Posts for 'Disney'

continue reading

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

continue reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for previous podcasts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal story, suggesting that CBS and Disney may participate in Apple's planned TV subscription service, caused was yet another tremor in the already chaotic video industry. Though Apple's plans are still preliminary, when I consider the numbers the Journal reported, the company's fuzzy math suggests incumbent distributors have little to worry about just yet.

The Journal said that in "In at least some versions of the proposal, Apple would pay media companies about $2 to $4 a month per subscriber for a broadcast network like CBS or ABC, and about $1 to $2 a month per subscriber for a basic-cable network..." Let's assume the mid-points for both: $3/mo for broadcast networks and $1.50/mo for cable networks. With 4 broadcast networks (assuming NBC participates, which under Comcast ownership is itself unlikely), that would be $12 in fees/mo. Say Apple signed up 12 cable networks, that would be another $18 in fees/mo. Together the $30 in fees/mo equals what Apple is reportedly looking to charge consumers. And this package would only deliver 16 channels, which would induce few consumers to cut the cord. And by the way, there's zero chance that one of those 16 cable channels would be Disney's ESPN, which already gets north of $3/mo/sub in all of its existing affiliate deals.

Given the broadcast networks' woes, it's within the realm of possibility that they would be enticed by the $2-$4/mo, considering it's above the $1/mo/sub that is often bandied about in retransmission consent discussions. Yet, Apple is supposedly talking about delivering the programs commercial-free, which means broadcasters' total revenue per month has to equal or exceed what they're already making per month for the plan to be interesting to them. With $60 billion/year in TV advertising revenue at stake, that's a big gamble for broadcast networks to make. Even the notion that consumers would pay for broadcast programs simply because they're commercial-free is speculative. Most research I've seen suggests the opposite consumer preference (they'd rather stomach ads in exchange for free content).

An even bigger challenge for Apple is to get cable networks to play ball. Starting with my post over a year ago, "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks," I've continued to assert that, despite ongoing skirmishes, cable networks and cable operators are joined at the hip in their desire to defend the traditional multichannel subscription model. In the model, big owners of cable networks bundle smaller channels with bigger, more popular ones, and require that cable operators, telcos and satellite operators take these as a package. This is the backdrop for why consumers often grouse that there are lots of channels, but little on that interests them personally. Meanwhile, TV Everywhere is intended to preserve this model as online viewing expectations build.

It stretches my imagination to believe that big cable network owners (Disney included) are going to allow Apple to cherry-pick which cable networks they want and disrupt the traditional model, especially at a time when cable networks want more, not less control. That cable networks would be willing to put Steve Jobs in the driver's seat of their digital futures is very unlikely. Analogies to the music business only go so far: remember, music companies were already under assault from rampant piracy and reeling under financial pressure when Apple came riding to their rescue. Cable networks feel no such urgency; they've been the brightest star in the media landscape as the recession has worn on.

I've learned never to underestimate Steve Jobs or Apple. But based on what's been reported so far, Apple's subscription TV math seems very fuzzy and any service that emerges from it is likely, for the most part, to be non-threatening to incumbent distributors. And that's before getting to the issues of Apple being a closed system and requiring consumers to buy a proprietary Apple TV box to get their programs onto their TVs. In the budding 'over-the-top" sweepstakes, Apple is one to watch for sure. But there are a lot of variables in play here. It will be fun to see if Jobs has yet another rabbit up his sleeve.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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

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

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

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

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Yesterday's WSJ article about Disney's new DRM initiative, dubbed "Keychest" was another sign that in the digital era, Disney keeps walking to the beat of its own drummer. Combine Keychest with Disney CEO Bob Iger's repeated skepticism about TV Everywhere and the need for Disney to receive incremental payments for online distribution and it's not hard to conclude that Disney envisions retaining much more control over how its content is delivered and priced going forward. It's also not hard to conclude that Disney's largest individual shareholder Steve Jobs's influence is being felt in the company's decision-making.

The Keychest DRM initiative in particular shows a real streak of separatism by Disney given the critical mass that DECE (the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem) has gained. DECE counts among its members multiple studios (Sony, Warner Bros., NBCU, Lionsgate, Fox), technology providers (Microsoft, Intel, Dolby, Philips, HP, Cisco, etc.) and delivery outlets (Comcast, Best Buy). Granted, DECE hasn't shown a whole lot of progress yet, but that's pretty much to be expected when you have this many big players at the table. Still, even getting all these companies to join forces is a hopeful sign of inter-industry collaboration.

And as the WSJ article underscores, the need to introduce some form of standardized DRM for movies in particular is growing more urgent. DVD sales, the industry's cash cow for years, are off by 25% at certain studios, yet movie downloads don't yet come close to filling the gap. Downloading is not only still a new experience for many, but it introduces key limitations (lack of portability, non-ubiquitous playback and confusing usage rights) that are significant inhibitors for future growth. Let's face it, not a lot of people are going to invest in building downloaded movie libraries when it's difficult or impossible to do something basic like play a movie on 2 different TV sets in their home. Downloading's issues need to be solved quickly if it is going to take off.

Meanwhile, Disney's posture on TV Everywhere has created real questions about what the company's goals are in online content distribution. VideoNuze readers know that I've been bullish on TV Everywhere because it's a win for the 3 main constituencies - incumbent video providers (cable operators and telcos), cable TV networks and consumers. By forcefully advocating a plan to offer TV Everywhere as a value-add to existing subscribers, with no incremental fees, video providers laid the logical foundation for cable networks not to expect incremental distribution fees ("We're not charging anything extra, so you shouldn't expect to either.").

From my point of view, rationale cable network executives should be excited with the prospect of TV Everywhere, as it provides them an on-ramp to online distribution (which they've been shut out of to date, given the absence of a sound online business model and fearing a backlash from paying distributors if they offered their content for free streaming) while preserving their incumbent dual revenue-stream approach and expanding their advertising potential.

Nonetheless, Disney seems unsatisfied. CEO Iger continues to float the idea of incremental payments for online access, even suggesting it will launch its own subscription services. That could mean consumers face the prospect of paying twice for the same content, which is unrealistic even for ESPN's vaunted sports coverage. Disney has seen success with ESPN 360, its premium online service, but it offers distinct content (supplementary pro-sports coverage and niche sports coverage) from its flagship channels. And it should be noted that broadband ISPs pay for 360, not consumers directly.

I tend to believe we're seeing Steve Jobs's influence behind the scenes with both Keychest and Disney's posture on TV Everywhere. That's pure speculation on my part I'll admit. But "Think Different" is more than a slogan for Jobs and Apple. The company's ability to succeed by pursuing a non-conformist, innovative path (e.g. iPods, iTunes, iPhones, Macs, etc.) in the face of market norms is beyond dispute. Emboldened by Apple's success and understanding the strength of Disney's franchises as an insider suggests Jobs would encourage Disney not to be constrained by nascent industry-wide initiatives. At a minimum Apple provides Disney with a pretty compelling case study of how to succeed by zigging when others are zagging.

No question, Disney has incredible brands, and is probably in the best position among major content providers to influence how things will unfold in the digital era. And its investment in Hulu shows it is willing (albeit belatedly), to align with joint industry initiatives. Still, its Keychest project and resistance to TV Everywhere raise the possibility that in pursuing its own path it could not only miss out on or delay benefiting from the efforts of others in the industry, but could also be over-reaching with the result being consumer confusion and discontent. Disney holds strong cards, but it needs to be careful how it plays them.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

One might think that the depths of the worst economic recession in decades would be a lousy time to begin asking penny-pinching consumers for additional payments to access content. Yet this is exactly what many video providers plan to do, as a variety of broadband-delivered video subscription plans are beginning to take shape. Based on conversations I've been having with industry executives and what I've been reading, various subscription plans are now underway. This leads me to think that "subscription overload" is on the horizon.

Interest in getting consumers to pay has several sources. Many executives have concluded that advertising alone is an insufficient model, even as the cost of delivering broadband video is actually plummeting. Some of this concern relates to the widespread advertising slowdown, where even established players like the big broadcast networks are being forced to accept rate cuts. These declines cannot be made up with greater ad quantity as there's prevailing worry about just how many ads can be loaded into a broadband-delivered program before the viewer gets turned off.

There is also significant fear of not learning from the demise of the U.S. newspaper industry, which largely adopted an ad-only online business model that hasn't worked (causing some like the NY Times to now consider reinstituting subscription services). Newspapers' woes have become a touchstone in practically every conversation I've participated in recently. Last, but not least, there's no small amount of envy toward cable networks, whose dual subscription/advertising revenue model has allowed them to weather the recession better than most.

Subscription plans seek some combination of differentiators: offering premium video in better windows, at better-quality, with deeper selection, across multiple devices and with some degree of exclusivity. The thinking is that these enhancements will allow subscription services to be distinguished from and co-exist with free ad-supported services. The implicit bet is that these differences will be understood and valued by consumers.

Subscription plans are beginning to leak out, as happened last week in remarks by Disney CEO Bob Iger. Many in the industry (including me) anticipate that Hulu will launch a subscription service soon, particularly as it seeks to become a part of cable operators' TV Everywhere initiatives (which themselves seek to enhance the value of current cable subscriptions).

Other plans are on the drawing board. When I read yesterday, for example, about NBC's Ben Silverman jumping to IAC to form a new video venture, I suspect it's almost a given that the venture will consider some type of premium model. The growth of mobile video is another factor fueling subscriptions. This is what MLB is doing with its new At Bat 2009 subscription app for the iPhone, which builds on its highly successful MLB.TV broadband subscription service.

Still, with broadband allowing video providers direct access to their target audiences, their well-known brands as powerful enablers, and the crummy advertising climate showing no letup, it is no surprise that the pendulum is swinging heavily toward subscriptions.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of July 20th:

Apple reports blowout iPhone sales in Q2, continuing to drive market - It was another record quarter, as Apple reported selling 5.2 million iPhones, bringing to 21.4 the total sold to date. This despite acknowledging temporary shortages during the quarter. The iPhone continues to revolutionize the mobile market, and from my standpoint is the key catalyst for both recording and consumption of mobile video. This market is poised for significant growth as new smartphones hit the market along with fixed monthly data plans. Apps like MLB.com At Bat 2009, which offers live streams of games, are certain to be hits and emulated widely.

8 minute video of Amazon's Jeff Bezos discussing lessons learned and Zappos acquisition - You couldn't miss news this week of Amazon acquiring Zappos for around $900M, its largest deal ever. Interestingly, Amazon posted a video on YouTube of Bezos discussing the deal, but not until he walked through several maxims of Amazon's success (obsess over customers, think long term, etc.). The video is extremely informal, with Bezos flipping hand-scrawled notes on an easel and improvising funny anecdotes. It has a slightly random feel (until he gets to the Zappos part, you start to wonder, what's the point of all this?), but I give Amazon and Bezos lots of credit for using video in a totally new way to communicate with stakeholders. I'd love to see more CEOs do the same.

Is Disney CEO Bob Iger serious about creating a subscription site for its online video? This week at Fortune's Brainstorm conference, Iger floated the idea that Disney will offer movies, TV shows and games for paying subscribers. The timing seems more than coincidental as Comcast gears up for its On Demand Online trial. Is Iger serious about this, or is it a head fake from Disney so it can try to negotiate incremental payments from Comcast and others seeking to distribute Disney content online? It's hard to tell, but I'd be curious to see what Disney has in mind for its possible subscription service. Consumers hate the idea of paying twice for anything (even paying once is not so popular), so if Disney is somehow going to create another window where they charge for access to content that's still on, or was recently on cable, that would be an awkward model.

"Mad Men" coming to Comcast's On Demand Online trial - Speaking of the Comcast trial, I was thrilled to hear from David Evans, SVP of Broadband at Rainbow Media (owners of AMC, the network behind Mad Men) at yesterday's CTAM Teleseminar that the show will be included in Comcast's trial and presumably in rollout. David is very bullish on online distribution and the larger TV Everywhere concept, though cautioned that there are many rights-related issues still hanging out there. I'm a huge Mad Men fan (whose new season starts on Aug 16th) and the idea that I don't have to worry about recording each episode or managing space on my DVR, and that I can watch remotely when I'm on the road, all underscore TV Everywhere's value.

Following are 3 key themes from VideoNuze in May:

1. Hulu Moves to Center Stage

Already on a roll, Hulu gained lots of mind share in May. After YouTube it is clearly the most-buzzed about video site - not a bad accomplishment for a site that just celebrated its one year anniversary.

The month began with the announcement that Disney would invest in Hulu, at last making available ABC and other programs in Hulu's ever-growing portal. Hulu gained stature during the month as the statistic from comScore released in late April - that Hulu was now the #3 most-popular video site, with 380 million video views in March - was repeatedly recirculated. (Hulu was separately disputing data released from Nielsen showing a far-smaller audience.)

In addition to the Disney content, Hulu also announced its first live event, tonight's concert from the Dave Matthews Band. Capping the month was last week's Hulu Labs announcement, showcasing the desktop app that moves Hulu one step closer to being TV-ready.

Hulu's growth and top-notch user experience continue to set the pace in the online video world. Still, as I noted in my post about the Disney deal, what's still unproven is the Hulu business model and how it plans to navigate the convergence of broadband and TV. The spin coming from its owners is that financial progress is being made, yet Hulu's per program viewed revenues continue to be a fraction of those derived from on-air viewership. Sooner than later, I predict the Hulu growth story is going to start to give way to the Hulu financial story, which may yet include subscriptions.

2. Susan Boyle Shows Power and Conundrum of Viral Video

It was hard to miss the Susan Boyle phenomenon in May. As of last Thursday (before the finale of "Britain's Got Talent" in which she placed second) her original video had generated over 235 million views, according to tracking firm Visible Measures. Ms. Boyle's sensational performance has mainstreamed the term "viral video." The idea that you can become a worldwide personality is truly a broadband-only invention.

Yet 3 1/2 years after SNL's "Lazy Sunday" video became the first bona fide big media YouTube hit (despite NBC's efforts), the process for copyright holders and distributors to monetize these viral wonders remains immature. The NY Times described the interplay over the Boyle viral videos between YouTube, Fremantle, ITV and others, and why those hundreds of millions of views are still under-monetized. But with broadband distribution's increasing importance, this won't last; viral monetization rights are inevitably going to become a key part of the upfront negotiating mix.

3. Mobile video growth

Mobile video continued to get a lot of attention from content providers, service providers and handset makers in May, with initiatives from NBC, NBA, E!, Samsung, Sling, among others (a full listing of mobile video news is here). The mobile video ecosystem is responding to data indicating surging consumer acceptance, primarily driven by the iPhone. In May Nielsen released a report indicating mobile user growth from Feb '07 to Feb '09 was 74%, and that iPhone users are 6 times more likely to consume mobile video. The crush of new smartphones coming in the 2nd half of '09 promises that mobile video usage is going to continue growing rapidly. Limelight's acquisition of mobile ad insertion company Kiptronic is likely the tip of the deal iceberg as companies position themselves for mobile.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

As the annual "upfronts" - the TV industry's program preview and ad sales extravaganza - kick off today, the recent financial performance of the network TV industry and the cable TV industry continue to diverge. The cable network model, powered by both ad sales and monthly affiliate fees, is proving very durable in the Great Recession, while the ad-only network TV model has been hammered. One conclusion from these numbers is that Hulu's owners must be pushing to figure out how the site can introduce a paid subscription model.

I pulled together financial information for a select group of companies comparing performance for the recently concluded March 31 quarter vs. a year ago.

As the chart shows, operating income increased for all the cable networks and revenue was up for all of them as well, except Scripps Networks, where it was flat. The press release commentary from these cable networks was the same: affiliate revenues are up, with ad sales soft, but not disastrous. Cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable also fared well in the quarter with both revenue and operating income/cash flow increasing.

Contrast this with the broadcast TV numbers for Disney, Fox and CBS, all of which operate both TV networks and own local TV stations. Disney fared the best, with revenues down 2% and operating income down 38%. CBS followed with revenues down 12% and operating income down 49%. Fox was affected the worst, with revenues down 29% and operating income down 99%. As two examples of purely local station performance, Gannett's broadcasting segment revenues were down 16% and operating income down 24%, with Sinclair's revenues down 19% and operating income down 43% (before an impairment charge). The commentary from all the broadcasters was the same: the ad market is terrible, and they're doing their best to contain costs (meaning laying off staff).

As the TV industry gears up to sell billions of dollars of ad time this week, a clear lesson from the above financial performance is that it is essential to diversify into the paid subscription ecosystem instead of relying on advertising alone. Disney, Fox and NBCU have recognized this for a while and have strongly built up their portfolio of cable networks.

With ad sales in the doldrums, it's hard not to wonder what Disney, Fox and NBCU, the three major owners of Hulu, are thinking about with respect to Hulu's own business model, which is of course currently 100% reliant on ads. I mean, if your incumbent business model is frayed, wouldn't it make sense, when essentially "starting over" online, to aggressively pursue the one that is resilient even in the recession?

Hulu's exclusive online lock on high-quality programming from 3 of the 4 broadcast networks would seem to position the company perfectly for a subscription play. If its owners looked hard at the divergent fortunes of cable vs. broadcast, it seems inevitable we'll see some type of paid subscription offering from Hulu - either directly or through distributors - sometime in the near future.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Looking over last month's posts with an eye for 2-3 themes to extract for my recap post today, I was instead struck by one overarching theme: innovation is alive and well in the broadband video space. Other sectors of the economy may have ground to a halt in the current recession, but whether it's new technologies, new service models or new approaches by traditional media companies, the pace of innovation in all things related to broadband video seems only to be accelerating.

Here are some of the examples from last month's posts:

New technologies

• SundaySky - a new approach to dynamically generate videos out of web site content
• HD Cloud - cloud-based encoding and transcoding plus 3rd party syndication
• Market7 - web-based platform for collaboratively creating and producing video
• FreeWheel - ad management/distribution company raises another $12M

New service models

• Sezmi - next-gen video service provider aiming to replace cable/satellite/telco
• TurnHere - distributed video production services for the corporate market
• Babelgum - premium-quality content destination for independent producers
• YuMe Mindshare iGRP - new measurement unit to compare on-air and online ad performance
• YouTube-Disney - short-form promotional deal

New approaches by traditional media companies

• Disney-Hulu - Exclusive 3rd party online distribution for established broadcast network
• Cable networks launching webisodes - online initiatives to attract and retain new online audiences
• New York magazine video re-launch - emphasis on curating best-of-the web videos with brand
• WWE Smashup - fan-submitted video mashup content driving awareness of on-air special

Now granted I have an eye out for broadband innovations so this list is somewhat self-serving. But remember that for every item above I was probably pitched on 2-3 others that I didn't write about due to time limitations. Some of these other items may have been picked up by other news outlets and captured in the news aggregation side of VideoNuze, while plenty of them likely received little attention.

My point is that throughout the whole broadband video ecosystem there is a vibrant sense of entrepreneurialism that is slowly but surely remaking the traditional video landscape. To be sure, not all of this stuff is going to work out; either business models will be faulty, technologies won't deliver as promised or consumers will reject what they're being offered. Nonetheless, from my vantage point, the wheels of innovation continue to spin faster. That makes it a very exciting time to be part of the industry.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Here I am at BWI airport getting ready to send today's VideoNuze email and in pops the news that Disney is taking an equity stake in Hulu, bringing lots of its prized programming along. The rumor mill has swirled for a while that a deal was forthcoming, now it's here. The press release is not yet up on the Disney site. I'll have more thoughts later.