Posts for 'Hulu'

Here's something cool: ClipBlast updated its Facebook app yesterday to now include access to practically all of Hulu's content. ClipBlast's CEO/founder Gary Baker walked me through a demo and I was quite impressed. Once you've added the app, you can favorite certain Hulu shows and they appear as tiles which you can then easily scroll through. It's a huge step forward from Hulu's own mediocre Facebook app. You can also choose video from over 8,500 other sources that ClipBlast offers.

Though I'm personally not a huge Facebook user, the app resonated with me because it makes discovering and sharing video even more powerful as Facebook friends are just a click away. Of course Hulu has offered embedding from the start, but to get almost the whole Hulu library into Facebook, in front of a potential audience of 400 million users is classic "syndicated video economy" thinking. In the SVE, instead of solely trying to bring audience to your content (the traditional media model), efforts are also focused on bringing your content to the audience, wherever they live. All of Hulu's ads flow through as well, so views are still fully monetized. What's missing is full screen viewing, which Gary said is coming shortly.

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

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.

Simon Fuller's 19 Entertainment announced a new reality series yesterday, "If I Can Dream" which will rely on streaming, mobile and social media to dramatically enhance audience engagement. "If I Can Dream" will follow five young actors as they pursue Hollywood fame and fortune. The series will be distributed on its own site and through Hulu, MySpace, Clear Channel and others.

While the show will have a traditional 30 minute television-show format, it's clear that Fuller plans to use technology to differentiate the show from the myriad other reality offerings. All of the actors' moves will be streamed live using new sensor technology and audiences will interact with the actors via text, blogs, Twitter, MySpace and other in real-time. For sponsors Pepsi and Ford, we'll no doubt see new brand engagement opportunities. Some of this has already been done with other shows, but Fuller appears to be looking to take it to a whole new level.

Hulu's role is also intriguing. I haven't thought of Hulu as having a place in broadband-only original productions, but as I consider this move, it makes sense. Though deal terms were not disclosed, Hulu is likely putting up no money, and is instead bringing its substantial traffic and promotional capabilities to the partnership. It costs Hulu nothing to give "If I Can Dream" visibility on the site, so it's in a strong position to help establish the show. With the company's reach into brands and agencies it can sell ads without bumping into broadcast networks' sales reps.

Amid much anticipation, Comcast launched its "Fancast Xfinity TV" (my shorthand will be "FXTV") service yesterday. FXTV is Comcast's TV Everywhere offering and it will initially be available only to the company's approximately 14 million "dual play" (digital cable + broadband Internet access) subscribers. Comcast is keeping a "beta" label on FXTV for now, to give it some time to work out the kinks. As a Comcast triple-play customer, I have access to FXTV and I played around with it yesterday and last night. While there's plenty of room for improvement, overall FXTV is off to a respectable start.

When dual play customers now visit Fancast they are immediately notified through a prominent pop-up that there's "Great News for Comcast Customers" about online access to over a 1,000 new shows and movies. "Get started" prompts the user to enter their Comcast.net email address and password, then a 17.5MB download begins which includes the Move Networks player and an Adobe Air application. After naming your computer (you're allowed up to 3 devices to access FXTV), the site reloads with the new FXTV Beta branding. All of that worked fine for me.

A prominent window at the top of the page promotes 4 current TV shows, but FXTV misses a big opportunity to immediately demonstrate its value by oddly showcasing just 1 program (TNT's "Men of a Certain Age,") that's not sourced from Hulu. Savvy users will know the rest are already freely available there. Why not promote 4 programs that are only available to FXTV users? And why not include messaging like "Exclusively for FXTV Users!" to remind users of the payoff for having just gone through a download process?

On the positive side, below this window, FXTV promotes programming from premium channels HBO, Starz and Cinemax. As a non-subscriber to Cinemax, when I clicked on "Juno," which had a little key icon, FXTV's authentication process kicked in, prompting a message to subscribe to Cinemax to watch. However, when I clicked "Learn more" my popup blocker interceded which meant I needed to disable it and then reload the page. The Cinemax promotional page that loads is generic from the Comcast.com web site, featuring a graphic of "Gran Torino" and promotions for 3 other movies. Comcast has a golden upsell opportunity when FXTV users click on premium content. It would no doubt improve its conversion ratio if the landing page were customized to load a graphic of the original movie or show selected at FXTV, well merchandised with trailers, clips and other information. A special offer/reward for FXTV users would also help.

Back on the FXTV site, below the premium channel promotions is an area for Full Episodes, categorized by "Celeb News," "The Hot List," "Dramas," etc. Once again, many of the thumbnails link to content that is freely available online and to all other Fancast users. Once again, I'm surprised that Comcast isn't doing more to promote programs that are only available to FXTV users, making it more explicit what's special about FXTV.

I clicked and watched parts of a number of shows and in general my experience was positive. I've read other reviews describing buffering delays, but I didn't experience any issues, or at least anything different than I typically do when starting videos at other sites. One thing Comcast disclosed on the press call yesterday was that FXTV would be available to dual play subscribers outside their homes. Recall that in the 5,000 person trial, users could only access the service from within their homes, so this is a major step forward. I haven't yet tested FXTV remotely, but will do so while in Florida next week.

The biggest challenge FXTV faces is content availability, particularly from the ad-supported cable networks. For example of last week's top 10 rated cable shows, only TNT's "The Closer" and "Men of a Certain Age" are available on FXTV. Among the top 10, there are no sports (football or WWE) or kids shows like "Sponge Bob" (Nick) or "Phineas and Ferb" (Disney) available. Even for #10 show "Keeping up With the Kardashians" the most recent episodes are from Season 2, back in May 2008 - and this is a show that's on E! Entertainment, a channel that Comcast itself owns! There are no episodes offered of my favorite cable show, AMC's "Mad Men."

The content selection on the premium channels HBO, Starz and Cinemax (note Showtime is not yet available on FXTV) is better, but not eye-popping. For example, the only episodes of HBO's "Entourage" that are available are from Season 2 in 2005, despite the fact that Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts specifically demonstrated and highlighted the idea that all episodes of Entourage would be available when he showed the service at the Web 2.0 conference less than 2 months ago. For some reason HBO must have pulled the rights to Entourage in this time.

A lot of the questions on the press call Comcast conducted yesterday focused on content availability and it's clear that obtaining the rights to distribute the full slate of cable programs online is devilishly complex. To be sure, Comcast has made progress, saying it has 27 networks are supplying programming, totaling 12K titles. There's no distributor in a better position to make online distribution happen than Comcast, yet as I wrote last week about Nielsen not yet being able to collect and then synthesize online viewership, Comcast (and other TV Everywhere providers) are subject to forces beyond their control.

Yet another complicating factor is how advertising in FXTV will work. Comcast said that for now, while "nobody really knows what works best," each network will be permitted to experiment with ad loads. It's not clear how long this will go on, nor what role Comcast will play to guide networks to a certain load. In the meantime though, the downside is that the user experience is inconsistent from one network to another. For an offering that's free to subscribers that's not a big drawback, but the lack of consistency does chip away at least a little bit from the overall experience.

Taken together, Comcast deserves credit for getting FXTV out the door just 6 months since announcing it this summer, which is light speed in cable TV terms. There are lots of ways it can and will be improved upon. Gaining credibility with content providers, so that FXTV can beef up its library is priority #1. As I've been saying for a while now, conceptually FXTV is right on all fronts - it preserves the paid consumer model for content providers, offers users enhanced value and helps Comcast and other providers defend against cord-cutting. Hopefully Comcast and other providers will sufficiently invest in these services to let them reach their full potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Based on a number of conversations I've had with cable programming executives, Nielsen's current inability to measure online viewing of TV programs and meld that data effectively with on-air viewing is emerging as a key stumbling block to successful rollouts of TV Everywhere services.

Cable networks are justifiably concerned that any viewership that potentially shifts from on-air to online that they are not credited for will adversely impact their ratings and therefore their advertising revenue. Until the issue is fixed cable networks will be reluctant to offer their most popular programs to TV Everywhere providers, in turn diluting TV Everywhere's appeal to consumers.

Nielsen, the de facto standard in TV ratings measurement, is well aware of these concerns and as Multichannel News reported this past Monday, it plans to accelerate the deployment of its "TVandPC" software which measures online viewing to 7,500 of its National People Meter households by Aug. 31, 2010. While that's a start, as industry executives have told me, it's not just the online viewing data that's needed, but also the proper blending of that data with the on-air data that's critical.

Among the issues is how online viewing, which offers consumers the potential of much-delayed on-demand viewing, should be aligned with Nielsen's "C3" ratings, which captures up to 3 days playback on DVRs. Another issue is understanding and measuring new TV Everywhere viewership patterns (e.g. college students remotely watching shows on a laptop which has been authenticated by Mom and Dad's cable account). Then there's the question of whether the online ad loads are going to be comparable to those on-air (e.g. if the online share of a program's overall viewership carried far fewer ads than the on-air viewership, advertisers and media planners will want to know this). No doubt other issues loom as well.

Add it all up and the process of collecting and then blending online and on-air viewership data is non-trivial and will require a significant investment and testing on Nielsen's part to accomplish. From Nielsen's standpoint, it could be reluctant to make such an investment in overhauling its measurement service unless there were pre-commitments from some of its clients to accepting and buying the enhanced ratings service.

On the one hand, it would seem that cable networks' reluctance to embrace TV Everywhere until adequate measurement systems were in place would be a strong incentive for TV Everywhere providers to support Nielsen's enhancements. However, I've been told that when Nielsen previously made improvements to track Video-on-Demand viewership, not many service providers implemented necessary mechanisms to denote programs were VOD-based, and therefore Nielsen's investment yielded little return. Particularly given the tough economic times, that could make Nielsen more cautious about how it proceeds with online ratings. For now Nielsen has not disclosed its plans.

Still, Nielsen is under pressure to move forward given the formation of the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM), which is comprised of 14 TV networks, agencies and advertisers. CIMM's goal is to explore new methodologies for audience measurement, particularly for set-top box data and cross-platform media consumption. While some in the industry have tagged CIMM as a Nielsen challenger, its members have said they have no intention of trying to replace Nielsen. Regardless, the presence of an industry-backed group trying to wrap its arms around cross-platform audience measurement is likely to only accelerate Nielsen's online tracking efforts.

As VideoNuze readers know, I've been quite enthusiastic about TV Everywhere's potential, though I'm plenty cognizant of the challenges it faces. Measurement is surely near the top of that list. One of the benefits to Comcast of owning NBCU is that, if it chooses to, it can release NBCU's cable networks' programs for TV Everywhere viewing, absent complete online tracking. This would be comparable to what Hulu's owners have chosen to do by distributing their broadcast network shows online (they're at least partly motivated by the belief that online viewing augments on-air viewing). But Comcast won't take ownership of NBCU for another year or so. By that time Nielsen may well be close to rolling a blended online/on-air offering.

In sum, it could well be that 2010 ends up being more a year of experimentation for TV Everywhere while building blocks like audience measurement get put in place. VOD, which years since its launch still lacks many primetime programs as well as dynamic advertising insertion, offers a cautionary example for TV Everywhere providers of how a lack of investment can block the realization of a new medium's full potential. Cable networks in particular will keep looking for signals that TV Everywhere will be more robust than VOD before they get too enthusiastic about online distribution.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 42nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for December 4, 2009.

Today's sole topic is of course the big news of the week, Comcast's acquisition of NBCU. Daisy and I chat about the winners/losers/unknowns that I detailed in my post yesterday. There are a lot of aspects to the Comcast-NBCU deal and the new entity will have wide-ranging implications for the media industry. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 24 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

With Comcast's acquisition of NBCU finally official this morning (technically, it's not an acquisition, but rather the creation of a JV in which Comcast holds 51% and GE 49%, until GE inevitably begins unwinding its position), it's time to assess the winners, losers and unknowns from the deal, the biggest the media industry has seen in a long while. I listened to the Comcast investor call this morning with Brian Roberts, Steve Burke and Michael Angelakis and reviewed their presentation.

Here's how my list shakes out, based on current information:

Winners:

1. Comcast - the biggest winner in the deal is Comcast itself, which has pulled off the second most significant media deal of the decade (the first was its acquisition in 2002 of AT&T Broadband, which made Comcast by far the largest cable operator in the U.S.), for a relatively small amount of upfront cash. Comcast has long sought to become a major player in cable networks, but to date has been able to assemble an interesting, but mostly second tier group of networks (only one, E! has distribution to more than 90 million U.S. homes).

The deal moves Comcast into the elite group of top 5 cable channel owners, alongside Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and News Corp, with pro-forma 2010 annual revenues of $18.2 billion and operating cash flow of $3 billion. It also provides Comcast with a huge hedge on its traditional cable/broadband/voice businesses, as the JV, on a pro-forma basis would be 35% of Comcast's overall 2010 revenue of $52.1 billion, though importantly only 18% of its cash flow of $16.5 billion. On the investor call, Roberts emphasized that the deal should not be seen as the company diminishing its enthusiasm for the traditional cable business, but given the downward recent trends in fundamentals (vividly shown in slides from my "Comcast's Digital Transformation Continues" post 3 weeks ago), the conclusion that Comcast will be relying on its content business for future growth is inescapable.

2. Cable networks' paid business model/TV Everywhere - With Comcast's executives' platitudes about cable networks being "the best part of the media business," the fact that cable networks will contribute 80%+ of the JV's cash flow and the ongoing travails of the ad-supported broadcast TV business, the deal puts an exclamation mark on the primacy of the dual-revenue stream cable network model and Comcast's commitment to defending it (see "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks" for more on this.)

The deal can also be seen as cementing the paid business model for online access to cable networks' programs. Comcast is committed to having online distribution of TV programs emulate the cable model, where access is only given to those consumers who pay for a multichannel subscription service. Much as they may resist acknowledging it, Hollywood and the larger creative community must see Comcast as doing them a huge service by preserving the consumer-paid model, helping the video industry avoid the financial fate of newspapers, broadcasters and music. To be sure, some consumers will cut the cord and be satisfied with what they can get for free online, however it is unlikely to be a large number any time soon. As for aspiring over-the-top providers, they'll need to look outside the cable network ecosystem to generate competitive advantage.

3. Jeff Zucker - The current head of NBCU will migrate into the role of CEO of the JV, greatly expanding his portfolio and influence. Zucker has fought the good fight to preserve the NBC network's status, rotating in new creative heads, shifting Leno to primetime, backing Hulu, etc, but the reality, as he pointed out earlier this year, is that NBCU in his mind has long since become a cable programming company. I've been a Zucker fan since seeing him speak at NATPE in '08 when he laid out a sober assessment of the broadcast business. Through solid acquisitions and execution, Zucker has proved himself to be far more than the wonderboy of "Today" - he's going to fit in well at Comcast and be a great addition to its executive team.

Losers:

1. NBC broadcast network and the JV's 10 owned and operated stations - While Comcast executives said they "don't anticipate any need or desire to divest any businesses" and "take seriously their responsibility" to the iconic NBC brand, the reality is that with the broadcast business contributing just 10% of the JV's pro-forma annual cash flow, the network, and especially the stations, are not just in the back seat of the JV, they're in the third row. Though broadcast contributes 38% of the JV's pro-forma revenue and the deal is being struck near the bottom of the advertising recession, it's hard to see things improving much. Exceptions are the sports division (more on that below), the TV production arm and possibly the news division. The only thing saving the stations is retrans and Comcast's need to appease regulators to get the deal done and keep the regulators at bay thereafter.

2. Other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators - It's never good news when one of your main competitors owns the rights to a good chunk of the key ingredients in your product, yet that's the reality for all other cable operators, telcos and satellite operators. Sure Comcast must be disciplined about throwing its weight around too much, but if these distributors cried when NBCU (and other big network owners) forced bundling and drove fee increases, they haven't seen anything until Comcast runs the renewal processes. With 6 channels having 90+ million homes under agreement plus many others in the JV's portfolio, Comcast is in a very strong negotiating position. As the world moves online, the threat that Comcast eventually says to hell with other distributors and goes over the top itself (a scenario I described here), other distributors have even bigger problems ahead.

3. GE - Yes GE gets about $15 billion in cash and a graceful exit from NBCU, but 20 years since incongruously acquiring NBC, the question burns even brighter, what was GE doing in the entertainment business in the first place? Hasta la vista GE, time to focus on manufacturing turbines and unraveling the woes at GE Capital.

Unknowns:

1. Do content and distribution go together any better this time around - With the disastrous results of AOL-Time Warner still fresh in the mind, it's fair to ask whether vertical integration will work any better this time around. Sensitive to the issue and no doubt anticipating questions on it, Roberts said on the call that this is "a different time and a different deal" and, pointing to News Corp-DirecTV, noted that sometimes vertical integration does work. In addition, he highlighted that the deal's financials are not predicated on achieving any elusive synergies. Still, aside from the obvious benefits of getting bigger in cable networks, the primary reasons cited for Comcast pursuing the deal still have synergy at their core: a slide that clearly says that "Distribution Benefits Content" and "Content Benefits Distribution." As always there are plenty of opportunities to pursue in theory; the challenge is executing on them given the rampant conflicts and turf battles that inevitably ensue.

2. Hulu's future - the online aggregator was literally not mentioned once in the Comcast presentation and its logo only appears on just one of the 36 slides in the deck, yet its presence is hard to underestimate. Hulu is the embodiment of the free, ad-supported premium video model that Comcast is so fiercely committed to combating. So how does it fare when one of its controlling partners soon will be Comcast? In response to a question, Steve Burke said he sees "broadcast content going to Hulu" and that "Hulu and TV Everywhere are complementary products." He also tersely dismissed the much-rumored idea of a Hulu subscription offering. It's impossible to know what becomes of Hulu, but with such divergent interests among the owners, it wouldn't surprise me if Hulu is unwound at some point post closing.

3. ESPN's role - With the JV's NBC Sports assets, plus Comcast's Versus, regional sports networks and Golf Channel, the new JV is primed to play a bigger role in national sports. While Fox Sports and TNT have skirmished for high-profile rights deals with ESPN, the new JV has a much stronger hand to play. It's fair to wonder whether Comcast, which likely sends Disney a check for $70-80 million each month to carry ESPN to its 24 million subscribers, won't at some point say, "hey we can do some of this ourselves" and move to become a bona fide ESPN competitor. In fact, ESPN figures into a far larger Comcast vs. Disney story line in the media industry going forward. The two companies are incredibly dependent on each other, and yet are poised to become even tougher rivals. Expect to hear much more about this one.

4. Consumers - last but not least, what does the deal mean for consumers? Likely very little initially, but over time almost certainly an acceleration of digitally-delivered on-demand premium content - but at a price. Comcast has the best delivery infrastructure, with the JV, soon premier content assets and a persistent, if sometimes incomplete (as with VOD, for example) commitment to shape the digital future. I expect that will mean lots of experimentation with windows, multiplatform distribution and co-promotion across brands. Washington will scrutinize the deal thoroughly, but with continued public service assurances from Comcast, will eventually bless it. Then it will be vigilant for anything that smacks of anti-competitiveness. Consumers should buckle up, the next stage of their media experience is about to begin.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

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.

Just before the Thanksgiving buzzer went off for many last Wednesday, comScore released its October 2009 Video Metrix data under the banner headline "Hulu Delivers Record 856 Million U.S. Video Views in October During Height of Fall TV Season." Hulu's 856 million views (which are 47% higher than its September total of 583 million) are indeed eye-grabbing. When viewed in the context of Hulu's performance to date, as tracked by comScore since May, 2008 shortly after the site's launch, it's possible to glean a number of valuable insights.

Below is a chart with comScore's data for Hulu's total monthly video views and unique visitors since May '08. The blue bars would make any online content CEO swoon; in the 18 months since it launched, Hulu has increased its monthly views nearly 10-fold, from 88.2 million in May '08 to this past October's 856 million.

Two clear viewership spikes are noticeable - from July '08 to Oct '08 there was a 97% increase in views (from 119.3 million to 235 million) and from July '09 to Oct '09 there was an 87% increase (from 457 million to 856 million). It should be noted that the Nov '08 total of 226.5 million was down nearly 4% vs. Oct '08, potentially foreshadowing a decrease to come in Nov '09 as well. Other than this dip, there has been only 1 other sequential monthly drop in Hulu's views, a 6% drop from April '09 to June '09. Taken together, Hulu's steady, yet dramatic increase in viewership is remarkable.

On the other hand, I believe the red line in the chart, showing unique monthly visitors, raises some concerns. You'll notice that after a solid 20% jump in uniques from Feb '09 (34.7 million) to March '09 (41.6 million), unique visitors have stayed in a fairly level range through Oct '09 (42.5 million), with uniques actually below the 40 million mark for Jun-Sept. This contributes to a theory I've been developing about Hulu for some time now: in its current configuration, I think it's quite possible that Hulu has saturated the market for its content and user experience. This isn't a hard-and-fast conclusion, but it's worth noting that even with the addition of the ABC programs, Hulu's uniques are scarcely better than they were 6 months ago. Unless the unique number jumps in the coming months (and I doubt it will), Hulu will have to meaningfully enhance its value proposition to grow its audience (can you say "Hulu-to-the-TV-via-Xbox/Roku/Apple TV/etc?").

With its exclusive access to 3 of the 4 broadcast networks' hit programs, Hulu has significant competitive advantages, which it has further capitalized on with its superb user experience. Despite positive and encouraging reports about its ad sales efforts, Hulu still has a long way to go to prove it can monetize its audience as effectively as its parent companies can do with programs viewed on-air. As a result speculation about a Hulu subscription service (which I consider inevitable) will continue to loom.

Other variables affecting Hulu's future also swirl: what will Comcast do if/when it acquires NBCU and therefore becomes a Hulu owner? What happens to Fox's programs on Hulu should Rupert Murdoch expand his focus beyond his newspapers' online content going premium? What if Disney decides to launch its own subscription services? What if Google or Microsoft or Netflix (or someone else) decides to open their wallet and make a bigger play in premium online video?

Hulu is still a relatively young site and the insights above are not fully conclusive, especially because they're based on 3rd party data. Hulu has clearly built a solid brand and user experience. Its monthly performance is well worth following.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 16th week:

1. FCC raises "Open Access" possibility, would further government's control of the Internet - As reported by the WSJ this week, the FCC is now considering an "Open Access" policy that would require broadband Internet providers to open up their networks for use by competitors. The move comes on top of FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's recent proposal for formalizing net neutrality, a plan that I vigorously oppose. Open Access gained steam recently due to a report released by Harvard's Berkman Center that characterized the U.S. as a "middle-of-the-pack" country along various broadband metrics. The report has been roundly dismissed by service providers as drawing incorrect conclusions due to reliance on incomplete data.

The FCC is in the midst of crafting a National Broadband Plan, as required by Congress, aimed at providing universal broadband service throughout the U.S. as well as faster broadband speeds. Improving broadband Internet access in rural areas of the U.S. is a worthy goal, but the FCC should be pursuing surgical approaches for accomplishing this, rather than turning the whole broadband industry upside down. As for increasing speeds, major ISPs are already pushing 50 and 100 mbps services, more than most consumers need right now anyway. Broadband connectivity is the lifeblood for online video providers and any government initiative that risks unintended consequences of slowing network infrastructure investments is unwise.

2. Broadcast TV executives waking up to online video's challenges - Reading the coverage of B&C/Multichannel News's panel earlier this week, "Free Streaming: Killing or Saving the Television Business" featuring Marc Graboff (NBCU), Bruce Rosenblum (Warner Bros.), Nancy Tellem (CBS) and John Wells (WGA), I kept wondering where were these sentiments when the Hulu business plan was being crafted?

Hulu is of course the poster child for providing free access to the networks' programs, with just a fraction of the ad load as on-air. While the panelists agreed that the industry should be dissuading consumers from cord-cutting, Hulu is (purposefully or not) the chief reason some people consider dropping cable/satellite/telco service. For VideoNuze readers, it's old news already that broadcast networks have been hurting themselves with their current online model. What was amazing to me in reading about the panel is that what now seems obvious should have been very apparent to industry executives from the start.

3. Motorola Droid sales off to a strong start - The mobile analytics firm Flurry released data suggesting that first week Verizon sales of the Motorola Droid smartphone were an estimated 250,000. Flurry tracks applications on smartphones to estimate sales volume of devices. While the Droid results are lower than the 1.6 million iPhone 3GS units sold in that device's first week, Flurry notes that the iPhone 3GS was available in 8 countries and also had an installed base of 25 million 1st generation iPhones to draft on.

The Droid's success is important for lots of reasons, but from my perspective the key is how it expands the universe of mobile video users. As I noted in "Mobile Video Continues to Gain Traction," a robust mobile ecosystem is developing, and getting more smartphones into users' hands is crucial. I was in my local Verizon store this week and saw the Droid for the first time - though it lacks some of the iPhone's sleekness, the video quality is even better.

4. AOL's downsizing suggests further pain ahead - AOL was back in the news this week, planning to cut one-third of its employees ahead of its spin-off from Time Warner on Dec. 9th. The cuts will bring the company's headcount to 4,500-5,000, down from its peak of 18,000 in 2001. As I explained recently, no company has been hurt more by the rise of broadband than AOL, whose dial-up subscribers have fled en masse to broadband ISPs. Now AOL is going all-in on the ad model, even as the ad business itself is getting hurt by the ongoing recession. New AOL CEO Tim Armstrong is clearly a guy who loves a challenge; righting the AOL ship is a real long shot bet. I once thought of AOL as being a real leader in online video. Now I'm hard-pressed to see how the AOL story is going to have a happy ending.

Enjoy your weekends!

Against a backdrop of rapidly rising broadband video consumption, cable operators and networks are trying to strike a balance between preserving their traditional, and highly profitable business model, while still keeping pace with consumers' desire for more flexible and on-demand viewing options. A nagging question is whether full-length cable programs should be made available online for free, solely supported by advertising (the Hulu model), or if the cable industry's dual subscription/advertising model should be extended online (the TV Everywhere concept).

On the panel, Rebecca likely reflected many cable networks' current thoughts, saying, "We are in an ecosystem with our distribution partners that works....It (the free model) is going to kill all of our business; it's certainly going to kill our ability to produce high quality programming." These sentiments echo concerns I've raised about the viability of ad-supported long-form video. Even as Rebecca was critical of the free model, she noted that Discovery is taking a measured approach to TV Everywhere.

Chief among Rebecca's concerns regarding TV Everywhere is the need to accurately measure online viewership, crucial for ensuring that if viewership were to shift to online, that Discovery's ratings would not be hurt in the process. As Rebecca further pointed out, measurement issues have limited the appeal of cable operators' Video-on-Demand offerings.

Bruce went a step further to suggest that cable operators should learn from VOD's shortcomings when crafting their TV Everywhere plans. Bruce said that VOD rollouts "were led by engineers on a node-by-node basis" when they should have been led by marketers, and that "some operators introduced VOD only with trepidation." He believes that the problems that VOD had in the early days, "are still impacting consumers' perception of the on-demand platform."

Another VOD lesson I would add is that operators must also make TV Everywhere monetizable for their content partners. VOD has suffered significantly from operators not investing in dynamic ad-insertion capabilities, making VOD a marginal opportunity for ad-supported cable networks. A day earlier on another CTAM Summit panel, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO highlighted the fact that Comcast is now generating 300 million VOD sessions/month. But he also noted that Comcast has only just launched a dynamic ad-insertion capability, and in just one of its operations. It continues to bewilder me why Comcast wasn't investing in dynamic ad insertion when it was doing 10 million VOD sessions/month, years ago. How much further along might the VOD platform be, had robust advertising been possible?

As a result, it's fair to wonder whether operators will invest in TV Everywhere sufficiently to make it attractive as a new distribution platform, or alternatively will leave critical components unresolved as they've done with VOD. The answer could well determine whether TV Everywhere is a killer app (as I believe it has the potential to be) or if just becomes a half-baked nice-to-have for consumers and content providers alike. For Comcast at least, thePlatform and other technologies are important building blocks to success. As Ian pointed out, the key is being able to "quickly ascertain" the networks and programs that subscribers should have access to, a challenge that gets more complicated as content available through TV Everywhere-type offerings grows over time.

If cable doesn't get TV Everywhere quite right another implication is that certain gaps in consumers' experiences will persist - gaps that companies like Roku are seeking to fill with video they're bringing into the home solely over broadband connections. Today the $99 Roku device offers users the ability stream Netflix, Amazon and MLB video. It's tempting to see Roku as a potential cable competitor down the road, yet Chuck was quick to clarify that Roku sees itself as augmenting the cable experience, not supplanting it. In fact, he added that Roku is talking to cable operators about how it can partner with Roku to extend their viewer experiences.

Coming away from the session I'm reminded that while broadband is causing significant shifts in consumer behavior and expectations, fully capitalizing on them will take time as business requirements and technologies evolve.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Steve Donohue contributed to this post.)

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 36th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for October 16, 2009.

This week Daisy and I first discuss my post from yesterday, "Can Advertising Alone Support Premium Long-Form Online Video?" which picks up on the in-depth discussion panelists had at this week's VideoSchmooze event in NYC. As I said in the post, this is a crucial issue, particularly for broadcast TV networks who have aggressively pursued online distribution of their primetime programs, but have yet to demonstrate they can generate the same revenue per program per viewer online as they do on-air. In the podcast, Daisy explains why she thinks that something has to break, and that a "survival of the fittest," dynamic looms for broadcast networks.

Moving on, Daisy then discusses her New Media Minute episode this week, in which she describes the success that Univision, the Spanish-language network, is having with online-only shows. Univision is so bullish on the format that Kevin Conroy, a company executive, recently told Daisy that he is actively soliciting pitches. Details on the growth in Internet usage among the Hispanic audience underscore why Univision is hitting its stride online.

Click here to listen to the podcast (12 minutes, 44 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

This was the question I started our VideoSchmooze panel discussion off with this past Tuesday night. Yet 20 minutes of debate among our group of panelists yielded no real answers. This lack of consensus suggests an upcoming period of high anxiety in the industry: for even as viewers shift to online consumption, it is far from clear whether advertising alone will be sufficient to support the creative infrastructure needed to produce premium long-form video.

I continue to believe that broadcast TV networks are the companies most at risk from the unknowns around online video advertising. Lacking the additional revenue stream from distributors that their cable TV network brethren enjoy, broadcast networks must figure out how to make online video advertising work.

However, as I originally wrote over a year ago, and then again here, the fundamental problem the broadcast networks face with their current online implementations is that ad revenue per viewer per program is a fraction of what it is on-air (likely less than 25% by my calculations). In my mind, getting the two into balance is the minimum requirement for the networks to keep their top lines even with where they are today, assuming online viewership substitutes for on-air, as I expect it will over time.

As our panel explained though, the constraints to achieving this parity are significant. First is the issue of just how many ads can be inserted into an online episode. Today sites like Hulu, with their very light ad loads bias significantly in favor of the consumer experience rather than revenue optimization (for more on this see Chuck Salter's fine new article, "Can Hulu Save Traditional TV?" in this month's Fast Company). Just how many ads can be forced into an online episode given the DVR ad-skipping generation's expectations is an unknown. For sure it is fewer than the 16-18 minutes in a traditional one hour on-air program.

So if the quantity of ads must be lower, then each one needs to bring a higher price than their on-air counterparts. The traditional "CPM" metric (the cost per thousand viewers reached) is well-entrenched among ad agency media buyers. On the VideoSchmooze panel, George Kliavkoff, now a Hearst executive, but formerly the chief digital officer at NBCU and the first CEO of Hulu, lamented the CPM framework for online video advertising. He threw down the gauntlet, saying essentially that the whole broadband video industry is in for big trouble if it doesn't break out of selling ads on a CPM basis.

George's point was that it's foolish for a new medium like broadband, which offers content providers new technology-based ways to create value for advertisers, to allow itself to get locked in to the monetization techniques from the prior TV medium. That rationale is compelling enough, but for me another strong reason to get beyond CPM pricing is that not doing so means that media buyers will always be presented with a fundamental question: is it worth paying a 25%/50%/100% (take your pick) premium to reach online vs. on-air eyeballs watching the exact same show? This raises the bar for online ads; the research must show demonstrably higher engagement, recall, purchase intent, etc. to justify the premium. All of this may happen due to online's improved targeting, but even if it does, it won't happen overnight and the upside is likely not that large anyway.

If CPM-based pricing is challenged, then what's better? On the panel we discussed examples of interactive ads that can be quantifiably valued, such as by generating a specific lead or purchase for the advertiser, along with other formats. Of course these ideas have been floating around the TV world for years, but have gained little traction (although it is worth noting that in online, paid search marketing is a pure performance ad format that has worked spectacularly well). As several attendees remarked to me afterward though, these new ad formats face the additional challenge of needing to conform to ad agencies' buying processes, which are research-driven, dominated by younger staffers and not well-suited to understanding innovative ad formats.

Add it all up and significant questions remain about whether advertising alone is going to be able to support premium long-form online video and the creative infrastructure that produces it. Just as newspapers are struggling today to support traditional newsroom expenses on skimpier online ad revenues, broadcast networks accustomed to spending $2 million or more for a single episode of a scripted program could face a similar day of reckoning. This is the core issue, made all the more urgent by viewers' relentless shift to online consumption. Only time will tell whether there are any satisfactory answers to be had here.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Adobe launches Flash 10.1 with numerous video enhancements - Adobe kicked off its MAX developer conference with news that Flash 10.1 will be available for virtually all smartphones, in connection with the Open Screen Project initiative, will support HTTP streaming for the first time, and with Flash Professional CS5, will enable developers to build Flash-based apps for the iPhone and iPod Touch. All of this is part of the battle Adobe is waging to maintain Flash's lead position on the desktop and extend it to mobile devices. The HTTP streaming piece means CDNs will be able to leverage their HTTP infrastructure as an alternative to buying Flash Media Server 3.5. Meanwhile Apple is showing no hints yet of supporting Flash streaming on the iPhone, making it the lone smartphone holdout.

Hulu gets Mediavest multi-million dollar buy - Hulu got a shot in the arm as Mediaweek reported that the Publicis agency Mediavest has committed several million dollars from 6 clients to Hulu in an upfront buy. Hulu has been flogged recently by other media executives for its lightweight ad model, so the deal is a well-timed confidence booster, though it is still just a drop in the bucket in overall ad spending.

IAB ad spending research reports mixed results - Speaking of ad spending, the IAB and PriceWaterhouseCoopers released data yesterday showing overall Internet ad spending declined by 5.3% to $10.9B in 1H '09 vs. 1H '08. Some categories were actually up though, and online video advertising turned in a solid performance, up 38% from $345M in 1H '08 to $477M in 1H '09. Though still a small part of the overall pie, online video advertising's resiliency in the face of the recession is a real positive.

Yahoo ups its commitment to original video - Yahoo is one of the players relying on advertising to support its online video initiatives, and so Variety's report that Yahoo may as much as double its proportion of originally-produced video demonstrates how strategic video is becoming for the company. Yahoo has of course been all over the map with video in recent years including the short tenure of Lloyd Braun and then the Maven acquisition, which was closed down in short order. Now though, by focusing on short-form video that augments its core content areas, Yahoo seems to have hit on a winning formula. New CEO Carol Bartz is reported to be a big proponent of video.

AEG Acquires Incited Media, KIT Digital Acquires The FeedRoom and Nunet - AEG, the sports/venue operator, ramped up its production capabilities by creating AEG Digital Media and acquiring webcasting expert Incited Media. Company executives told me late last week that when combined with AEG's venues and live production expertise, the company will be able to offer the most comprehensive event management and broadcasting services. Elsewhere, KIT Digital, the acquisitive digital media technology provider picked up two of its competitors, Nunet, a German company focused on mobile devices, and The FeedRoom, an early player in video publishing/management solutions which has recently been focused on the enterprise. KIT has made a slew of deals recently and it will be interesting to watch how they knit all the pieces together.

Product news around video delivery from VBrick, Limelight and Kaltura - Last but not least, there were 3 noteworthy product announcements yesterday. Enterprise video provider VBrick launched "VEMS" - VBrick Enterprise Media System - a hardware/software system for distributing live and on-demand video throughout the enterprise. VEMS is targeted to companies with highly distributed operations looking to use video as a core part of their internal and external communications practices.

Separate, Limelight unveiled "XD" its updated network platform that emphasizes "Adaptive Intelligence," which I interpret as its implementation of adaptive bit rate (ABR) streaming (see Limelight comment below, my bad) that is becoming increasing popular for optimizing video delivery (Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Apple, Akamai, Move Networks and others are all active in ABR too). And Kaltura, the open source video delivery company I wrote about here, launched a new offering to support diverse video use cases by educational institutions. Education has vast potential for video, yet I'm not aware of many dedicated services. I expect this will change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of Sept. 21st:

1. Bashing Hulu gains steam - what's going on here? - These days everyone seems to want bash Hulu and its pure ad-supported business model for premium content. Last week it was Soleil Securities releasing a report that Hulu costs its owners $920 per viewer in advertising when they shift their viewership. This week, it was a panel of industry executives turn. Then a leaked email from CBS's Quincy Smith showed his dissatisfaction with Hulu, and interest in trying to prove it is the cause of its parent networks' ratings declines.

What's happening here is that the world is waking up to the fact that although Hulu's user experience is world-class, its ad model implementation is simply too light to be sustainable. I wrote about this a year ago in "Broadcast Networks' Use of Broadband Video is Accelerating Demise of their Business Model," following up in May with "OK, Hulu Now Has ABC. But When Will it Prove Its Business Model?" Content executives are finally realizing that it is still too early to put long form premium quality video online for free. Doing so spoils viewers and reinforces their expectation that the Internet is a free-only medium. When TV Everywhere soon reasserts the superiority of hybrid pay/ad models, ad-only long-form sites are going to get squeezed. At VideoSchmooze on Oct 13th, we have Hulu's first CEO George Kliavkoff on our panel; it's going to be a great opportunity to understand Hulu's model and dig further into this whole issue.

2. TiVo data on ad-skipping for Emmy-winning programs should have TV industry alarmed - As if ad-skipping in general wasn't already a "hair-on-fire" problem for TV executives, research TiVo released this week on ad-skipping behavior specifically for Emmy-winning programs should have the industry on DEFCON 1 alert. Using data from its "Stop | Watch" ratings service, TiVo found that audiences for the winning programs in the 5 top Emmy categories - Outstanding Comedy Series, Drama Series, Animated Program, Reality-Competition and Variety/Music/Comedy Series - all show heavier than average (for their genre) time-shifting. The same pattern is true for ad-skipping; the only exception is "30 Rock" (winner of Outstanding Comedy Series) which performs slightly better than its genre average.

The numbers for AMC's "Mad Men" (winner of Outstanding Drama Series), are particularly eye-opening: 85% of the TiVo research panel's viewers time-shifted, and of those, 83% ad-skipped. (Note as an avid Mad Men viewer, I've been doing both since the show's premiere episode. It's unimaginable to me to watch the show at its appointed time, and with the ads.) The data means that even when TV execs produce a critical winner, their ability to effectively monetize it is under siege. How long will BMW sign up to be Mad Men's premier sponsor with research like this? TiVo's time-shifting data shows why network executives have to get the online ad model right. When TV Everywhere launches it will cater to massive latent interest in on-demand access by viewers; it is essential these views be better monetized than Hulu, for example, is doing today.

3. Radio stations push into online video as GAP Broadcasting launches with VMIX - Lacking its own video, the radio industry has been a little bit of the odd man out in the online video revolution. Some of the industry's bigger players like Clear Channel have jumped in, but there hasn't been a lot of momentum, especially with the ad downturn. But this week GAP Broadcasting, owner of 116 stations in mostly smaller markets announced a partnership with video platform and content provider VMIX. I talked to VMIX CEO Mike Glickenhaus who reported that radio stations are starting to get on board. For GAP, VMIX is providing an online video platform, premium content from hundreds of licensed partners, user-generated video tools and sales training, among other things. GAP's goal is to be a "total audience engagement platform" not just a radio station. Sounds right, but there's lots of hard work ahead.

4. So is there a "Long Tail" or isn't there? Ever since Chris Anderson's book "The Long Tail" appeared in 2006 there have been researchers challenging his theory which asserts that infinite shelf space drives customer demand into the niches. The latest attempt is by 2 Wharton professors, who, using Netflix data, observe that the Long Tail effect is not ironclad. Sometimes it's present, sometimes it's not. Anderson disputes their findings. The argument boils down to the definitions of the "head" and "tail" of the markets being studied. Anderson defines them in absolute terms (say the top 100 products), whereas the Wharton team defines them in terms of percentages (the top 1 %).

I've been fascinated with the Long Tail concept since the beginning, as it potentially represents a continued evolution of video choice; over-the-air broadcasting allowed for 3 channels originally, cable then allowed for 30, 50, 500, now broadband creates infinite shelf space. Independent online video producers and their investors have bet on the Long Tail effect working for them to drive viewership beyond broadcast and cable. With Nielsen reporting hours of TV viewership holding steady, we haven't yet seen cannibalization. However, with Nielsen, comScore and others reporting online video consumption surging, audiences may be carving out time from other activities to go online and watch.

Enjoy your weekends! There will be no VideoNuze on Monday as I'll be observing Yom Kippur.

Following are 4 news items worth noting from the week of Sept. 7th:

1. Hulu's boss says it needs to charge for content - Bloomberg ran a story this week quoting Chase Carey, deputy chairman of News Corp (Fox's owner, and therefore a part-owner of Hulu) as saying at a BofA investor conference, "Ad-supported only is going to be a tough place in a fractured world....You want a mix of pay and free."

VideoNuze readers know that while I've admired Hulu's user experience from the start, I've long been critical of its thin ad model, which falls well short of generating revenue/program/viewer parity with traditional on-air program delivery. That lack of parity has caused Hulu's owners to cordon off access to Hulu on TVs for most viewers. But the networks' fear of cannibalizing their own P&Ls only frustrates loyal Hulu users, who neither understand nor care about such legacy concerns. All of this and more led me months ago to conclude a subscription offering is inevitable from Hulu. The impending TV Everywhere launches, which further marginalize ad-only business models, and now Carey's public remarks, solidify my thinking. We'll soon see some type of Hulu subscription tier.

2. Move Networks notches a win with Cable and Wireless deal - Score one for Move Networks, which this week announced Cable and its first tier 1 telco customer. Move enables C&W to deliver an HD, linear multichannel video service, plus on-demand and broadband content to its broadband customers, all through existing DSL connections. Move's repositioning, which I wrote about recently, obviates telcos' need to invest billions in upgrading their networks to get into the IPTV business. Indeed, Roxanne Austin, Move's CEO told me yesterday that C&W has for years considered all the various options for getting into video, but has never pulled the trigger until now. The deal covers up to 7 million homes and interestingly, rather than getting a license fee, Move will be paid a share of subscriber revenue. Roxanne says another big deal will be announced shortly.

3. iPod Nano gets video, battle with Cisco's Flip escalates - As you likely know, Steve Jobs unveiled the new iPod Nano this week, which incorporates an SD video camera. Following the iPhone 3GS adding video recording capability, I think it's pretty clear that Apple has decided video is the next big thing for its devices. As I suggested recently, Apple's embrace is going to drive user-generated video - and YouTube, as the undisputed home for it - to a whole new level.

But one wonders what this all means for Cisco's recently-acquired Flip video camera, and others from Creative, Sony, Kodak, etc? Cisco in particular has a lot on the line since it just shelled out almost $600M for Flip's parent Pure Digital. Granted Apple's devices are still SD, while Flip now emphasizes HD, but still, getting video recording "for free" as Jobs put it at the launch is pretty compelling for consumers. Even if the Flip deal doesn't work out as planned, Cisco will still be selling a whole lot more routers to handle all of this newly-generated broadband video, so it's a winner either way.

4. AT&T Wireless adding 3G capacity - In last Friday's "4 Items" post, I noted a great story the NY Times ran showcasing the frustrations that AT&T Wireless customers are experiencing due to the millions of data-intensive iPhones clogging up the network. AT&T has been hearing complaints from all sides, and this week announced 3G network upgrades in 6 cities this year, with plans to cover 25 of the top 30 U.S. cities by the end of next year, and 90% of its current 3G footprint by the end of 2011. These upgrades can't come soon enough for iPhone users. Meanwhile the company's YouTube video, featuring "Seth the blogger guy" explaining how AT&T is addressing network issues itself came under attack, as AdAge reported. There's no pleasing everyone.

Enjoy the weekend!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think? Post a comment now.