Posts for 'YouTube'

If you want to get a sense of how significant an inflection year 2009 was for online video, have a look at the chart below.

As you can see, according to comScore data, while Jan-Dec growth in 2007 (up 2.8 billion views or 39%) and 2008 (up 4.5 billion views or 46%) were impressive by any standard, the Jan-Dec 2009 growth of 18.4 billion views, up 124%, completely blows them away. Growth was so significant in 2009 that I think years down the road it will be pointed to as the year that online video really turned the corner.

But if that's the case, the question begs, "Why did growth accelerate so much in 2009 vs. prior years?" That's what I've been asked several times by industry colleagues since posting "comScore Data Shows 2009 Was a Blistering Year for Online Video" 2 weeks ago. It's a great question and though I don't have a really precise answer, here's my best sense of what happened.

No surprise, the most important contributor to the year's growth was YouTube. It zoomed from 6.3 billion views in Jan '09 to 13.2 billion in Dec. '09. That increase of 6.9 views accounts for 38% of the 18.4 billion delta between Jan and Dec. So what did YouTube do to generate such significant growth? Part of the reason is surely organic; more people uploading, sharing and viewing YouTube videos. But in 2009 YouTube also made strides in professionalizing the content on YouTube, broadening its value proposition to users. For example, its "Content ID" program, which lets media companies manage and monetize user-uploaded videos, has largely addressed the copyright infringement concerns from past years (the Viacom suit is a notable exception).

In 2009, among other things, YouTube also signed up Disney/ESPN, Univision and others as content partners, began implementing FreeWheel's ad system so 3rd party content providers could better monetize their views, engaged a number of leading brands to use it as a promotional platform, and with "YouTube Direct" engaged news organizations as partners. In short, YouTube continues to immerse itself into the fabric of the Internet. Whether users are viewing videos at its site or through its wildly popular embeds, YouTube has become omnipresent. YouTube now also claims to be the 2nd largest search site.

A second, but distant contributor to 2009's growth was Hulu, which saw its views increase by over 763 million from Jan to Dec, accounting for about 4% of the 18.4 billion increase in total views during that period. Hulu's mindshare leaped following its 2009 "Evil Plot" Super Bowl ad featuring Alec Baldwin and the subsequent ones. No doubt the addition of ABC programs throughout the year, plus other new content partners, also helped generate more viewership, along with the hugely popular SNL clips.

Once you get beyond these top 2 sites, the individual contributions to 2009's growth are more dispersed. The comScore data shows that across all video sites, usage intensified significantly during the year. For example, the number of videos viewed per viewer increased from 101 in Jan to 187 in Dec. The number of minutes watched jumped from 356 in Jan (almost 6 hours) to 762 in Dec (more than 12 1/2). There were also 31 million more U.S. Internet users watching video in Dec vs. Jan (178 million vs 147 million).

Looking beyond the numbers and thinking more qualitatively, it's also fair to conclude than in '09 online video reached a certain level of awareness that made it almost ubiquitous. There is just so much video online, and it is shared so widely, and highlighted so frequently by mainstream media, that it is unavoidable, even for the least technically-savvy among us. People are increasingly entertaining themselves with online video, but they're also finding new uses for it in their daily personal and professional lives.

I think it's unlikely we'll see the same level of growth in 2010 as in 2009, but I do believe the growth curve over the next 5 years will be very steep. The primary contributor will be convergence devices (e.g. game consoles, Blu-ray players, Roku, etc.) that are bridging online video to the TV where longer-form consumption will be the norm. Another key contributor will be TV Everywhere services, which are just now getting off the starting blocks. Lastly, I think growth in mobile consumption will be another important contributor. Add them all up and the 33.2 billion videos viewed in Dec. '09 will look relatively small 5 years from now.

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

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 49th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for February 12, 2010.

This week Daisy and I dig into the 2009 comScore data that I detailed in my post on Tuesday (slides available for download too). It was a blistering year for online video, with total streams growing from 14.8 billion in Jan '09 to 33.2 billion in Dec '09. All the other relevant metrics also recorded strong growth. I share more details on the numbers and what they mean, focusing particularly on the top 2 sites YouTube and Hulu.

Then Daisy discusses her takeaways from the recent iMedia conference she helped organize. She talks about how brands are trying to break through the clutter, and the role of online video ad networks. Finally, she also discusses recent interviews she conducted with Facebook executives.

Click here to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 55 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Last Friday, comScore released its Dec. '09 data for online video usage. I've been tracking comScore's data for the last 3 years and Dec put an exclamation mark on what many of us already knew: 2009 was a blistering year of growth in online video consumption. Below are graphs of the most important data (Click here if you'd like a complimentary PDF download of all of the slides.)

The first graph shows total online video views more than doubled from 14.8 billion in Jan '09 to 33.2 billion in Dec '09. The historical growth is even more impressive. Just two years ago, in Dec '07, comScore reported 10 billion video views.

Online video usage is now nearly ubiquitous in the U.S. According to comScore, in Dec '09, 86.5% of all U.S. Internet users watched online video, up nearly 10 percentage points from the 76.8% in Jan '09. That translates to 178 million people watching video in Dec '09, up from 147 million in Jan '09. Back in Jan '07, there were 123 million viewers.

Those users are watching a whole lot more videos as well. For Dec '09, comScore reported that 187 videos were watched per average viewer, up 85% from 101 in Jan '09, and more than triple the 59 watched in Jan '07.

As well, those viewers spent a lot more time watching online video. In Dec '09 comScore said that the average online viewer watched 762.6 minutes or 12.7 hours, more than double the 356 minutes viewed on average in Jan '09. Here's the really incredible stat: back in Jan '07, comScore pegged this number at just 151 minutes or about 2 1/2 hours, meaning average viewing time has more than quintupled in the last 3 years.

I've talked many times about how YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla of the online video market, and 2009 only further cemented this. Videos viewed at YouTube surged from 6.3 billion in Jan '09 to 13.2 billion in Dec '09. To put this in perspective, Google closed its acquisition in Nov '06. In Jan '07 (the first month comScore publicly released online video data), YouTube notched 1.2 billion views. That means that in the 3+ years that Google has owned YouTube, it has grown more than 10x in size. More amazing is that even with all the growth by other sites (particularly Hulu), YouTube has kept up its approximate 40% share of the overall online video market, starting the year at 42.9% and ending at 39.8%.

Speaking of Hulu, in its first full year of operation, the site surged from 250 million views in Jan '09 to 1,013 billion views in Dec '09. Unique viewers increased from 24.4 million in Jan '09 to 44.1 million in Dec '09. But if you look at the red line in the graph below, you'll see that uniques jumped to 41.6 million by Mar '09 which I believe must be due, at least in part, to a likely measurement change by comScore. Since Mar you'll notice that uniques hovered right around 40 million each month, dipping below during the summer and then bouncing back in Q4.

A few months ago I speculated that Hulu's relatively flat pattern in uniques could suggest that, in its current configuration, Hulu may have saturated the market for its content and user experience (for example, contrast Hulu with YouTube, which grew its uniques by 33% in '09 to 135.8 million by Dec '09). I'll be looking to see if Hulu can notch more noteworthy increases in uniques during '10; if not, then I think my thesis will be proven correct.

Nonetheless, Hulu's viewers clearly love the site, with average number of videos per viewer more than doubling to 22.9 in Dec '09, up from 9.8 in Dec '08. Users are spending more time on Hulu, increasing the amount of total minutes on the site from 58 in Mar '09 to 132 in Dec '09. What's remarkable though is that the average minutes watched per video (the yellow line below), has stayed virtually constant at around 6 minutes each month. That shows that while there's plenty of long-form consumption happening at Hulu, clips are still very popular too.

comScore is a great source of month in and month out online video data, but as always my caveat is that no third party can ever track usage as closely as the sites themselves, so take these numbers with a small grain of salt!

Click here if you'd like a complimentary PDF download of all of the slides.

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

This week brought news that YouTube's recent foray into rentals netted the company a whopping $10,709.16. I wasn't surprised by the results, as YouTube only made 5 Sundance films available for 10 days. As I suggested 2 weeks ago, even with YouTube's massive audience, it would be unreasonable to expect too much. Still, it was great promotion for the indie film producers and no doubt a learning experience for YouTube.

I'm not religiously opposed to YouTube broadening its model beyond free and ad-supported video, but I do think YouTube needs to be wary of spending a lot of time trying to secure me-too rights for distribution of Hollywood's prime TV and movie output. That's highly competitive ground, and Netflix for one, has enormous advantages given its robust subscription model. YouTube is in the pole position when it comes to the ad-supported online video model and it needs to be relentlessly focused on proving it can make the model profitable.

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

Last fall, when the WSJ first broke the news that YouTube was negotiating with a number of Hollywood studios about launching a full-blown rental store, I thought the plan was intriguing, but dubious. I argued that YouTube needed to stay focused on getting its ad model right, that it would be hard to differentiate its film rentals from those of myriad competitors and that the revenue upside for YouTube was relatively small.

I continue to believe those things and hope YouTube isn't still pursuing Hollywood dreams. That said, I do like the idea of it offering a paid option for indie and other hard-to-find video. YouTube's massive audience brings real promotional value to these often-obscure, yet high-quality titles, potentially significant revenue to their producers and for YouTube, another meaningful step away from pure UGC content. Rentals won't generate significant revenue for YouTube, but with Google executives on the company's earnings call yesterday saying that "YouTube is monetizing well," so long as it doesn't divert too many resources away from advertising, that's ok.

2. Revenue models matter, just ask the newspaper industry - This week brought news that MediaNews Group, publisher of 54 U.S. newspapers, including the Denver Post and San Jose Mercury News, will file for bankruptcy. For those keeping count, it's at least the 13th bankruptcy filing by a major U.S. newspaper publisher in the last year.

While the newspaper industry has been racked by the recession and ad-spending slowdown, the larger issue is that 15 years since the Internet's popularity took off, newspapers still have not been able to define a sustainable online business model. Many simply lunged headlong into providing their full print editions online, only to find out that online advertising wasn't sufficient to support their overhead and that Google commoditized their headlines. Others, like the NYTimes tried (and will continue to try) to find a balance between advertising and reader payments.

I've touched on this before, but the havoc being wreaked in the newspaper is a red-letter warning to video industry participants to cautiously guard existing revenue models while transitioning to digital delivery. Some consumers and techies may consider a deliberate pace to be bureaucratic foot-dragging, but for video content producers and distributors to remain viable, a deliberate ready-aim-fire approach to digital delivery is essential.

I'm not a Prada patron, and I found the film dreary and odd, nonetheless, what intrigued me was how online video has given Prada a whole new outlet to build its brand's aura, a key to success for all luxury brands. Buying TV ads would be incredibly inefficient for Prada, and magazine spreads only go so far. With a short online film, Prada can target its audience well and engage them as long as it pleases. For creative and advertising types alike, that's a compelling opportunity.

4. Get ready for the week of the Apple tablet - In case you missed it, this week Apple sent invites to the press for a Jan. 27th event to "come see our latest creation" - widely believed to be the company's new tablet computer. The buzz behind the product, thought to be called the "iSlate," has been steadily building for weeks now. Next week it will reach a crescendo. We can expect Steve Jobs to bring his A game to the mother of all product demos as the stakes are high for Apple to deliver major wows.

Google and Apple both unveiled key mobile initiatives yesterday, underscoring the collision path the two companies are on, and how long-term, video is poised to benefit from their battle.

First, as you no doubt already know, Google introduced the Nexus One, an Android-powered smartphone that it is selling directly to consumers. It is Google's first foray into consumer devices and many more products sure to follow. Meanwhile, Apple, in a rare significantly-sized deal, acquired Quattro Wireless, a mobile advertising company, for around $300 million. Quattro represents Apple's first real push into advertising, an important shift from its traditional iTunes-driven paid media model.

With its own device, Google is primarily looking to compete against Apple's iPhone, which has practically owned the U.S. smartphone market since its introduction 2 years ago. And Apple, with a toehold in the exploding mobile advertising market, is positioning itself to disrupt Google's planned dominance of mobile advertising through its pending $750 million AdMob acquisition. If Apple were to make additional acquisitions, particularly in the online video advertising space, that would further strengthen its position.

Mobile video is poised to be a real winner in the Google vs. Apple face-off. At a minimum, the two companies' considerable marketing spending (plus those of competitors Palm, RIM, Nokia and others) will mean smartphones in millions more consumers' hands, dramatically expanding the video-ready universe. In addition, the experience of watching mobile video will just keep getting better. For example, the Nexus One's screen resolution (480x800) surpasses the iPhone's (320x480), which only means Apple will need to up the ante even further with its next generation. The range of video applications is sure to surge as more and more players stake out their ground.

Importantly, because there are no powerful incumbent distributors in mobile video - as there are in the living room, with cable/satellite/telco - I believe there is more flexibility in how premium video can be distributed to smartphones. Until recently mobile was an "on-deck" world where everything had to be approved and carried by the wireless carrier. But mobile is quickly evolving to take on open Internet-like characteristics, where applications and services are not gatekeeped by a distributor. In short, mobile looks to be more like online distribution than traditional video distribution. As power in mobile shifts to players like Apple and Google, it should also be a wake-up call to the FCC, whose planned wireless carrier-focused net neutrality paradigm already looks out of date.

While there have been recent rumbles about Apple doing something with subscription video for the living room, instead the company likely has more latitude in mobile to go well beyond the pay-per-use iTunes model, especially if it can also bring in advertising. Meanwhile, by having its own device and operating system, Google is optimizing the YouTube mobile experience. As this YouTube blog post points out, the Nexus One is an improved way to search, view and upload YouTube videos. With YouTube enjoying such benefits not just on Nexus One, but on all Android phones, YouTube becomes an even more valuable partner for premium content providers looking to generate mobile usage.

Google and Apple will be jousting for years to come in the mobile space. The opportunities for growth for both companies are sizable. I fully expect that video is a going to be an increasingly important part of the battle.

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.

It's time to say goodbye to 2009 and begin looking ahead to 2010.

2009 was yet another important year in the ongoing growth of broadband and mobile video. There were many exciting developments, but several stand out for me: the announcement and launches of initial TV Everywhere services, the raising of at least $470 million in new capital by video-oriented companies, YouTube's and Hulu's impressive growth to 10 billion streams/mo and 856 million streams/mo, respectively, the iPhone's impact on popularizing mobile video, the Comcast-NBCU deal, the maturing of the online video advertising model, the proliferation of Roku and other convergence devices and the growth of Netflix's Watch Instantly, just to name a few.

Looking ahead to next year, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about video's growth: the rollout of TV Everywhere by multiple providers, the proliferation of Android-powered smartphones and buildout of advanced mobile networks, both of which will contribute to mobile video's growth, the launch of Apple's much-rumored tablet, which could create yet another category of on-the-go content access, the introduction of new convergence devices, helping bridge video to the TV for more people, new made-for-broadband video series, which will help expand the medium's appeal, and wider syndication, which will make video ever more available.

In the midst of all this change, monetization remains the fundamental challenge for broadband and mobile video. More specifically, for both content providers and distributors, the challenge is how to ensure that the video industry avoids the same downward revenue spiral that the Internet itself has wrought on print publishers.

Regardless of all the technology innovations, high-quality content still costs real money to produce. If consumers are going to be offered quality choices, a combination of them paying for it along with advertising, is essential. While it's important to be consumer-friendly, this must always be balanced with a sustainable business model. In short, no matter what the size of the audience is, giving something away for free without a clear path for effectively monetizing it is not a strategy for long-term success.

VideoNuze will be on hiatus until Monday, January 4th (unless of course something big happens during this time). I'll be catching my breath in anticipation of a busy 2010, and hope you will too.

Thank you for finding time in your busy schedules to read and pass along VideoNuze. It's incredibly gratifying to hear from many of you about how important a role VideoNuze plays in helping you understand the disruptive change sweeping through the industry. I hope it will continue to do so in the new year.

A huge thank you also to VideoNuze's sponsors - without them, VideoNuze wouldn't be possible. This year, over 40 companies supported the VideoNuze web site and email, plus the VideoSchmooze evenings and other events. I'm incredibly grateful for their support. As always, if you're interested in sponsoring VideoNuze, please contact me.

Happy holidays to all of you, see you in 2010!

As 2009 winds down, in the spirit of accountability, it's time to take a look back at my 5 predictions for the year and see how they fared. As when I made them, they're listed below in the order of most likely to least likely to pan out.

1. The Syndicated Video Economy Accelerates

My least controversial prediction for 2009 was that video would continue to flow freely among content providers numerous third parties, in what I labeled the "Syndicated Video Economy" back in early 2008. The idea of the SVE is that "destination" sites for online audiences are waning; instead audiences are fragmenting to social networks, mobile devices, micro-blogging sites, etc. As a result, the SVE compels content providers to reach eyeballs wherever they may be, rather than trying to continue driving them to one particular site.

Video syndication continued to gain ground in '09, with a number of the critical building blocks firming up. Participants across the ecosystem such as FreeWheel, 5Min, RAMP, YouTube, Visible Measures, Magnify.net, Grab Networks, blip.TV, Hulu and others were all active in distributing, monetizing and measuring video across the SVE. I heard from many content executives during the year that syndication was now driving their businesses, and that they only expected that to increase in the future. So do I.

2. Mobile Video Takes Off, Finally

When the history of mobile video is written, 2009 will be identified as the year the medium achieved critical mass. I was bullish on mobile video at the end of 2008 primarily due to the iPhone's success and my expectation that other smartphones coming to market would challenge it with ever more innovation. The iPhone has continued its amazing run in '09, on track to sell 20 million+ units. Late in the year the Droid, which Verizon has relentlessly promoted, began making inroads. It also benefitted from Verizon highlighting AT&T's inadequate 3G network. Elsewhere, 4G carrier Clearwire continued its nationwide expansion.

While still behind online video in its development, mobile video is benefiting from comparable characteristics. Handsets are increasingly video capable, just as were computers. Mobile content is flowing freely, leaving the closed "on-deck" only model behind and emulating the open Internet. Carriers are making significant network investments, just as broadband ISPs did. A range of monetization companies have emerged. And so on. As I noted recently, the mobile video ecosystem is healthy and growing. The mobile video story is still in its earliest stages, we'll see much more action in 2010.

3. Net Neutrality Remains Dormant

Given all the problems the Obama administration was inheriting as it prepared to take office a year ago, I predicted that it would not expend energy and political capital trying to restart the net neutrality regulatory process. With broadband ISP misbehavior not factually proven, I also thought Obama's predilection for data in determining government action would prevail. However, I cautioned that politics is a tough business to predict, and so anything can happen.

And indeed, what turned out is that in September, new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski launched a vigorous net neutrality initiative, despite the fact that there was still little data supporting it. With backwards logic, Genachowski said the FCC would be guided by data it would be collecting, though he was already determined to proceed. In "Why the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan Should Go Nowhere" I argued, among other things, that the FCC is way off the mark, and that in the midst of the gripping recession, to risk the unintended consequences that preemptive regulation carries, was foolhardy. Now, with Comcast set to acquire a controlling interest in NBCU, net neutrality advocates will say there's even more to be worried about. It looks like we can expect action in 2010.

4. Ad-Supported Premium Video Aggregators Shakeout

The well-funded category of ad-supported premium video aggregators was due for a shakeout in '09 and sure enough it happened. Players were challenged by little differentiation, hardly any exclusive content and difficulty attracting audiences. The year's biggest casualty was highflying Joost, which made a last ditch attempt to become a white label video platform before being quietly acquired by Adconion. Veoh, another heavily funded player, cut staff and changed its model. TidalTV barely dipped its toe in the aggregation waters before it became an ad network.

On the positive side, Hulu, YouTube and TV.com continued their growth in '09. Hulu benefited from Disney coming on board as both an investor and content partner, while YouTube improved its appeal to premium content partners and brought on Univision and PBS, among others. Aside from these, Fancast and nichier sites like Dailymotion and Babelgum, there isn't much left to the aggregator category. With TV Everywhere services starting to launch, the opportunity for aggregators to get access to cable programming is less likely than ever. And despite their massive traffic, Hulu and YouTube have significant unresolved business model issues.

5. Microsoft Will Acquire Netflix

This was my long ball prediction for '09, and unless something happens in the waning days of the year, I'll have to concede I got this one wrong. Netflix has remained independent and is charging along with its own streaming "Watch Instantly" feature, now used by over half its subscribers, according to recent research. Netflix has also broadened its penetration of 3rd party devices, adding PS3, Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray players, Insignia Blu-ray players this year, in addition to Roku, XBox and others. Netflix is quickly becoming the most sought-after content partner for "over-the-top" device makers.

But as I've previously pointed out, Netflix's number 1 challenge with Watch Instantly is growing its content selection. Though it has a deal with Starz, it is largely boxed out of distributing recent hit movies via Watch Instantly by the premium channels HBO, Showtime and Epix. My rationale for the Microsoft acquisition is that Netflix will need far deeper pockets than it has on its own to crack open the Hollywood-premium channel ecosystem to gain access to prime movies. For its part, Microsoft, locked in a pitched battle with Google and Apple on numerous fronts, could gain advantage with a Netflix deal, positioning it to be the leader in the convergence era. Meanwhile, others like Amazon and YouTube continue to circle this space.

The two big countervailing forces for how premium video gets distributed in the future are TV Everywhere, which seeks to maintain the traditional, closed ecosystem, and the over-the-top consumer device-led approach, which seeks to open it up. It's hard not to see both Netflix and Microsoft playing a major role.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Vevo, the much-heralded "Hulu for the music industry" venture backed by Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, Abu Dhabi Music Company and Google/YouTube (and with video provided by EMI as well) officially launched late last night. I've been browsing around the site this morning and my first reaction is that it's a decent start, but has a long way to go if it is to fulfill its lofty mission.

Conceptually, I like the idea behind Vevo. The music industry, which has suffered multiple blows over the last 10 years, is getting together to create a destination site where music videos are distributed legally, with a coherent ad strategy. YouTube's participation means that videos that have been watched in the labels' YouTube channels can be branded Vevo, giving the new site tons of visibility, and helping migrate traffic over time.

From a design standpoint, the Vevo site has a similar feel to Hulu: large, wide-screen images on the home page promoting certain videos/artists, thumbnails below, of top videos, playlists and artists, quick links to most popular today, and search/navigation. A nav bar at the bottom of the screen invites users to easily create new playlists by adding up to 75 videos with one click. Videos are embeddable and shareable, and there are quick links to buy the music at Amazon and iTunes. The site was periodically very slow to load and occasionally even gave me a server error page. I don't know how much of this to ascribe day 1 hiccups that will be worked out over time or really poor capacity planning.

Less clear to me is how Vevo distinguishes itself from a user experience standpoint from YouTube itself. This has been a question that's nagged at me since the Vevo concept was first unveiled - how do the partners plan to make 1+1=3? The partners have made references to being indifferent to whether users watch at Vevo.com or YouTube, presumably because there would be similar advertising on both with similar splits. Yet, my experience going back and forth between the sites, albeit very limited, reveals lots of inconsistencies and a lot of promotional leverage left untapped.

Focusing on U2, one of my personal favorites, I found only about a dozen of the band's music videos on Vevo. Switching over to YouTube, I found many more tracks, such as "Beautiful Day," "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and "Where the Streets Have No Name," all in the Universal Music Group's channel. All of the videos were monetized: the first was preceded by a 15 second pre-roll ad for Chevy Malibu and the latter two carried an overlay ad to "Play Free Games" which was accompanied by a companion ad in the right column (the overlay was incredibly distracting, but that's another story). None of the videos had any Vevo branding whatsoever. It's also worth noting that even the UMG channel in YouTube has no Vevo branding or promotion.

Conversely, a search in YouTube for "All Because of You," a video that is available on Vevo, loads in YouTube with full Vevo branding. Above the video window are options to "Watch with Lyrics," "View Artist Profile," and "Create a Playlist." Clicking on any of these carries you over to the Vevo site. However, none of these actions are well-executed. "Watch with Lyrics" restarts the video, whereas a much slicker implementation would resume playing on Vevo from the point of drop-off. "View Artist Profile" simply displays a list other videos available, without any real artist profile information offered (background, upcoming concerts, etc.). And "Create a Playlist" just brings you to Vevo's home page, without any prompts for what to do next if indeed you want to actually want to create a playlist.

Elsewhere, the Vevo team hasn't even bothered to update its blog to officially announce the site's launch (it still says "Launching Tonight!" at the top). That's a missed opportunity, especially considering there was a splashy launch party in NYC last night (attendees ranging from Google's Eric Schmidt to Rhianna, Bono and Mariah Carey) and pictures and video from that event would have been a big drawing card. Come on - where's the Vevo PR team here?

How much of this should be forgiven to it being early days of Vevo's launch is a subjective call. From my vantage point though, I think the Vevo team could have done a lot more to think through and execute on the user experience. Back in November '07, when I looked at Hulu in its private beta, I gave it a solid B+. The Hulu team had clearly obsessed about each and every detail of the site - and have continued to do so. Hulu's user experience isn't perfect, but it has set the bar very high for those seeking to emulate it. For now Vevo probably rates around a C; much work is still ahead.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 30th week:

1. Alicia Keys concert on YouTube is an underwhelming experience - Did you catch any of the Alicia Keys concert on YouTube this past Tuesday night celebrating World AIDS Day? I watched parts of it, and while the music was great, I have to say it was disappointing from a video quality standpoint -lots of buffering and pixilation, plus watching full screen was impossible.

I think YouTube is on to something special webcasting live concerts. Recall its webcast of the U2 concert from the Rose Bowl on Oct 25th drew a record 10 million viewers. That concert's quality was far superior, and separately, the dramatic staging and 97,000 in-person fans also helped boost the excitement of the online experience. It's still early days, but to really succeed with the concert series, YouTube is going to have to guarantee a minimum quality level. Notwithstanding, American Express, the lead sponsor of the Keys concert had strong visibility and surely YouTube has real interest from other sponsors for future concerts. It could be a very valuable franchise YouTube is building and is further evidence of YouTube's evolution from its UGC roots.

2. Being a Jeff Zucker fan is lonely business - In yesterday's post, "Comcast-NBCU: The Winners, Losers and Unknowns" I said I've been a fan of Jeff Zucker's since seeing him deliver a brutally candid and very sober assessment of the broadcast TV industry at the NATPE conference in Jan '08. My praise elicited a number of incredulous email responses from readers who vehemently disagreed, thinking Zucker's performance merits him being sent to the woodshed rather than to the CEO's office for the new Comcast-NBCU JV.

To be sure, NBC's abysmal performance under Zucker (falling from first place to fourth in prime-time), will be one of his legacies, but I take a broader view of his tenure. A good chunk of NBCU's cable network portfolio came to the company via the Vivendi deal around the time Zucker took over responsibility for cable. Since that time the networks have grown strongly in audience and cash flow has doubled from about $1 billion to a projected $2.2 billion in '09. NBCU added Oxygen (which combined with its iVillage property makes a strong proposition for women-focused advertisers) and The Weather Channel, in a joint buyout with two PE firms.

While Zucker's hiring of Ben Silverman to run NBC was a misstep, NBCU has enjoyed stability on the cable side, with two of the highest-regarded women in TV, Bonnie Hammer and Lauren Zalaznick cranking out hit after hit for their respective networks. A CEO's tenure is always a mixed one, with plenty of wins and losses. It can be hard to know how much of the wins to ascribe to the CEO personally, rather than the executives below, but at the end of the day, NBCU was transformed from a single network company to a cable powerhouse; even Zucker skeptics have to give him some credit for this.

3. Comcast rebrands On Demand Online to Fancast Xfinity TV - yuck! - Largely lost in the NBCU commotion this week was news that B&C broke that Comcast is changing the name of its soon-to-be-launched TV Everywhere service from On Demand Online to Fancast Xfinity TV. Yikes, the branding gurus need to head back to the drawing board, and quick. The name violates the first rule of branding: pronunciation must be obvious and easy. Not only is it unclear how you pronounce Xfinity, it's a an unnecessary mouthful that doesn't fit with any of Comcast's other workmanlike brands (e.g. "Digital Cable," "On Demand," "Comcast.net"). If we're talking about a new videogame targeted to teenage boys, Xfinity is great. If we're talking about a service that provides online access to TV shows, there's no need for something super-edgy. I'd suggest just sticking with "On Demand Online." But even more importantly, priority #1 is getting the product launched successfully.

4. Sports Illustrated demo builds tablet computing buzz - If you haven't seen SI's demo of its tablet version being shown off this week, it's well worth a look at the video here. Never mind that there isn't such a tablet device on the market yet, the rumors swirling around Apple's planned launch of one has created an air of inevitability for the whole category. As the SI demo shows, a tablet can be thought of a larger version of an iPhone (likely minus the phone), providing larger screen real estate to make the user experience even more interesting. It's fascinating to think about what a tablet could do for magazines in particular, along the lines of what the Kindle has done for books. The mobile video and gaming possibilities are endless. Judge for yourselves.

Enjoy the weekend!

With today's unveiling of FlipShare TV, the folks behind the enormously popular Flip video cameras are betting that users want to watch their personal videos on their big-screen TVs and also be able to share their videos with friends and family. I think Flip is 100% right about users' interests, but the company's proprietary and expensive FlipShare TV approach is off the mark, and will likely flop. Flip would have had more success by partnering with key players in the video ecosystem, benefiting from both their momentum and numerous co-branding opportunities, while also avoiding costs incurred to develop and market FlipShare TV.

FlipShare TV consists of 3 items: a small base station that connects to the TV via HDMI or composite cables; a USB stick that has a proprietary 801.11n wireless interface so that videos on the computer can be streamed to the base station (and hence viewed on the TV); and a remote control. Included FlipShare software lets users create "Flip Channels" which are groups of videos. FlipShare TV costs $150, a not-insignificant amount given Flip video cameras themselves have MSRPs of $150-$230, but can often be found for far less via online deals (I bought my daughter one for $60 recently).

The problem with FlipShare TV is that it takes a grounds-up approach to solving problems that could have been solved instead through smart partnerships and relatively straightforward integrations. Flip should have created a free or nearly free TV viewing and sharing feature that would have helped distinguish Flip's video cameras from the extensive list of competitive products hitting the market rather than creating a whole new product.

FlipShare TV's core proposition is of course making users' videos viewable on their TVs. The most obvious approach to doing so would have been to just partner with convergence product companies who are jockeying for position in the living room. The first partner in this space would have been Roku, which just released open APIs to support its Channel Store. I anticipate many other convergence players (e.g. Blu-ray, Internet TVs, gaming consoles, etc.) will similarly offer APIs to inexpensively broaden their offerings. As this occurs, Flip could have piggybacked on these devices. Netflix is doing this pre-emptively in the absence of APIs through brute force integrations; if it had wanted to, Cisco, Flip's parent, could have afforded to do so as well.

FlipShare TV's other value proposition of sharing could have been addressed through partnerships with companies such as Motionbox, iMemories and Pixorial which are targeting the family's "Chief Memory Officer." Motionbox is in fact already on Roku's Channel Store, which would have meant one less Flip integration. These companies are agnostic about how users capture their video, but all would have likely been eager to partner with well-known Flip to add to their brand awareness and their own value propositions.

YouTube would have been another obvious partner to enhance sharing. Granted YouTube lacks a strategy for getting onto the TV, but its online reach is unparalleled and features that would have enhanced YouTube uploading which is already prevalent among Flip users could have been valuable.

A major kink in FlipShare TV's sharing approach is that the sharee (e.g. grandma and grandpa) themselves also have to buy a FlipShare TV so they have the base station to connect to their TVs. Pew recently estimated 30% of seniors now have broadband Internet access (a number that's likely far higher for grandparents who have tech-forward, Flip-buying kids and grandkids). My guess is that sharing videos via a private YouTube channel would have been adequate for most of them if faced with the alternative of spending $150 for a proprietary setup.

All of these potential opportunities somehow didn't register with the Flip team. Their focus on a proprietary approach seems so complete that they didn't even choose to leverage existing wireless home networks among their target audience (Pew estimates home wireless penetration at about 40% for all broadband homes; it's likely double that or more in homes where a Flip camera's been purchased). Instead, additional cost was added to FlipShare TV system with the proprietary USB wireless stick.

A report this morning by Peter Kafka saying that YouTube is in discussions with TV networks to allow it to stream programs, commercial-free, for $1.99 apiece suggests to me that TV networks are in a tight place when it comes to trying to charge for streaming TV episodes.

The $1.99 figure happens to be the same amount currently charged by iTunes and Amazon (for example) to download and own an episode. If there's no material difference in value, then it's pretty straightforward to conclude that such a YouTube initiative would likely fail. Consumers will quickly ask - why would I rent something one time for $1.99 when I can own it for the same price? The folks at YouTube must surely understand this too, and therefore be angling for something that would provide their rentals differentiated value vs. the current download-to-own models.

The $1.99 figure was set several years ago, likely pitched somewhat arbitrarily by Apple to TV networks to govern the original iTunes download deals. Apple no doubt wanted the price point to be low enough to spur download volume, which would in turn drive sales of video-enabled iPods, yet different enough from the $.99 it was charging for song downloads. At least some of the TV networks likely thought this price point was too low from the start (a position underscored when NBC temporarily pulled its programs off iTunes 2 years ago in order to obtain more pricing flexibility), but acquiesced because of their desire to experiment with digital delivery and their lust to get into business with Steve Jobs.

Now however, the $1.99 price point is pretty well cemented in consumers' minds. Because streaming inherently provides less value than a download (lower video quality, requirement to be connected, etc.), in order for paid streaming to succeed, an episode surely needs to be priced lower than $1.99. But because Hulu and the networks themselves provide programs for free, streaming access to many TV episodes is already a reality. Further, I suspect most TV executives would be loathe to charge $.99 or less for a streaming TV program, as it sets up the consumer perception (albeit an incorrect apples to oranges one) that a TV episode is worth less than a music download.

Given these circumstances, this suggests that pricing for streaming TV episodes likely needs to fall somewhere in the $1-$2 range to have any shot of success at all. Even in this range, I'm skeptical that standalone paid-for streaming episodes will catch on. Few consumers download programs in sufficiently high volume to have the potentially lower differential streaming pricing save them much money. In short, they'll be inclined to keep on buying and downloading, even if they perceive they won't watch the show more than once or twice. The real problem is that the download price was originally set too low. If it were higher - even $2.99 or $3.99 per episode - that would have created more headroom to stake out a value proposition for streaming.

Yet another issue is that TV Everywhere is going to provide streaming of many TV shows anyway. Granted you'll have to be a paying video subscriber, but if TV Everywhere marketers are clever, they'll be able to create the perception that the streaming episodes are "free" causing even more pressure on standalone paid-for streaming. Networks would likely be better off trying to figure out how to get a piece of the TV Everywhere action.

In general I'm a fan of experimentation, but in this case I'm hard-pressed to see how TV program streaming for a fee will succeed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 41st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for November 20, 2009.

This week Daisy leads off with thoughts on what the NFL is doing with both online and mobile video, based on her recent interview with Laura Goldberg, GM of NFL.com.

I then dig deeper into my post from yesterday, "YouTube Direct is Yet Another Smart Move" in which I explained why YouTube Direct, a new initiative which was unveiled earlier this week, makes a lot of sense for both YouTube and its content partners. I've been impressed with how YouTube continues to evolve away from its wild-west UGC roots, finding ways to add value for both its users and also for its partners. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (12 minutes)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

I continue to be impressed with how YouTube is evolving from an upstart UGC site, reviled by major media companies for its nonchalant approach to copyright, into a video platform with unmatched audience reach that can be leveraged in myriad useful ways. A great example is how YouTube is attempting to channel some of its users' recreational interest in video creation into more purposeful, and valuable, initiatives for 3rd party partners and brands. I wrote about the concept of "purpose-driven" user-generated content over a year ago and also recently cited YouTube's brand engagement contests.

Now, with "YouTube Direct," the company's latest initiative, unveiled earlier this week, news-oriented web sites can embed YouTube's upload functionality directly into their sites, giving them the ability to request videos directly from their audience members. YouTube Direct also gives the news organization a moderation panel so videos can be approved or rejected. For videos that are posted there's a link back to the organization's own site.

It's no secret that newsroom budgets have been under huge pressure, so the opportunity to access free video reporting should resonate with any organization seeking to bolster its coverage. There are different ways a news site can use YouTube Direct ranging from the CNN iReport model which invites users to upload whenever they see news happening to a more targeted approach of asking for video coverage of a certain event (e.g. a high-school football game or local election coverage) to soliciting video responses to news-of-the-day questions. In short, "citizen journalism" can have a lot of different flavors. YouTube Direct is already being used by NPR, Politico, ABC News, The Washington Post and others.

YouTube Direct capitalizes on the growing trend of consumers carrying pocket video recording devices. Whether a smartphone like the iPhone or Droid, a video camera like the Flip, or just a digital camera with video capability, more and more people are ready to shoot at a moment's notice. The prevalence of video devices is set to grow dramatically as smartphones proliferate.

The key to success is having a platform that's easy for news organizations to manage and for users to access. With tens of millions of individual user accounts, more and more devices that offer one touch "YouTube" uploading, and news organizations hungry for inexpensive video coverage, YouTube Direct has a lot going for it. What would make it even stronger would be ad insertion capability, more extensive video editing functions and integration with the news organization's social media applications. I expect all of these features will come over time.

YouTube Direct is another smart move by the company to change mainstream media's perception of it from foe to friend. Combined with Content ID, which allows media companies to manage and monetize user-uploaded videos, and the trial with FreeWheel to allow premium partners to sell their own ads, plus other initiatives, YouTube is well on the road to repositioning itself. From an outside observer's standpoint, the moves don't necessarily feel methodical or as well-communicated as part of a larger strategy, but they are producing dividends. This week's YouTube deal with Univision for full-length programs, which would have been unheard of not that long ago, is just the latest evidence.

With its share of all views continuing to hover around 40% and its monthly streams now exceeding 10 billion, YouTube has enormous reach to capitalize on. Figuring out how to tap its users' energies for the benefit of premium partners and brands should be a key objective.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 9th week:

1. Will Cisco's new Flip Video camera ad campaign fly? - Cisco deserves credit for its new "Do You Flip" ad campaign for its Flip Video camera, a real out-of-the-box effort comprised entirely of user-generated video clips shot by ordinary folks and celebrities alike. As the campaign was described in this Online Media Daily article, finding the clips and then editing them together sounds like heavy lifting, but the results perfectly reinforce the value proposition of the camera itself. The ads are being shown on TV and the web; there's an outdoor piece to the campaign as well.

Cisco acquired Flip for nearly $600 million earlier this year in a somewhat incongruous deal that thrust the router powerhouse into the intensely competitive consumer electronics fray. Cisco will have to spend aggressively to maintain market share as other pocket video cameras have gained steam, like the Creative Vado HD, Samsung HMX and Kodak Z series. There's also emerging competition from smartphones (led by the iPhone of course) that have built-in video recording capabilities. I've been somewhat skeptical of the Cisco-Flip deal, but with the new campaign, Cisco looks committed to making it a success.

2. YouTube brings ad-skipping to the web - Speaking of out-of-the-box thinking, YouTube triggered a minor stir in the online video advertising space this week by announcing a trial of "skippable pre-roll" ads. On the surface, it feels unsettling that DVR-style ad-skipping - a growing and bedeviling trend on TV - is now coming to the web. Yet as YouTube explained, there's actually ample reason and some initial data to suggest that by empowering viewers, the ads that are watched could be even more valuable.

One thing pre-roll skipping would surely do is up the stakes for producing engaging ads that immediately capture the viewer's attention. And it would also increase the urgency for solid targeting. Done right though, I think pre-roll skipping could work quite well. At a minimum I give YouTube points for trying it out. Incidentally, others in the industry are doing other interesting things improve the engagement and effectiveness of the pre-roll. I'll have more on this in the next week or two.

3. Watching the NY Times at 30,000 feet - Flipping channels on my seat-back video screen on a JetBlue flight from Florida earlier this week, I happened on a series of highly engaging NY Times videos: a black and white interview with Oscar-winning actor Javier Bardem, then a David Pogue demo of the Yoostar Home Greenscreen Kit and then an expose of Floyd Bennett Field, the first municipal airport in New York City. It turned out that all were running on The Travel Channel.

Good for the NY Times. Over the past couple of years I've written often about the opportunities that broadband video opens up for newspapers and magazines to leverage their brands, advertising relationships and editorial skills into the new medium. By also running their videos on planes, the NY Times is exposing many prospective online viewers to its video content, thereby broadening what the NY Times brand stands for and likely generating subsequent traffic to its web site. That's exactly what it and other print pubs should be doing to avoid the fate of the recently-shuttered Gourmet magazine, which never fully mined the web's potential. I know I'm a broken record on this, but video producers must learn that syndicating their video as widely as possible is imperative.

4. Nielsen forecast underscores smartphones' mobile video potential - A couple of readers pointed out that in yesterday's post, "Mobile Video Continues to Gain Traction" I missed relevant Nielsen data from just the day before. Nielsen forecasts that smartphones will be carried by more than 50% of cell phone users by 2011, totaling over 150 million people. Nielsen assumes that 60% of these smartphone owners will be watching video translating to an audience size of 90 million people. Its research also shows that 47% of users of the new Motorola Droid smartphone are watching video, vs. 40% of iPhone users. Not a huge distinction, but more evidence that the Droid and other newer smartphones are likely to increase mobile video consumption still further.

Enjoy your weekends!

I continue to be impressed with how the mobile video market is gaining traction. It seems like rarely a day goes by now where there isn't an announcement by a technology vendor, content provider or service provider related to mobile video. Though it's still well behind online video's adoption, all of the pieces continue to fall into place for mobile video's continued growth.

From a consumer usage standpoint, the iPhone has of course been the key driver. Whenever I'm with an iPhone owner, I'm struck by how deeply they've integrated video into their mobile experience. It's not just that they've downloaded TV shows and movies to watch on planes and so forth, but rather how natural it is for them to start playing a video and then pass their phone around so others can watch also. The iPhone has turbocharged the whole concept of shared, out-of-home video experiences.

And though the iPhone's 30 million estimated units sold represents a huge footprint of new mobile video users (in turn generating a large ecosystem of app developers), from a device standpoint, new entrants are poised to grow the market even further. Devices powered by the Android mobile operating system are continuing to come to market, with the most recent, high-profile example being Motorola's Droid, offered by Verizon Wireless. Verizon is putting a huge marketing push behind the Droid, contributing to a growing sense of awareness by consumers of the appeal of smartphones and their video capabilities in particular. Not surprisingly given its Google parentage, YouTube has also weighed in on the benefits of Android in allowing easier uploading at higher video quality.

In addition the iPhone and Android, among business users, Blackberry continues to dominate and internationally, Nokia has the largest smartphone position. This all suggests there will be vigorous competition among these 4 platforms, leading to lots consumer-facing promotion and rapid innovation. In a recent AdAge piece, IDC estimated that 6% of U.S. cell phone users, or 18 million people, will watch video on their cell phones this year, rising to 27 million in 2013.

Content providers have taken notice of these dynamics and have been aggressively creating video-rich mobile apps, initially for the iPhone, but now also for Android, Nokia and Blackberry smartphones. In a recent conversation I had with Ujjal Kohli, CEO of Rhythm NewMedia, which specializes in "mobilizing and monetizing" broadcast and cable networks' TV shows, he explained how clients continue to bulk up their teams devoted solely to mobile video initiatives. An example of this is Warner Bros, which is among a number of film studios now pursuing mobile initiatives. In addition to building mobile video apps, Rhythm is also creating a mobile video ad network, like Transpera (which I last covered here). As mobile video usage surges, advertising will grow right alongside it. Mobile advertising in general received major validation earlier this week as Google acquired mobile video ad display network AdMob for $750 million.

With all this mobile video activity, technology providers are increasingly their attention to serving their content customers. Just yesterday, Kyte, a video platform company that focused early on mobile, announced that it has launched "application frameworks" for Android and Nokia, following on previous frameworks for iPhone and Blackberry. As Gannon Hall, Kyte's COO told me, its content customers have pushed Kyte for other platforms. Now with native support for all four platforms, Kyte's customers can quickly and cost-effectively adapt existing apps, incorporating full social and monetization functions. While Gannon believes Kyte has taken the lead among OVPs in offering mobile capabilities beyond just APIs, he envisions others ramping up as well. Some evidence of this is today's partnership announcement by VMIX and Qik, to integrate mobile live streaming into VMIX's platform. More will surely follow.

There are plenty of other examples of how the ecosystem supporting mobile video is being built out, such as Clearwire announcing this week $1.5 billion in additional capital raised for its 4G WiMax network, Verizon leading a group of venture investors in a $1.3 billion "LTE" 4G opportunity fund, Adobe releasing Flash Player 10.1 targeted for mobile devices, AT&T accelerating deployment of "HSPA 7.2" technology in 6 cities to boost 3G speeds and Akamai launching its "Akamai HD" network, which among other things supports HD video streaming to the iPhone. These and many other examples form the foundation for ever more robust mobile video experiences in the future.

One of my predictions for 2009 was that after many fits and starts, mobile video finally seemed poised to take off. Nearly 11 months into the year, I think we're seeing ample evidence of this happening. I expect only continued growth going forward.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Surfing over to YouTube the other day, I was struck by how the site could well become the ultimate brand engagement platform. Below is a screen shot of what I found - nearly all the visible real estate showcased 2 different brand contests encouraging users to submit videos for a chance to win prizes.

The first contest, the "Kodak True Colors: Video Portrait Challenge," was just kicking off, and therefore had prominent positioning. The contest urges users to submit as many 10-second videos as they'd like in pursuit of a grand prize including 2 tickets to a taping of the "Conan O'Brien" show. The other contest, "The Best of Us Challenge," by the International Olympic Committee, shows athletes doing something outside their specialty (e.g. Michael Phelps doing speed putting, Lindsey Jacobellis doing the hula hoop) and asks user to emulate these or create their own challenge. The winner receives a trip for 2 to the 2010 Vancouver winter games. The contest was featured in YouTube's "Spotlight," a section on the home page populated by YouTube's editors based on user ratings.

These types of brand contest are not necessarily new, nor are their inclusion in YouTube. Over a year ago I suggested there was real opportunity in what I called "purpose-driven user-generated video" - the idea that with YouTube turning millions of people into amateur video producers, their enthusiasm and skills could be channeled to specific purposes. The success of campaigns like Doritos' $1 Million Super Bowl challenge has amply demonstrated that great creative and great buzz can be generated from a well-executed UGV campaign.

What YouTube's home page that day demonstrated to me is that as brands continue embracing online video and user participation, the go-to partner will be YouTube. There's simply no better way to reach a broad audience of likely contestants than by making a big splash on YouTube. While YouTube's monetization challenges have become one of the most-talked about industry topics this year, I'd argue there's been insufficient focus on the fact that since May '08, YouTube's share of overall video viewing has stayed right around 40%, at least according to comScore. In that time, YouTube's videos viewed per month have more than doubled, from 4.2 billion, to 10.4 billion in September '09.

Even as sites like Hulu and others have launched and promoted new and innovative sites, YouTube continues to retain its share of the fast-growing online video market. YouTube has also matured considerably, with its Content ID system largely sanitizing the site from pirated video and helping change its perception among copyright owners. (Note that on my recent visit to YouTube I searched in vain for a video of Johnny Damon's double steal in Game 4 and found nothing but "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by MLB Advanced Media." In the old days a video like that would have been available all over the site.)

While YouTube has made headway adding premium content partners, a significant part of its appeal remains users uploading and sharing videos. YouTube's combination of massive audience, ubiquitous brand, user interactivity and promotional flexibility make it an ideal partner for brands looking to engage their audiences through video.

Last summer I got plenty of flak for my post, "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube Loses?" in which I argued that YouTube's long-term strategic value (and Google's financial muscle to support the site's short-term losses) superseded the company's current losses. While I didn't mean to suggest in that post that a company can afford to lose money forever, I was trying to contend that YouTube, the dominant player in a fast-growing and highly disruptive market will eventually find its way to profitability and is well worth Google's continued investment.

YouTube is a rare example of a "winner take all" situation; there is no other video upload and sharing site even on the radar. As video becomes ever more strategic for all kinds of brands, they will increasingly recognize that YouTube is a must-have partner. If Google can't figure out how to make lemonade out of YouTube's lemons, then shame on them. I'm betting, however, that they will.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Yesterday I moderated the closing general session panel of the CTAM Summit, which included Paul Bascobert (Chief Marketing Officer, Dow Jones & Company), Matt Bond (EVP, Content Acquisition, Comcast), Andy Heller (Vice Chairman, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.), Jason Kilar (CEO, Hulu), David Preschlack (EVP, Disney and ESPN Networks Affiliate U.S. Sales and Marketing) and Peter Stern (EVP & Chief Strategy Officer, Time Warner Cable). The session offered a prime opportunity to better understand the cable industry's strategy for success in the broadband video era.

In yesterday's post I asserted that the cable industry's main challenge is balancing its desire to preserve its highly successful subscription/ad-supported business model, while meeting consumers' increasing demands for flexibility. At a very high level the two goals are not incompatible; in particular the concept of TV Everywhere could well be a killer app in serving both. Rather, for me, yesterday's session reinforced my concern that the industry is still too focused on the TV platform, and not sufficiently acknowledging consumers' behavioral shifts to online consumption. These are not my sentiments alone; walking the halls of the Colorado Convention Center, various industry participants expressed their concern, in one way or another, that the industry is still not fully in synch with changing times.

On the panel Peter made great points citing data that a very high proportion of online viewing is in the home, and that the amount of time spent viewing online video is still tiny compared to traditional TV viewing. The latter point is one I often make as well, though I believe an equally important point is the remarkable rate at which online video's viewership has grown over the last several years.

On the surface, I agree with Peter's insistence that 80% of the industry's focus should be on improving the TV experience, as that's where consumers primarily watch today, and where the industry has its greatest strength. In fact in yesterday's post, I lamented the industry's underinvestment in VOD as resulting in gaps that competitors are exploiting. These gaps, whether in discoverability, content availability, ease-of-use or monetization desperately need to be closed.

Digging deeper though, a core issue I have with Peter's approach (which is common in the industry btw) is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge that online video is its own medium and should be prioritized as such. Online video is not something that should be thought of as being incorporated into the TV experience. Rather, I believe millions of users see online video as its own medium, with breakthrough benefits such as anywhere access, searchability, sharing, interactivity, personalization and so on.

My conclusion is that the cable industry would be best served by understanding these differences and what they say about consumers' shifting desires and behaviors. Then the industry should aggressively embrace these differences to capitalize on this new medium in ways far beyond just providing the underlying broadband access, as it does today. TV Everywhere, as it is currently conceived, is just a starting point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the industry should not also be optimizing the TV experience. But rather than devoting 80% of its energies to this, it should be equally balancing its investments so that it is concurrently trying to optimize the online (and mobile) video experience as well.

A point that Paul made seemed right on the money to me: when the WSJ thinks of different platforms, "context is key." Trying to serve their users' needs, given what they want at a particular moment and their physical situation drives the WSJ's product strategy. But note, just as the WSJ's online edition is the poster child for success in paid subscriptions (which the WSJ has now extended to paid mobile applications), it is also celebrating this week its new (and first-time) status as America's most widely-circulated newspaper. The takeaway for the cable industry: you can simultaneously invest and succeed in both new and traditional media, they are not mutually exclusive.

Prior to yesterday's panel, in an acceptance speech for receiving CTAM's 'Grand TAM' annual award, Bob Miron, the chairman of cable operator Advance/Newhouse, correctly acknowledged the rise of freely-available broadband video as a significant new challenge to the cable industry's traditional business model. Based on his 50 years in the business, his prescription for success was to remember the "customer is king." In myriad ways - some overt and some subtle - the cable industry's customers are telling it that broadband video is a new medium they highly value. To succeed in the broadband video era the cable industry must fully acknowledge, embrace and capitalize on this.

What do you think? Post a comment now.