search to more information to making a reservation was completed in minutes.

The applicability of Video Connect in the local ad space is obvious. Indeed, ATG is targeting local directories and online yellow pages as its initial market. These companies are in perpetual search of ways to add more value to their local clients. And of course, in this economy, local businesses gravitate to solutions that provide an improved ROI and clearly distinguish them from their competitors (more on this in my recent post "Citysearch Offering Local Merchants Video Enhancement").

Meanwhile, I'm also intrigued by the national opportunities. For example, one of the knocks on pre-roll ads is that they're just a branding opportunity, doing little more to directly drive actual sales than traditional TV ads. I can see how integrating Video Connect (which also has a full set of APIs, so that creative teams can incorporate it seamlessly) would allow pre-roll advertisers to derive a more measurable and higher ROI than they do currently, even when these ads also include a companion banner.

A great example would be creating a distinct offer in the pre-roll to "be one of the first 1,000 callers and receive...." that mimics traditional direct-response advertising. Wouldn't an auto company be interested in handing out a $500 coupon to the first 1,000 callers since they've self-identified themselves as higher-probability buyers? Or how about a consumer packaged goods company rolling out a "new and improved" version of a product. Wouldn't it be interested in having the first 5,000 loyal customers who called receive a complimentary box of the product, and then have them share the word with their friends? Given how inexpensive it is to outsource simple call center functions, the business case should be quite attractive.

I'm not suggesting that Video Connect is going to revolutionize video advertising, but it is a solid incremental feature that creates more value and will generate a higher ROI on advertisers' spending. These aren't trivial benefits, especially in a down economy where all ad spending is under close scrutiny.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

On Monday I wrote that a key mission of mine while attending the Digital Hollywood Fall conference in LA this week was to dig into what impact the economic crises is having on the broadband video industry. Specifically I was focused on three things: financing, staffing and customer spending effects.

I wasn't terribly surprised by what I heard; people are quite nervous. Most significantly they're nervous about financing. Many I spoke to cited the recent Sequoia Ventures presentation which offers a very harsh assessment of the landscape for financings and startups. I heard a lot of lukewarm responses like "we'll have to see what happens" from folks when asked about their ability to pursue future financings.

That said, some deals are still being done. One in particular is a new venture debt deal announced this morning by Clearleap. I caught up with their CEO Braxton Jarratt at DH, and one of my takeaways from that meeting was that venture investing may well be returning to its roots favoring technology-oriented companies that address well-understood industry pain points.

This shift would not bode well for content-oriented startups where investors are bet more on the startup's ability to create enterprise value from audience generation and ad revenue. Evidence of belt-tightening in the content world abounds, with the latest news of layoffs coming from 60Frames. All signs from DH suggest this is going to be one of the hardest hit sectors, as business models remain nascent and ROIs uncertain (one executive told me that every content startup has already eliminated at least 10-20% of their headcount, even if you haven't read about it publicly). While there's no shortage of interest in broadband content creation, the question is whether the dollars will be there to fund these ventures.

Closely tied to content's success is the video management/publishing platform space. I had a numerous conversations with folks about the large number of competitors and concern that both customer spending slowdowns and limited financing are going to force a shakeout. These companies are being advised to watch their cash carefully.

Lastly, there was lots of discussion, especially on panels, around ad spending in this climate. Optimists felt that the fundamentals of consumer behavior embracing broadband consumption would force advertisers to continue their spending in broadband. Conversely many pessimists said that friction, lack of clear ROIs, a flight to safety (i.e. a bias toward TV advertising) and the general slowdown would all conspire against broadband ad spending. It's hard to ignore the pessimists' arguments here; my hope is that any pullback is relatively shallow.

EveryZing, a company I wrote about last February, is announcing the launch of its MetaPlayer today and that DallasCowboys.com is the first customer to implement it. My initial take is that MetaPlayer should have strong appeal in the market, and could well shake things up for other broadband technology companies and for content providers. Last week I spoke to EveryZing's CEO Tom Wilde to learn more about the product.

MetaPlayer is interesting for at least three reasons: (1) it drives EveryZing's video search and SEO capabilities inside the videos themselves, (2) it provides deeper engagement opportunities than typically found in other video player environments and (3) it enables content providers to dramatically expand their video catalogs, while maintaining branding and editorial integrity.

To date EveryZing's customers have used its speech-to-text engine to create metadata for their sites' videos, which are then grouped into SEO-friendly "topical pages" that users are directed to when entering terms into the sites' search box. Speech-to-text and other automated metadata generating techniques from companies like Digitalsmiths are becoming increasingly popular as content providers continue to recognize the value of robust metadata.

MetaPlayer takes metadata usage a step further by creating virtual clips based on specified terms, which are exposed to the user. A user's search produces an index of these virtual clips, which can be navigated through time-stamped cue points, transcript review, and thumbnail scenes (see below for example). The virtual clip approach is comparable in some ways to what Gotuit has been doing and is pretty powerful stuff, as it lets the user jump to desired points, thus avoiding wasted viewing time (e.g. just showing the moments when "Tony Romo" is spoken)

Next, MetaPlayer enables deeper engagement with available video. Yesterday, in "Broadband Video Needs to Become More Engaging," I talked about how the importance of engagement to both consumers and content providers. MetaPlayer is a move in this direction as it allows intuitive clipping, sharing and commenting of a specific video clip within MetaPlayer. Example: you can easily send friends just the clips of Romo's touchdown passes along with your comments on each.

Last, and possibly most interesting from a syndication perspective, MetaPlayer allows content providers to dramatically expand their video offerings through the use of what's known as "chromeless" video players. I was first introduced to the chromeless approach by Metacafe's Eyal Hertzog last summer. It basically allows the content provider to maintain elements of the underlying video player, such as its ability to enforce a video's business policies (ad tags, syndication rules, etc.), while allowing new features to be overlayed (customized look-and-feel, consistent player controls, etc.).

MetaPlayer takes advantage of chromeless APIs available now from companies like Brightcove, and also importantly YouTube. For example, the Cowboys could harvest select Cowboys-related YouTube videos and incorporate them into their site (this is similar to what Magnify.net also enables). With the chromeless approach, the Cowboys's user experience and their video player's branding is maintained while YouTube's rules, such as no pre-roll ads are also enforced.

To the extent that chromeless APIs become more widely available, it means that syndication can really flourish. The underlying content provider's model is protected while simultaneously enabling widespread distribution. All of this obviously leads to more monetization opportunities through highly targeted ads.

Bottom line: EveryZing's new MetaPlayer addresses at least three real hot buttons of the broadband video landscape: improved navigation, enhanced engagement and expanding content selection/monetization. All of this should give MetaPlayer strong appeal in the market.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you're like me - and millions of other Americans - this past weekend likely found you involved in conversations with family or friends about the dismal state of the U.S. economy and where things go from here.

Of course nobody really knows. I've been spending time trying to get my head around what the economy's implications are for the broadband video industry. I've sought out reactions from industry colleagues, read up on what the "experts" say about a typical down economy's impact and considered my own past experiences. I concede my conclusions are anything but rock solid, but here they are for your consideration:

Broadband access is a now a utility, so addressable video universe remains strong - I was heartened by a new study out last week from Jupiter finding that only 2% of survey respondents would cut off their Internet service to reduce expenses in tough times. That affirms two assumptions I've held since helping launch broadband Internet access service for Continental Cablevision back in the mid-90's: once you're online, you're not going to go offline, and once you're on broadband, you're not going back to dialup. A stable universe of broadband homes means plenty of people to target broadband video to.

Free video beats paid video - With experts suggesting consumer spending is going off a cliff, the free, ad-supported video model becomes even more attractive. Some will counter that advertising spending always contracts in tough times, so relying on ads is no sanctuary. True enough, but my sense is that in this downturn, with the cost of so many essential goods (food, gas, health care, etc.) going up, any ad spending downturn may seem modest compared to the downturn in consumer discretionary spending. Another X factor: if you're paying $45-60/month for broadband Internet access, the more you use it, especially for high-quality experiences, the better value it is.

Advertising on broadband video is less affected than in other media sectors - I heard a widely respected industry analyst say last week that broadband ads will get hammered in this downturn, because most broadband spending is still experimental, and these budgets get eliminated first in a downturn. Yet video ad network executives I've spoken to say that while it's still early days for broadband spending, for many we're beyond experimentation. Plus several other fundamentals suggest broadband ads could hold up decently well: tight inventory for premium video, continued audience shifting to online viewing, better targeting and interactivity, relatively small total broadband spending, etc.

Tough holiday season for broadband devices - I see a tough holiday season coming for all discretionary broadband devices meant to bridge broadband to the TV or enable portable viewing. While they may be cool, for all but the least economically-impacted consumers these devices will fail the "Honey, do we really need this now?" test. That means we're likely to see some shaking out in the broadband device space post-Christmas.

Early stage/indie broadband video providers tighten their belts a bit - While major media companies have existing revenues to support their online initiatives, broadband-only players don't have this luxury. I see early stage/indie providers becoming extra judicious in their spending, likely cutting back on their production plans until the ad climate clears up.

That's all that I have for now. The good news is that broadband video's fundamentals are extremely strong. For all of us in the industry, be thankful you're not in autos, home construction, finance, retail or other hard-hit sectors. Still, there are difficult times ahead for everyone, no question about it. Try to remember the old saying: "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'

What do you think? Post a comment now.

This morning Anystream, a leading digital media management and production company and Voxant, a content syndication network, have announced their merger. The deal marks an important milestone: it's the first M&A transaction that I'm aware of which is predicated on the Syndicated Video Economy dominating the future broadband video landscape.

NewCo's combined capabilities are noteworthy on many levels, one of which is its potential to disrupt the competitive dynamics of the video content management and publishing space by providing fundamental new value to content producers. There has been a lot of capital invested in this space, and by my recent count at least 18 companies are playing in or around it. With the broadband gold rush underway, there's been enough business to go around. Competition for new business has mainly focused on features and pricing/business models.

Anystream has traditionally (and somewhat quietly) focused on digital media transcoding and workflow for more than 700 companies around the world. It too has moved up the stack into content management and publishing, lately handling  the video management for NBC's Olympics on-demand distribution, and prior to that announcing deals with Hearst-Argyle Television and others. On the other hand, Voxant has been a mid/long tail syndicator, having built out a distribution network with 30,000 publishers gaining rights-cleared content from 400+ providers. These publishers generate 35 million video views per month, making the Voxant network #15 in video views according to comScore.

NewCo's belief is that the bilateral syndication deals we've seen to date (e.g. CBS-Yahoo, ESPN-AOL, Next New Networks - Hulu, among many others) has whetted the market's appetite for this emerging business model, but that there is still far too much friction for syndication to really take off. That fits with what I hear from even the most aggressive content syndicators, one of whose CTOs said on a recent panel I moderated that his company is overwhelmed just trying to fully implement the handful of deals its already done.

So, much as I've considered the Syndicated Video Economy solidly into its first phase of development, I've been sobered by the reality that the operational overhead of negotiating deals, implementing them through distributors' often heterogeneous sub-systems, and monitoring their performance requires so much human intervention that the whole syndication concept could end up collapsing under its own weight. (Side note, this is why the Google Content Network which I wrote about last week also has so much potential).

First, these new revenues could put NewCo in a position to cross-subsidize its technology platform, thereby altering some of the fundamental economics in the platform space. This could trigger possible price-cutting by others solely dependent on platform revenue. Given the vast number of players in the space, and everyone's hunger for market share, this scenario isn't unreasonable to imagine. Second, NewCo could create steep switching barriers for its media customers. Upon getting a taste for turnkey NewCo-driven syndication revenues, content producers would almost certainly be less enticed by new platform-centric features that other competitors may offer. Combined, these disruptions would create a markedly new competitive dynamic.

Yet don't expect competitors to stand still; many of them are examining how to capitalize on their own distinct advantages to alter the dynamics still further. NewCo's abundantly strong management team must now execute on its vision and help its media customers realize syndication's real value. The Anystream-Voxant merger is a bold and possibly game-changing bet on the Syndicated Video Economy being fully realized over time. If that happens, NewCo will surely be among the industry's long-term winners.

What do you think? Click here to post a comment.

(Disclosures: Anystream is a VideoNuze sponsor and I also provided very brief "sounding-board" reactions to this merger prior to its closing.)