Posts for 'Sony'

continue reading

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).

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.

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.

CES '09 is now behind us. As has become typical, this year's show saw numerous broadband video product and technology announcements. As I wrote often last week, the key theme was broadband-enabled TVs. Assuming TV manufacturers deliver on their promises, Christmas '09 should mark the start of real growth in the installed base of connected TVs.

Here are the noteworthy announcements that I caught, in no particular order (I'm sure I've missed some; if so please add a comment and include the appropriate link):

Intel and Adobe to Extend Flash Platform to TVs

Adobe and Broadcom Bring the Adobe Flash Platform to TVs

Samsung and Yahoo Bring the Best of the Web to Television

Yahoo Brings the Cinematic Internet to Life and Revolutionizes Internet-Connected Television

LG Electronics First to Unveil "Broadband HDTVs" That Instantly Stream Movies From Netflix

LG Electronics Launches Broadband HDTVs with "Netcast Entertainment Access"

Sony Debuts Integrated Networked Televisions

Vizio Announces New and Exciting "Connected HDTV" Platform with Wireless Connectivity

Netflix Announces Partnership with Vizio to Instantly Stream Movies to New High Definition TVs

MySpace Partnerships Bring Web Site to TV Set

Macrovision to Bring Instant Access to Digital Content Directly to Internet-Connected Televisions

Move Networks Improves Delivery of High Definition Internet Television to Intel-based Mobile Internet Devices and Netbooks

NETGEAR Unveils Two New Internet-Connected Set-Top Products to Enrich TV Entertainment for Internet Families and Serious Media Enthusiasts

Amazon Video on Demand Brings Customers New-Release Movies and TV Shows to the Roku Digital Video Player

Cisco Brings Manufacturers Together to Make Connected Home Products Simple to Set-up and Easy to Use

Sling Media Introduces SlingGuide: Redefining Search and Discovery for Satellite, Cable and Terrestrial Broadcast Programming

At CES, Yahoo is making its presence felt in the budding broadband-to-the TV space with its "Yahoo Widget Engine." It has announced deals with TV manufacturers Samsung, LG, Sony and Vizio (see next post). It's an impressive list, and these Yahoo-enabled TVs are expected in the market later in '09.

Some of you may recall that the Yahoo Widget Engine debuted last summer as part of a broader alliance with Intel called the "Widget Channel". The two companies have come together to create an applications framework running on new Intel media processing chips. An SDK allows 3rd party developers to use web-standard technologies to develop applications for TVs and other CE devices. That's a mouthful, but the news coming out of CES appears to show that Yahoo/Intel are making progress building out the ecosystem of both TV manufacturers and 3rd parties applications.

In addition to Yahoo content like news, weather, finance and Flickr, there's 3rd party content from USA Today, YouTube, eBay and Showtime. And there are premium movie and TV programs from Netflix, Amazon VOD and Blockbuster. The list of others involved goes on.

All of this is very positive for the budding broadband-to-the-TV space and clearly demonstrates how much emphasis the non-incumbent video service provider (cable/satellite/telco) world is placing on "over the top" services. As expected, these incumbents have a big disruptive bull's-eye on their foreheads. For the numerous 3rd parties that have never had access to the consumers' TV, broadband's openness provides their first-ever entry pass.

As exciting as all this is, the jumble of TV, content, technology and aggregation brands coming to market is prime to create mass confusion for consumers being targeted with these services. Here's the scenario: a prospective TV buyer walks into a Best Buy just looking for a new HDTV, but pretty quickly starts hearing about all these different services and brands. Within minutes the consumer's head is going to be swimming. Which service and content is free and which costs extra? How does it all connect? What if I already have Netflix, Flickr or YouTube passwords - do they automatically work? Do I need to change something that's already in my house, like my home network? And who do I call if something's not working right? One sure winner with these new broadband TVs coming out is the Geek Squad!

Still, this is exciting stuff. A whole new world of broadband on the TV content and applications is finally poised to see the light of day and with it will come all kinds of new opportunities.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Catching up on some reading last night, I got a chance to re-read a NYTimes piece by Saul Hansell from this past Tuesday rather sensationally entitled "How Comcast Controls Sony's Internet TV Plans." When I scanned it on Tuesday before posting a link to it from VideoNuze, I had one of those "This makes absolutely no sense, I need to read this again closer" reactions. Now, upon re-reading it, I'm having one of those "This really makes no sense" reactions.

The piece - which initially concerns Sony's efforts to bring broadband video to TVs, but then veers off into a somewhat unrelated discussion of the company's negotiations with the cable industry's tru2Way and CableCard technologies - quotes Sony Electronics U.S. president Stan Glasgow as saying: "We've worked with the cable companies for five years to develop a system that would allow us and the rest of the television manufacturers to have alternative content on the TV."

Why would Sony devote five years to such an undertaking? Because, again in Mr. Glasgow's words, "If you have to ask a consumer to switch sources constantly between cable and another source, it is not the normal consumer experience...There has to be a more integrated way to have cable and Internet content on the same user interface."

I'm all for making things easy on the consumer, but let's get this right: Sony devoted five years to negotiating with the cable industry so it could avoid viewers having to push the "Source" or "Input" button on their remote controls to toggle to broadband-delivered content via Sony devices?

Is it just me, or does it appear that Sony completely misjudged both its potential buyers' technical aptitude and also their strong motivation to consume broadband-delivered video on their TVs?

While you consider those questions, let's also go back to basics: why is once-mighty Sony even bothering to integrate its Internet-to-the-TV products with the cable industry in the first place? The whole point of these kinds of Internet-to-the-TV devices is to disrupt the cable (and satellite and telco) industry's hold on consumer viewing time and spending for in-home video programming. Countless companies (Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft/Xbox, Apple/AppleTV, Vudu, Netgear, Sezmi, 2Wire, Blockbuster, LG, Samsung, Neuros, etc.) get this fundamental point and are implicitly or explicitly driving toward this goal each day.

That Sony doesn't seem to understand this suggests that the correct title of Saul's piece really should have been "Comcast Benefits by Exploiting Sony's Misguided Internet TV Plans."

What's profoundly different about the broadband era is that neither Comcast nor any other incumbent controls how consumers get video on their TVs, just as neither the NYTimes nor any other single news provider has ever controlled how we've gotten our news. If would-be "over-the-top" competitors don't get this basic idea - and instead waste precious time and resources on perpetuating the traditional world order - then shame on them.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stampede into broadband-only comedy shorts continued yesterday with Sony launching "C-Spot". The six short series will run on Sony's Crackle.com, YouTube, AOL Video, Hulu, Verizon Wireless' VCAST and others likely to come.

Comedy has been such a popular genre online because it is cheap to produce, easy to digest in short bursts and doesn't require story narratives to be compelling. What we've seen to date largely appeals to the young male demo which can't seem to get enough of the gross-out or sophomoric skits or hot ladies delivering goofy laugh lines.

I sampled a few of C-Spot's new programs and while I won't pretend to be a professional reviewer, I did find them to be a cut above some of the average comedic fare I've found elsewhere. Plus I think Sony's onto something by serializing these shorts and releasing new episodes on specific days of the week.

Though broadband is truly an on-demand medium, I continue to believe that audience-building requires habituation that is only driven by regularly-scheduled new releases. Prom Queen (though not a comedy) met with success by serializing, and I've been surprised there haven't been more imitators to date.

Regardless of format, I'm expecting comedy will remain the broadband medium's hottest genre, attracting indies and established players alike.

Does TV programming beget broadband video programming or is it the other way around?

If you were expecting a simple answer, recent evidence suggests that none will be forthcoming. Step away from the relatively straightforward model of streamed or downloaded TV episodes, and the question of how original video content will be produced and distributed between broadband and TV is whole lot more complicated. Layer on the writers' strike and the world only fogs up further.

For those who see broadband as a pathway to TV, Quarterlife's deal announced last Friday with NBC to bring their new Quarterlife series to the network following its run on MySpace offers encouragement that Internet programming can move to the TV (bear in mind that Quarterlife was originally pitched as a TV series however).

Another example is TMZ.com, which has been successfully syndicated as TMZ TV this fall by Warner Bros. TMZ shows us that a brand that was created and built solely online can make the leap to TV. And just last week TV Week reported that Twentieth Television and Yahoo were close to a deal to create a new syndicated series based on popular broadband videos that they've collected.

On the flip side, there is plenty of evidence of opportunities for TV programs spinning off broadband programming, or existing TV producers with assets and skills pushing into broadband as a first outlet for their work.

Consider Sony's Minisode Network, with distribution on MySpace, Joost, AOL and Crackle. In an effort to squeeze more life out of its library of classics, in June Sony launched abbreviated versions, for broadband "snacking". This initiative is being closely watched as a model for how to repurpose existing assets to make them more palatable for attention-challenged online audiences.

And Endemol's recent deal with Bebo to produce "The Gap Year" series for exclusively for Bebo's audience shows that a successful TV producer is turning its sites on broadband as a first outlet.

All of these deals underscore broadband's disruptive nature - its ability to create new opportunities for incumbent players, and also for new entrants. My read is that most (though not all) broadband producers would love to make the leap to the TV. In the mean time, broadband offers a low-cost, interactive distribution path to experiment with more engaged audiences.

It's funny how often I'll be talking to someone and they will casually start interchanging the terms "IPTV" and "broadband video/online video/Internet TV".

The fact that many people, including some that are actually well-informed, continue doing so is a reminder of how nascent these delivery platforms still are, and how common terms of use and understandings have yet to be established.

Yet it's important to clarify that there are differences and they do matter. While some of the backend IP transport technology is common between IPTV and broadband video, the front end technology, business models and content approaches are quite different.

In presentations I do, I distinguish that, to me at least, "IPTV" refers to the video rollouts now being pursued by large telcos (AT&T, etc.) here in the U.S. and internationally. These use IPTV-enabled set-top boxes which deliver video as IP packets right to the box, where they are converted to analog video to be visible to the viewer. IPTV set tops have more capabilities and features than traditional MPEG set-tops, and telcos are trying this as a point of differentiation.

However, at a fundamental level, receiving IPTV-based video service is akin to subscribing to traditional cable TV - there are still multi-channel tiers the consumer subscribes to. And IPTV is a closed "walled garden" paradigm - video only gets onto the box if a "carriage" deal has been signed with the service provider (AT&T, etc.). IPTV can be viewed as an evolutionary, next-gen technology upgrade to existing video distribution business models.

On the other hand, broadband video/online video/Internet TV (whatever term you prefer) is more of a revolutionary approach because it is an "open" model, just like the Internet itself. In the broadband world, there's no set-top box "control point" governing what's accessible by consumers. As with the Internet, anyone can post video, define a URL and quickly have video available to anyone with a broadband connection.

The catch is that today, displaying broadband-delivered video on a TV set is not straightforward, because most TVs are not connected to a broadband network. There are many solutions trying to solve this problem such as AppleTV, Microsoft Media Extender, Xbox, Internet-enabled TVs from Sony and others, networked TiVo boxes, etc. Each has its pros and cons, and while I believe eventually watching broadband video on your TV will be easy, that day is still some time off.