Posts for 'Studios'

Talk about an initiative that flies in the face of all prevailing sentiment: Time Warner is moving forward on testing a new window for early-release movies on VOD priced at $20-30 apiece in 2011, according to comments its CFO John Martin made yesterday at the Goldman Sachs conference. Never mind the wrath the idea will stir up among movie theater owners whose traditional windows get cannibalized as a consequence (Disney learned about that with its "Alice in Wonderland" early DVD release experiment last February), the real issue is that pay-TV operators should deem the idea a non-starter.

continue reading

The brinksmanship between Disney and the 3 largest U.K. theater chains over whether they would show Tim Burton's new "Alice in Wonderland" film is officially done, with all 3 chains now signed on. As I described last week in "In Trying to Preserve DVD Sales, Studios Are in a Tight Spot," in a bid to boost DVD sales, Disney was looking to trim the DVD release of "Alice" to just 12 1/2 weeks after its opening, from the customary 16 1/2. British and other European theaters revolted, angry that the move would diminish their box-office take, a particular hot-button in light of significant investments they've recently made in digital technologies.

Specific details of the Disney-U.K. deals aren't known, but as the Guardian reported, it appears that Disney has agreed to cap the number of movies that will get earlier-than-usual DVD releases and provided some improved financial terms. Despite the U.K. resolution, some other European chains are still holding out, as is the AMC chain in the U.S. Regardless of the final outcome of the "Alice" situation, early DVD releases are going to remain a priority for Hollywood studios who are desperate to stanch the fall-off in DVD sales brought about by the recession and the shift by consumers to rental, subscription and online viewing options. There are many more chapters to be written in this saga.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Yesterday's announcement by retailing giant Wal-Mart that it was acquiring Vudu, the on-demand movie service, generated a flurry of reactions from industry commentators. Some think it gives Wal-Mart the juice it needs to finally be a major digital media player. Others believe that Wal-Mart's miserable record in digital media suggests that the deal will be much ado about nothing. I'm in the latter camp, but not because of Wal-Mart's track record, but rather because of Vudu's own shortcomings.

Vudu's problem is that its value proposition is hamstrung by both the deals the Hollywood studios insist on to give Vudu access to their titles and by the current state of technology. Each of Vudu's 2 movie delivery models - rental and download-to-own - has its own problems that severely curtail its consumer appeal. No matter how slick the service looks or how many CE devices it's embedded in, consumers will readily see these drawbacks and resist embracing Vudu.

The rental model is primarily handicapped by the ongoing provision that the rental period "expires" 24 hours after the movie was started. That means that if real life (e.g. a crying child, a call from an old friend, a household emergency) interrupts the Vudu's users' planned viewing window, they're out of luck. It's an absurd restriction, but all online movie rentals are laboring under it. Then there's the provision that most new releases aren't available for rental until 30 days after they debut on DVD. This kind of delay doesn't mean as much for a subscription service like Netflix (which of course just agreed to a new 28-day "DVD sales window" with Warner Bros.), because it has a huge back catalog to offer. But for Vudu (and Redbox) these delays are very noticeable to users.

The download-to-own model is even more challenged. First off, tech-savvy and value-conscious consumers are increasingly focused on cost-effective rentals or subscriptions, not purchasing films. The demise of DVD sales is ample evidence of this. The idea of creating a movie "collection" in a fully on-demand world is already on the verge of seeming as archaic as creating a CD collection has been for a while. And with download-to-own prices of approximately $20, which are more than a DVD costs, consumers will be even more hesitant.

But the real killer for download-to-own is the technology limitations, more specifically the lack of portability and interoperability. Say you're actually inclined to own movies using Vudu. What do you do, download them to an external hard drive? And when you travel, do you lug that thing around with you? When you get to your destination, what device will actually let you play back your movie from your hard drive? The issues go on. The reality is that ubiquitous, cheap DVD players and the compact size of the discs themselves have created a very high bar for digital delivery to exceed. "Digital locker" concepts like DECE and Disney's KeyChest are desperately needed to move digital downloads along, but even they are just a part of a larger CE puzzle.

So, although the Vudu service is very impressive, with a slick user experience and really nice quality video, the reality is that unless Wal-Mart is able to break through these challenges, the Vudu service is going to be marginally attractive to consumers at best. That means the Wal-Mart acquisition, in fact, makes little difference.

Maybe Wal-Mart has the clout to move the studios, but given mighty Apple's own difficulties doing so, I'm skeptical that Wal-Mart will have better luck. I continue to believe that Netflix's model - which combines the full selection of DVDs with the convenience and growing selection of online delivery (including TV shows by the way) - is a far better approach. Netflix may not have all the HD and user interface bells and whistles that Vudu has, but it's a far better value proposition for consumers. This is partly why Netflix has doubled in size, to 12.3 million subscribers, in the last 3 years.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 50th (woohoo!) edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for February 19, 2010.

This week Daisy first walks us through a piece she's writing for AdAge focused on viral video. In reviewing data on which videos have broken out online, Daisy concludes that invariably they are also supported by related advertising. In other words, viral video isn't accidental any more (if it ever was) - now it must be stoked by paid support. An example Daisy provides is for Evian's "Live Young" babies ad which has been seen online 76 million times. Evian initially promoted the ad with YouTube takeover ads. Daisy also discusses the online performance of Super Bowl ads based on Visible Measures' new Trends application, which shows a big disparity between ads that were viewed heavily online vs. rated highly when seen on TV.

Then we discuss my post, "In Trying to Preserve DVD Sales, Studios are in a Tight Spot," in which I described the lengths to which Hollywood studios are going to squeeze out the last remaining profits from DVD sales. As I explain, while the recession has had a dampening effect on DVD sales, the larger problem is that rather than buying them, increasingly consumers are expecting films to be available for rental or subscription or even for free, with ad support. A number of moves from Disney, Sony and Warner Bros. in the last week underscore the consequences studios face as they try to shore up DVD sales.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 8 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

It's not news that DVD sales - the lifeblood of Hollywood studios' P&Ls - are in a freefall. In response, the studios are doing all sorts of things to eke out just a little more profitability from the sales of the shiny discs. But as several news items over the last week underscore, the studios have little wiggle room before their efforts to shore up DVD sales have real or perceived consequences for key business partners.

Exhibit A is the brouhaha over Disney's new plan to release Johnny Depp's "Alice in Wonderland" on DVD 12 1/2 weeks after its theatrical opening, instead of the usual 16 1/2 weeks, regardless of whether it's still playing in theaters. In the past, when a film's "release windows" were distinct and well-separated, everyone in the distribution chain knew they'd have their separate bite of the apple. With collapsing windows, those bites are converging, leaving some feeling they're not going to get their fair share. In the U.S. there has mostly been just grousing about Disney's plan among theater owners, but in Europe there are threats by large theater chains of an all-out boycott of the film.

It's hard not to feel some sympathy for the theater owners as the "Alice" plan isn't a random event. Sony recently ran a misguided promotional campaign giving away "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" DVDs to certain Bravia buyers while the film was still playing in theaters. And it attempted to accelerate the release of the Michael Jackson "This Is It" DVD until theater owners drew the line. No doubt there are plenty of other examples being floated privately in Hollywood.

Meanwhile, news also broke this week that Redbox, the $1 a day rental kiosk chain had acceded to Warner Bros.' demand that it not rent any films until 28 days after their DVD release, in order to help preserve initial sales. As part of the deal Warner dropped its lawsuit against Redbox. In return, Redbox got lower pricing on its Warner DVD purchases. The deal mirrors the 28-day deal Netflix did with Warner last month, which I thought was a win for everyone. But the key difference in that deal vs. Redbox's is that Netflix has a huge rental catalog available for its subscribers to choose from, meaning new releases are far less important (Netflix says only 23% of rental requests are for new releases). On the other hand, Redbox's whole value proposition rests on low prices and selection of new releases. What is Redbox's fate if it does similar deals with other studios?

Putting the squeeze on Redbox and its kiosks seems like a dubious strategy by studios. In an age where piracy looms large, studios should be focused on enhancing, not diminishing the accessibility of their product (as a Coke executive once famously explained the company's marketing goal: "always within an arm's length of desire"). While Hollywood doesn't like Redbox's lower margins, focusing on that issue excessively when the product is clearly in decline is missing the forest for the trees.

Studios' desire to preserve DVD sales is going to further intensify, but defending them is only going to get harder. Certainly part of the reason is that the ongoing recession is forcing many consumers to cut back on their discretionary purchases. But the larger issue is that there's huge momentum behind the shift to online subscription/rental and even free models. The data shows that online viewing hit an inflection point in 2009, with free premium sites like Hulu experiencing extraordinary growth.

And the data showing online's appeal pours in almost daily; yesterday it was The Diffusion Group reporting results of a study of Netflix users showing that two-thirds of them that have a broadband connection are now using the "Watch Instantly" streaming feature. This week's launch of HBO Go, the premium channel's site for its subscribers, and its distribution deal with Verizon, are evidence that even the mighty HBO can't resist online's allure. Last but not least, in 2010 TV Everywhere rollouts will gain steam.

There's no denying the truth that DVD sales are under assault from all sides. Studios, desperate to hold on to DVDs' precious profits, are increasingly contorting themselves to keep the DVD cash cow alive a little longer. No surprise though, their efforts are not without consequences. At what point do the studios capitulate and throw DVD sales under the bus? We'll have to wait and see.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Following my 2 posts late last week (here and here) about how Netflix's new deal with Warner Bros is win for everyone, the NYTimes has posted a terrific interactive map showing the top rentals in 12 geographic areas of the U.S., sorted by zip code. The map is based on data that Netflix provided to the NYTimes. Playing around with the map, you'll quickly hunger for more details, but you'll also get a sense of the mountain of viewership data Netflix maintains on its 11 million+ subscribers. This data, when combined with the Netflix's algorithms for predicting its users' preferences, further demonstrates how valuable a deal like the one with WB could be for Netflix as it emphasizes streaming.

In the digital era, data is king because when used properly, it can dramatically improve the quality of the product delivered, in turn driving user satisfaction and profitability. Netflix has always used data very effectively; examples include how it has chosen sites for its distribution centers so that most Americans are within 1 day's delivery, or how it has recommended other titles based on yours and others' preferences, or how much inventory of newly-released DVDs it decides to build. Now, as Netflix shifts its business from physical to digital delivery, it has another big opportunity to leverage the data it has collected from its users.

While a lot of attention was focused last week on the new 28-day "DVD window" which precludes Netflix from renting recently-released WB titles, I believe more attention should be paid instead to how effectively Netflix will be able to use its trove of data to selectively tap into WB's catalog of titles to boost its streaming selection. Using the data it has collected on physical rentals and search queries, for example, Netflix should be able to literally request title-by-title streaming rights from WB. That's not to say Netflix will necessarily receive access to those particular titles, but by being able to focus its requests, Netflix avoids wasting energy asking for things that are unlikely to have much appeal to its users.

It's unclear whether Netflix will conclude similar deals with other Hollywood studios. If it can't then the above-described benefits will be limited. In fact, as a couple of people pointed out to me last week, with Hollywood also highly dependent on cable, it's not readily apparent that helping Netflix build its streaming selection is actually in their interest as TV Everywhere services continue to roll out. WB is actually an interesting example; on the one hand, Time Warner's CEO Jeff Bewkes has been the strongest proponent of TV Everywhere, but on the other hand, WB's deal with Netflix creates more competition for it. In short, Hollywood will have its hands full trying to recast its distribution strategy in the digital era.

DVDs are not going away overnight, but the user data Netflix has will be an enormously valuable tool in helping transition its business to digital delivery and add more value to its subscribers. As long as Netflix complies with its users' privacy expectations, that gives it a big strategic advantage.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Jan 4th week:

1. TechCrunch disagrees with my Netflix-Warner Bros. deal analysis - In "Netflix Stabs Us In The Heart So Hollywood Can Drink Our Blood," (great title btw) MG Siegler at the influential blog TechCrunch excerpts part of my post from yesterday, and takes the consumer's point of view, decrying the new 28 day "DVD window" that Netflix has agreed to in its Warner Bros deal. Siegler's main objection is that "Hollywood thinks that with this new 28-day DVD window deal, the masses are going to rush out and buy DVDs in droves again." Instead, Siegler believes the deal hurts consumers and is going to touch off new, widespread piracy.

I think Siegler is wrong on both counts, and many of TechCrunch's readers commenting on the post do as well. First, nobody in Hollywood believes DVD sales are going to spike because of deals like this. However, they do believe that any little bit that can be done to preserve the appeal of DVD's initial sale window can only help DVD sales which are critical to Hollywood's economics. Everyone knows DVD is a dying business; the new window is intended to help it die more gracefully. And because new releases are not that critical to many Netflix users anyway, Netflix has in reality given up little, but presumably gotten a lot, with improved access for streaming and lower DVD purchase prices.

The argument about new, widespread piracy by Netflix users is specious. With or without the 28 day window, there will always be some people who don't respect copyright and think stealing is acceptable. But Netflix isn't running its business with pirates as their top priority. With 11 million subscribers and growing, Netflix is a mainstream-oriented business, and the vast majority of its users are not going to pirate movies - both because they don't know how to (and don't want to learn) and because they think it's wrong. Netflix knows this and is making a calculated long-term bet (correctly in my opinion) that enhancing its streaming catalog is priority #1.

2. comScore's November numbers show continued video growth - Not to be overlooked in all the CES-related news this week was comScore's report of November '09 online video usage, which set new records. Key highlights: total video viewed were almost 31 billion (double Jan '09's total of 14.8 billion), number of videos viewed/average viewer was 182 (up 80% from Jan '09's 101) and minutes watched/mo were approximately 740 (more than double Jan '09's total of 356).

Notably, with 12.2 billion views, YouTube's Nov '09 market share of 39.4% grew vs. its October share of 37.7%. As I've previously pointed out, YouTube has demonstrated amazingly consistent market dominance, with its share hovering around 40% since March '08. Hulu also notched another record month, with 924 million streams, putting it in 2nd place (albeit distantly) to YouTube. Still, Hulu had a blowout year, nearly quadrupling its viewership (up from Jan '09's 250 million views). But with 44 million visitors, Hulu's traffic was pretty close to March '09's 41.6 million. In '10 I'm looking to see what Hulu's going to do to break out of the 40-45 million users/mo band it was in for much of '09.

3. Consumer groups protest TV Everywhere, but their arguments ring hollow - I was intrigued by a joint letter that 4 consumer advocacy groups sent to the Justice Department on Monday, urging it to investigate "potentially unlawful conduct by MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors) offering TV Everywhere services." The letter asserts that MVPDs may have colluded in violation of antitrust laws.

I'm not a lawyer and so I'm in no position to judge whether any actions alleged to have taken place by MVPDs violated any antitrust laws. Regardless though, the letter from these groups demonstrates that they are missing a fundamental benefit of TV Everywhere - to provide online access to cable TV programming that has not been available to date because there hasn't been an economical model for doing so. In the eyes of people who think that making money is evil, the TV Everywhere model of requiring consumers to first subscribe to a multichannel video service seems anti-consumer and anti-competitive. But to people trying to make a living creating quality TV programming, the preservation of a highly functional business model is essential.

These advocacy groups need to remember that consumers have a choice; if they don't value cable's programming enough to pay for it, then they can instead just watch free broadcast programs.

4. 3D is the rage at CES - I'll be doing a CES recap on Monday, but one of the key themes of the show has been 3D. There were two big announcements of new 3D channels, from ESPN and Discovery/Sony/IMAX. LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony announced new 3D TVs. And DirecTV announced that it would launch 3 new 3D channels by June 2010, with Panasonic as the presenting sponsor. 3D sets will be an expensive proposition for consumers for some time, but prices will of course come down over time.

Something that I wonder about is what impact will 3D have on online and mobile video? Will this spur innovation in computer monitors so that the 3D experience can be experienced online as well? And how about mobile - will we soon be slipping on 3D glasses while looking at our iPhones and Android phones? It may seem like a ridiculous idea, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Enjoy your weekend!

Netflix's new deal with Warner Bros., in which it agreed to a 28 day "DVD window" for new releases, in exchange for greater access to WB's films for its Watch Instantly streaming feature and reduced pricing on its own DVD purchases, is further proof that Netflix is squarely focused on the long-term. That's not only smart for Netflix, it's also a win for Hollywood studios and also for consumers.

With 11 million subscribers and growing, Netflix has emerged as one of Hollywood's most important home video customers. This dynamic has only increased recently due to slowing sales of DVDs (down another 13% in 2009) and Netflix's dominance in DVD rentals. Yet Netflix is viewed warily by Hollywood, primarily due to concerns that in the digital age, Netflix could gain too much power over Hollywood's fate. This concern was reinforced by Netflix's deal with premium cable channel Starz, a de facto end-run around Hollywood in which Netflix got streaming access to certain Disney, Sony and Lionsgate films.

As I've pointed out many times (as recently as this past Monday, in item #6), despite the Starz deal and the impressive adoption of Watch Instantly to date, Netflix faces a major challenge in building out its catalog of recent films for streaming use. Part of the challenge is Hollywood's "windowing" approach; in particular, other premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Epix have made significant financial commitments for electronic distribution during certain time periods that effectively preclude Netflix gaining streaming rights. Because much of Netflix's value proposition relies on its vast DVD selection (100K+ titles currently), if its streaming catalog continues to look meager by comparison, then Netflix's goal of migrating its users to streaming delivery over time will be seriously undermined.

That's where the new WB deal comes in. While the companies didn't disclose which titles or how many would be available, my guess is that the benefits of the deal, when it's fully implemented, will be noticeable to Netflix's subscribers or Netflix wouldn't have signed on. While WB is just one studio, if the new deal can be used as a template, Netflix could have a solid plan for gaining more films without paying big bucks. And the studios would get greater leverage against Redbox, which is viewed with even greater alarm by much of Hollywood.

Netflix's focus on the long term is smart strategy, and complements well the company's near-term emphasis on riding the convergence wave by embedding its Watch Instantly software in every conceivable living room device (e.g. PS3, Xbox, Roku, Bravia, Blu-ray players, etc.). It's also a strategy that benefits Hollywood. By creating a situation where studios preserve as much of their DVD sales as possible (allegedly 75% of a film's total DVD sales occur in the first 4 weeks following release), Netflix is helping Hollywood gracefully wind down and milk the DVD business.

Not surprisingly, consumers' first reaction to the deal was sour. Yesterday the Twittersphere was alight with grousing about the 28 day DVD window and how Netflix was "selling out its customers." Some even talked about canceling their Netflix service. I think most of this is idle chatter. Netflix has publicly said that just 30% of its DVD rentals come from recent releases (though it is likely that for Netflix's heaviest DVD renters, recent releases are far more important). In the end, Netflix is making a calculated bet that it can manage the potential subscriber consequences of creating the DVD window in order to benefit its larger goal of migrating its business to online delivery.

If Netflix is right, and it can sign on additional studios to similar deals, then ultimately consumers will win. That's because, as Netflix proves in the value of streaming, it will be able to offer improved terms to studios, resulting in Netflix getting better and better access to films. But this will be a gradual process that unfolds over time. Whereas consumers always "want everything yesterday," the reality is that if Hollywood and Netflix can avoid disruption and instead preserve most of their economics by gracefully transitioning their businesses to digital delivery, consumers stand a better chance of continuing to receive the kind of premium-quality (i.e. expensive to produce) films they value. The demise of the newspaper industry is a cautionary example of what happens when disruption instead prevails and an industry's traditional economics are destroyed.

We are still on the front end of seismic shifts that will alter how Hollywood's films are distributed to consumers. By focusing on the long-term, as evidenced by its WB deal, Netflix is playing an important role in increasing the odds of a successful transition.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Happy New Year. If you're just back from a holiday vacation and have been partially or totally off the grid for the last week or two, here are 7 video-oriented items you may have missed:

1. Time Warner Cable and News Corp fight over fees, then settle - Two behemoths of the cable and broadcast TV ecosystem spatted publicly during the holidays over the size of "retransmission consent" fees that News Corp (owner of the Fox Broadcast Network and cable channels like Fox News) wanted TWC (the 2nd largest U.S. cable operator) to pay to carry its 14 local stations. While a last minute deal averted the channels going dark, broadcasters' interest in dipping into cable's monthly subscription revenues will only intensify as audience fragmentation accelerates and ad revenues are pressured.

For my part I wish Fox and other broadcasters were as focused on building new and profitable digital delivery models for their programs as they were on trying to redistribute cable's revenues. Even as Rupert Murdoch continues advocating the paid content model, the freely-available Hulu is seeing its traffic skyrocket (see below). But if Hulu's viewership isn't incrementally profitable, then all that growth is pointless. Urgency is mounting too; in '10 convergence devices that bridge broadband to the TV are going to get a lot of attention. In the wake of their adoption, consumers are going to want Hulu on their TVs. If Hulu doesn't allow this it will be marginalized. But if it does without first solidifying its business model, it could hurt broadcasters further.

2. Hulu has a big traffic year, but no further information provided on its business model - Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar pulled back the curtain a bit on the company's strong progress in 2009, citing 95% growth in monthly users, to 43 million, 307% growth in monthly streams, to 924 million (both as measured by comScore) and a doubling of available content, to 14,000 hours. While noting that its advertisers increased from 166 to 408 during the year, with respect to performance, Jason only said that "we are extremely excited about atypically strong results we have been able to drive for our marketing partners."

Though Hulu is under no obligation to disclose details of its business model, I think it would dramatically increase the company's credibility if it shared some metrics about how its lighter ad load model is working (e.g. improved awareness, click throughs, leads, conversions, etc.). Per the 1st item above, as Hulu grows, a lot of people have a lot at stake in understanding what effect it may have on broadcast economics. In addition, as I pointed out recently, it is important to understand whether Hulu thinks it may have already saturated its U.S. audience. After a jump in Q1 '09 from 24.6 million to 41.6 million users, traffic actually dipped below 40 million until October. What does Hulu do from here to gain significantly more users?

3. Cable networks' primetime audience is nearly double broadcasters' - Punctuating the ascendancy of cable over broadcast, this Multichannel News article pointed out that in 2009, ad-supported cable networks as a group captured 60.7% of primetime audience vs. 32% for the 4 broadcast networks. That's a major change from 2000 when the broadcasters had a 46.8% share vs. cable's 41.2%. Cable increased its share every single year of the last decade, powered by its innovative original programming. NBCU's USA Network in particular has become the real standout performer, winning its second consecutive ratings crown, with 3.2 million average primetime viewers, up 14% vs. 2008.

The surging popularity of cable programming is a crucial barrier to consumers cutting the cord on cable. Since cable networks are highly invested in the monthly multichannel subscription model, they are unlikely to disrupt themselves by offering their best shows to others under substantially different terms than how they're offered today. So to the extent cable programs are either unavailable to over-the-top alternatives or offered less attractively (e.g. less choice, higher cost, delayed availability), little cord-cutting can be expected. And if TV Everywhere achieves its online access goals, the cable ecosystem will only be further strengthened.

4. YouTube is working to drive higher viewership - Amidst the turmoil in the traditional ecosystem and Hulu's growth, YouTube, the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world, is working hard to deepen the site's viewership. As this insightful NYTimes article explains, a team of YouTube developers is analyzing viewing patterns and tweaking its recommendation practices to encourage more usage. YouTube says time on the site has increased by 50% in the last year, and comScore reports that the average number of clips viewed per user per month jumped to 83 in October, up from 53 a year earlier. Still, as comScore also reports, duration of an average session has yet to crack 4 minutes, meaning video snacking on YouTube is still the norm. YouTube's moves must be watched closely in '10.

5. Showtime's "Weeds" available online before on DVD - This WSJ article (reg req'd) pointed out that Lionsgate, producer of Showtime's hit "Weeds" series is offering episodes online before they're available on DVD. By putting the digital "window" ahead of DVD's, Lionsgate is further pressuring DVD's appeal. We've seen periodic experimentation in this regard, and I anticipate more to come, especially as the universe of convergence devices expands and consumers can watch on their TVs instead of just their computers. Until a tipping point occurs though, "Weeds" like initiatives will be the exception, not the rule.

6. Netflix goes shopping in Hollywood - And speaking of reversing distribution windows, this Bloomberg Businessweek piece was the latest to highlight Netflix's efforts to woo studios into giving it more recent releases. Netflix has of course made huge progress with its Watch Instantly streaming feature, but its appeal to heaviest users will slow at some point unless it can dramatically expand its current slate of 17K titles available online. Hollywood is understandably wary of Netflix given all the variables in play and a desire to avoid Netflix becoming master of Hollywood's post-DVD, digital future. Whether Netflix will spend heavily to obtain better rights is a major question.

7. Get ready for Google's Nexus One and Apple's "iSlate" - Unless you've really been off the grid, you're probably aware by now that two very significant mobile product releases are coming this month. Tomorrow (likely) Google will unveil the Nexus One, its own smartphone, powered by its Android 2.1 operating system. The Nexus One will be "unlocked," meaning it can operate on multiple providers using GSM networks. The device will further fuel the mobile Internet, and mobile video consumption along with it. Separately, Apple is widely rumored to introduce its tablet computer later in the month, which many believe will be called the "iSlate." The tablet market is completely virgin territory, and while it's early to make predictions, I believe Apple could have most of the ingredients needed to make the product another big hit. The prospect of watching high-quality video on a thin, light, user-friendly device is extremely compelling.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Dec 14th week:

1. New pre-roll data shows format's strength - Though many in the industry still scorn the pre-roll ad, this week 2 ad networks, ScanScout and YuMe, released data showing its continued prevalence as well as innovation that's improving its performance. ScanScout said its "Super Pre-roll" unit, which allows for integrating overlay graphics on the video that viewers can engage with, is driving 350% higher click-through rates compared with typical pre-rolls. In this example for Unilever's Vaseline, note how the creative nicely reinforces the messaging. The enhanced interactivity feels like the start of a new trend; another pre-roll that offers something similar is Innovid's iRoll unit. ScanScout separately announced this week a host of new premium publishers have joined its network.

Meanwhile YuMe released its Video Advertising Metrics Report for Jan-Nov '09, which showed that, at least within YuMe's network, 90%+ of all ads served were pre-rolls, with 30 second spots generating a 1.8% overall click-through rate, a 50% higher rate than the 1.2% that 15 second spots achieved. The volume of 30 second ads also grew 50% faster than 15 second volume in Q3 '09. Kids age 6-14 achieved a 3.7% click-through rate, the highest of any group, which YuMe's Jayant Kadambi told me could be explained by the more engaging nature of child-focused ads (e.g. click to play games, etc.). Jayant believes the sizable amount of existing creative for TV ads that can be easily repurposed for online is a key reason pre-rolls continue to dominate.

2. Paramount clipping site powered by Digitalsmiths is slick - I was impressed with a demo of Paramount Pictures' newly launched ParamountClips.com site that I got this week. The site is only open to Paramount's business partners, allowing them to either choose from an existing stock of clips from over 80 different Paramount movies, or to easily create their own. Desired clips are moved into a shopping cart and released for download, per previously determined licensing terms.

The site is powered by Digitalsmiths, which indexed all of the scenes from the movies using their proprietary recognition process, and then generated meta-data for each, which makes searching a snap. The new self-service site replaces the laborious previous process of a Paramount staffer working with each partner to extract jus the scene they want. As a result, a new highly-scalable licensing opportunity has been created. Paramount is taking advantage of Digitalsmiths VideoSense 2.5 release announced last week that is focused on clip generation, for both on demand and live streams, improved asset management and more integrated reporting.

3. Thwapr launches beta of mobile-to-mobile video sharing - Continuing the buildout of the mobile video ecosystem, Thwapr, a new mobile-to-mobile content sharing platform, launched its beta this week. Duncan Kennedy, Thwapr's COO told me that although there's been a proliferation of video capable smartphones, there's currently no easy, fool-proof way of sharing videos from one device to another (e.g. from an iPhone to a BlackBerry). Enter Thwapr, which lets the user upload videos to Thwapr and then have them shared with their contacts. Thwapr identifies the receiving phone's "user agent" so that it can dynamically decide the optimal format the video should be viewed in. The user simply clicks on a link and the video plays. I can attest that it worked beautifully on my BlackBerry Pearl.

Thwapr's raised about $3 million from angels and has a very strong team, including Duncan and others who worked on Apple's QuickTime. I'm a fan of how video, social/sharing and mobile intersect to create new opportunities, though there are business model unknowns. For now Thwapr is focused on a free ad-supported model, with a particular emphasis on geo-tagging videos to make advertising especially appealing for local merchants. Still, YouTube has illustrated how difficult it is to monetize user-generated content. Thwapr also envisions a business-grade option for real estate, travel, dating type applications which sound promising. I wonder too about whether a freemium model should be explored, though Duncan said Thwapr's analysis suggested this would be a relatively small opportunity. We'll see how things shape up.

4. Next week is 2009 wrap-up week on VideoNuze - Keep an eye on VideoNuze next week, as I'll be summarizing Q4 '09 venture capital investments and deals in the broadband/mobile video space, reviewing my 2009 predictions and looking ahead to what to expect in 2010. It's been an incredibly active year and based on the pre-CES briefings I've been doing, there's lots more to look forward to next year.

Enjoy your weekend!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 40th edition (whoo-hoo!) of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for November 13, 2009.

This week Daisy first shares observations on her recent interview with Gary Vaynerchuk, who is best known as the host of Wine Library TV/The Thunder Show. Gary has a new book out called "Crush It!" part of a 10-book deal he did with HarperStudio. The book focuses on how you can build your personal brand using all of the Internet's various communications tools. Vaynerchuk has a lot of credibility as he's built up a huge following for Wine Library TV. Now with the books, he's showing how online popularity can be leveraged into the print world. For a good example of the show, check out this episode featuring Wayne Gretzky.

We then shift to my post from earlier this week, "Sony Gets It Wrong with 'Meatballs' Promotion." I took Sony Electronics to task for a new promotion they're starting which provides a free 24 hour rental of the movie "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" to buyers of connected Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray disc players. It's also available as a $24.95 rental for current owners of these devices. I explain more about why I think this promotion falls way short and does little to advance the agenda of delivering movies via broadband.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 12 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

On Monday, Sony Electronics announced a holiday promotion in which buyers of select Internet-connected Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray players would receive a free 24 hour rental of the Columbia/Sony Pictures film "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs." In addition, current owners of these devices would be able to rent the film for $24.95. For all of these consumers, the film would be available from Dec. 8th to Jan 4th, the month leading up to the film's DVD release.

Ordinarily I would applaud any move by Hollywood to modify its rigid release "windows" to benefit broadband delivery of films. Yet in this case I think Sony's promotion is ill-conceived and is extremely unlikely to contribute any real momentum to studios' future broadband delivery plans. In fact, it may actually have the opposite effect and further stunt the broadband medium's emergence. Here's why:

The release window is too tight - Release windows allow Hollywood studios to mine new value from the same content given each successive distribution medium's unique attributes and audience. But by trying to squeeze in this promotional window, Sony is exacerbating an already very tight windowing plan for "Meatballs" that called for DVD release less than 2 months following its theatrical run. Remarkably, even as Sony is trumpeting this new promotion, the film is actually still playing in theaters nationwide. Given it's already only 27 days until Dec 8th, there will be virtually no gap between theatrical and promotional windows. That undermines the theatrical value proposition, in turn ticking off exhibitors who are threatening to pull the film early, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Theatrical to DVD windows have been getting progressively tighter as studios have sought to bolster sagging DVD sales. The problem is that like a good wine, lengthy windows allow a film to age and increase in value for both those consumers who saw the movie and those who did not. With this promotion, Sony is giving consumers an in-home opportunity to see the film immediately adjacent to the DVD's availability. That can do nothing but also hurt the DVD's sales.

The promotional offer isn't strong enough - For Sony Electronics, trying to differentiate its devices in a brutally competitive landscape is key. But do the marketing pros at Sony really believe that giving away a 24 hour rental is going to have a big impact? Personally I doubt it. The prices of the Sony TVs in the promotion are in the $1,000-$2,000 range, so a $25 incentive is easily swamped by the rampant deep discounts found in Sunday circulars (not to mention even deeper online deals). Further, I don't see any retailer incentives included in the promotion that would influence the sales process.

The "Meatballs" offer might have a stronger effect on sales of Sony's Blu-ray players, though here too, it's unlikely to be profound. With Blu-ray player sales lagging, manufacturers and retailers have largely decided that hitching their wagons to Netflix's Watch Instantly streaming is the best way to bump up sales. But with sub-$100 Netflix-capable Blu-ray players now available, a "Meatballs" rental valued at $25 on a $200-250 Sony player will have a hard time breaking through. Last but not least, it's important to remember, Sony's promotion is for a 24 hour rental. Not offering consumers ownership of "Meatballs" makes the promotional value ephemeral. And with Walmart, Target and Amazon now offering top DVDs for just $10 apiece, a 24 hour rental valued at $25 is underwhelming, not to mention somewhat specious, given it is Sony that's setting the "price." Given all of this, I suspect Sony would have done better by just offering a free "Meatballs" DVD with purchase.

Device audience too small to prove broadband delivery's appeal - Looked at differently, the small base of connected Sony Bravia and connected Blu-ray players, plus the new device sales over the promotional period, is unlikely to generate a large volume of "Meatballs" streaming anyway. That means that the promotion will do little to encourage Sony or other studios to more strongly embrace broadband delivery of their films. In fact, when the weak results of the promotion come in (as I expect they will), "Meatballs" could become future industry shorthand for "broadband delivery isn't ready for prime-time." That would be a shame, because I believe consumers very much want on-demand access to films in their homes. Netflix's success with Watch Instantly certainly proves that, as does the success VOD is having.

From my perspective, rather than setting up half-baked promotions like this one, studios should take a step back and think through how to do broadband delivery (for both rental and download-to-own) correctly. There are a lot of moving pieces, but clearly addressing what to do about the DVD window is critical. Studios are rightfully worried about killing off this cash cow. But compressing the DVD window and then trying to insert a new broadband delivery window isn't going to be the answer. Rather than seeing more "Meatballs" like promotions, I'd prefer to see a cohesive strategy out of Hollywood for how it can fully tap into broadband delivery's potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 37th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for October 23rd, 2009.

This week Daisy and I discuss my post from yesterday, "In the Digital Era, Disney is Walking to the Beat of its Own Drummer," which picks up on a WSJ article from Wednesday about the company's new DRM initiative dubbed "Keychest." Disney appears to be taking a lone-wolf approach since other Hollywood studios and technology companies have rallied around DECE, the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem. When combined with its ongoing resistance to TV Everywhere (while other cable networks jump on board), I argue in the post that Disney appears to be adopting a much more individualistic approach to how it envisions pricing and delivering its content in the digital era.

On the TV Everywhere topic, Daisy shares observations from a recent Beet.tv executive roundtable she covered, in which participants debated the concept's benefits to consumers. Daisy cites how the NYTimes.com isn't currently offering embeddable video as an example of how rights remain a key challenge for online video distribution. Online rights will be one of the factors determining how much content is made available in TV Everywhere at launch.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 59 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of Sept. 26th:

1. Summer '09 was a blockbuster for online video - comScore released U.S. online video viewership data early this week, providing evidence of how big a blockbuster the summer months were for each metric comScore tracks. The 3 metrics that I watch most closely each month showed the healthiest gains vs. April, the last pre-summer month comScore reported. Total videos viewed in August were 25.4 billion, a 51% increase over April's 16.8 billion. The average number of videos watched per viewer was 157, up 41% from April's 111. And the average online video viewer watched 582 minutes (9.7 hours), a 51% increase from April's 385 (6.4 hours).

Also worth noting was YouTube crossing the 10 billion videos viewed in a single month mark for the first time, maintaining a 39.6% share of the market. According to comScore's stats I've collected, YouTube has been in the 39% to 44% market share range since May '08, having increased from 16.2% in Jan '07 when comScore first started reporting. Hulu also notched a winning month. While its unique viewers fell slightly to 38.5M from 40.1M in April, its total video views increased from 396M to 488.2M, with its average viewer watching 12.7 videos for a total of 1 hour and 17 minutes. It will be very interesting to see if September's numbers hold these trends or dip back to pre-summer levels.

2. So this is how to make funny viral branded videos - I was intrigued by a piece in ClickZ this week, "There's a Serious Business Behind Funny Viral Videos" which provided three points of view - from CollegeHumor.com, The Onion and Mekanism (a S.F.-based creative production agency) - about how to make branded content funny and then how to make it go viral. The article points out that a whole new sub-specialty has emerged to service brands looking to get noticed online with their own humorous content.

Humor works so well because the time to hook someone into a video is no more than 2-3 seconds according to Mekanism's Tommy Means. Beyond humor, successful videos most often include stunts or cool special effects or shock value. Once produced the real trick is leveraging the right distribution network to drive viral reach. For example, Means describes a network of 100 influencers with YouTube channels who can make a video stand out. After reading the article you get the impression that there's nothing random about which funny videos get circulated; there's a lot of strategy and discipline involved behind the scenes.

3. Wired magazine's article on Netflix is too optimistic - I've had several people forward me a link to Wired magazine's article, "Netflix Everywhere: Sorry Cable You're History" in which author Daniel Roth makes the case that by Netflix embedding its streaming video software in multiple consumer electronics devices, the company has laid the groundwork for a rash of cable cord-cutting by consumers.

I've been bullish for sometime on Netflix's potential as an "over-the-top" video alternative. But despite all of Netflix's great progress, particularly on the device side, its Achilles' heel remains content selection for its Watch Instantly streaming feature (as an example, my wife and I have repeatedly tried to find appealing recent movies to stream, but still often end up settling for classic, but older movies like "The English Patient").

Roth touches on this conundrum too, but in my opinion takes a far too optimistic point of view about what a deal like the one Netflix did with Starz will do to eventually give Netflix access to Hollywood's biggest and most current hits. The Hollywood windowing system is so rigid and well-protected that I've long-since concluded the only way Netflix is going to crack the system is by being willing to write big checks to Hollywood, a move that Netflix CEO is unlikely to make. The impending launch of TV Everywhere is going to create whole new issues for budding OTT players.

Although I'm a big Netflix fan, and in fact just ordered another Roku, I'm challenged to understand how Netflix is going to solve its content selection dilemma. This is one of the topics we'll discuss at VideoNuze's CTAM Summit breakfast on Oct. 26th in Denver, which includes Roku's VP of Consumer Products Tim Twerdahl.

4. VideoSchmooze is just 1 1/2 weeks away - Time is running out to register for the "VideoSchmooze" Broadband Video Leadership Evening, coming up on Tues, Oct 13th from 6-9pm at the Hudson Theater in NYC. We have an amazing discussion panel I'll be moderating with Dina Kaplan (blip.tv), George Kliavkoff (Hearst), Perkins Miller (NBC Sports) and Matt Strauss (Comcast). We'll be digging into all the hottest broadband and mobile video questions, with plenty of time for audience Q&A.

Following the panel we'll have cocktails and networking with industry colleagues you'll want to meet. Registration is running very strong, with companies like Sprint, Google/YouTube, Cox, MTV, Cox, PBS, NY Times, Morgan Stanley, Hearst, Showtime, Hulu, Telemundo, Cisco, HBO, Motorola and many others all represented. Register now!

Last week the WSJ broke the news that YouTube is in talks with Lionsgate, Sony, MGM and Warner Bros. about launching streaming movie rentals. On the surface this is an intriguing proposition: the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world tantalizing Hollywood with its massive audience and promotional reach. However, when you dig a little deeper, I believe it's a dubious distraction for YouTube, which is still trying to prove that it can make its ad model work.

I appreciate all the possible reasons YouTube is eyeing movie rentals. To evolve from its UGC roots, the company has been anxious for more premium content to monetize. But with Hulu locking up exclusive access to ABC, Fox and NBC shows for at least the next year and a half or longer, full-length broadcast TV shows are largely unavailable. And now TV Everywhere threatens to foreclose access to cable TV programs. All this makes movies even more attractive.

Then there's Google's uber mission to organize the world's information. YouTube executives are savvy enough to know that not all content can be delivered solely on an ad-supported basis - not yet nor possibly ever (for more about the challenges of effectively monetizing broadcast TV shows, let alone movies, see my prior posts on Hulu). To succeed in gaining access to certain content, offering a commerce model is ultimately essential. Since YouTube has already put in place some key commerce-oriented infrastructure pieces like download-to-own and click-to-buy, rolling out a rental option is less of a stretch. Lastly, YouTube can position itself to Hollywood as a more flexible partner and viable alternative to Apple's iTunes.

Regardless, YouTube movie rentals are still a dubious idea for at least 3 reasons: they're a distraction from YouTube's as yet unproven ad model, there are too many competitors and too little opportunity to differentiate itself and the revenue opportunity is relatively small.

Focus on getting the ad model working right - Given its market-leading 40% share of all online video streams, I've long believed that YouTube is the best-positioned company to make the online video ad model work. YouTube has made solid progress adding premium content to the site that it can monetize, but it still has a lot of work ahead to make its ads profitable. As I wrote in June, Google's own senior management cannot yet clearly articulate YouTube's financial performance, causing many in the industry to worry about YouTube's sustainability. Some might assert that YouTube can keep tweaking the ad model while also rolling out rentals but I disagree. With the ongoing ad spending depression, YouTube must stay laser-focused on making its ad model work, and also on communicating its success.

Too many competitors, too little differentiation - It's hard to believe the world really needs another online option for accessing movies, and mainly older ones at that. There's Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, Xbox and soon cable, satellite and telcos rolling out movies on TV Everywhere, just to name a few. Maybe YouTube has some secret differentiator up its sleeve, but I doubt it. Rather, it will be just one more comparably-priced option for consumers. And in some ways it will actually be inferior. For example, unlike Netflix and Amazon, YouTube's browser-centric approach means watching movies on YouTube will remain a suboptimal, computer-based experience. Unless YouTube is willing to pay up big-time, there's also no reason to believe it will get Hollywood product any earlier than proven services like Netflix and iTunes.

Revenue upside is small - It's hard to estimate how many movie rentals YouTube could generate, but here's one swag, which shows how limited the revenue opportunity likely is. Let's say YouTube ramped up to .5% of its 120M+ monthly U.S. viewers (assuming it had U.S. rights only to start) renting 1 movie per week (not a trivial assumption considering virtually none of YouTube's users have ever spent a dime on the site and there are plenty of existing online movie alternatives). YouTube's revenue would be 600K rentals/week x $4/movie (assumed price) x 30% (YouTube's likely revenue share) = $720K/week. For the full year it would be $37.4M. With YouTube's 2009 revenue estimates in the $300M range, that's about 12% of revenue. Nothing to sneeze at, but not world-beating either, especially as compared to YouTube's massive advertising opportunity.

Given these considerations, I contend that YouTube would be far better off trying to become the dominant player in online video advertising, replicating Google's success in online advertising. Like all other companies, YouTube has finite resources and corporate attention - it should focus where it can become a true leader. There's enough quality content and brands willing to partner with YouTube on an ad-supported basis to keep the company plenty busy, and on the road to eventual financial success.

What do you think? Post a comment now.