Posts for 'ABC'

continue reading

continue reading

In fairness, Hulu Plus has been live for less than 60 days and will no doubt will be adding more content down the road. But for now the high proportion of free availability diminishes the Hulu Plus value proposition for Hulu.com users considering an upgrade. In addition, the relatively small amount of incremental episodes risks inducing churn, particularly for heavy users most familiar with the service, as they come to realize much of what they've paid to watch is actually available for free. Compounding the problem, Hulu Plus viewers see the same quantity of ads as do free Hulu.com users, so there's no ad-avoidance benefit to subscribing either.

continue reading

Reading this morning's WSJ story, "Google TV Is a Tough Sell Among Would-Be Partners," you get the impression that broadcast TV networks are viewing Google TV as a potential disruptor of their business models. While the networks should take time to fully understand Google's new product, plus assess additional work being asked of them (e.g. enhanced metadata) and how their programs will be incorporated in Google TV's UI, on the whole, broadcast TV networks should view Google TV as beneficial, not disruptive, to their digital distribution efforts.

continue reading

continue reading

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 52nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for March 5, 2010.

First up this week I discuss my post from this past Monday, "ABC.com is Now Achieving 'DVR Economics' for Its Programs," in which I described how ABC is now generating roughly the same revenue per program per viewer in online as it is when its programs are watched in DVR playback mode. Albert Cheng, EVP of Digital Media at Disney-ABC had explained to me last week that ABC recently concluded that since online and DVR are both "catch-up" opportunities, it was more appropriate to compare them to each other than to on-air.

Key to this logic is that ABC maintains a release window for its programs, with them being posted on the site 4-6 hours after broadcast. As a result, people who really want to see the program when it's first available still watch on-air (and may in fact re-watch online or via DVR). As long as there's an audience for broadcast, and online doesn't cannibalize it, the logic makes sense to me. Albert also explained that there's further upside in online through increasing the ad load, which is something ABC has experimented with.

Daisy picks up on that point, noting that CBS's Anthony Soohoo told her in an interview for Beet.tv that CBS is considering moving to a full ad load online because the online and on-air experience are converging, which suggests to them that viewers would tolerate more ads. We dig into the interplay between online and DVR usage, which I think is increasingly going to be a key focus for networks in how they choose to monetize online viewing.

Wrapping up, we review what some of the social media "listening" sites that are tracking the Oscar predictions are saying. Daisy appears officially addicted to following the online chatter.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 41 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Last week while I was in LA I had a chance to sit down for an extended chat with Albert Cheng, EVP of Digital Media for Disney-ABC Television. Aside from general catch-up, I wanted to dig into a comment I'd heard Albert make at the recent NATPE conference - that full-length programs on ABC.com are now achieving "DVR economics."

The comment caught my attention because, as I've written a number of times, I've been concerned that the broadcast networks' streaming initiatives (and Hulu specifically) could be undermining their traditional business models. The main reason for this is that the ad load in streaming programs is a small fraction vs. what it is in on-air. If all online viewing is incremental to on-air that wouldn't matter. But despite certain research that suggests online doesn't cannibalize on-air, for some viewers who have long since transitioned to time-shifted consumption, it surely does. More importantly, as convergence devices that link broadband to TVs gain penetration, the choice for viewers of how to watch a particular program - via online or via on-air - gets even more pronounced, putting further pressure on on-air.

Albert explained that ABC has been closely following the economics of programs' different viewing methods and recently concluded that it was more appropriate to compare online's economics to DVR's economics than to on-air's. Their reasoning is that because online is a "catch-up" medium it should be weighed against other comparable opportunities, not against on-air. Importantly, ABC "windows" the online release of its programs by 4-6 hours, so that hard-core fans who have to watch immediately will skew to on-air, rather than waiting. (Of course the question arises - in our increasingly on-demand, time-shifted world, how sizable is the "must-see" audience for all but the most popular programs like "Lost?" But that's a question for another day.)

When looked at this way, ABC believes online delivery compares favorably to DVR. No surprise, Albert would not disclose ABC's revenues or research, but he did give me a wink-and-a-nod when I shared my estimate that the on-air revenue per program per viewer is in the $.50-$.75 range (of course specific programs and specific episodes are above and below this range). To be clear, this only means the revenue generated is in this range. Because of bathroom breaks, channel flipping, viewers chit-chatting, etc. obviously not all of the ads are actually viewed.

Estimating the revenue per program per viewer range for DVR playback, given its attendant ad-skipping, is more complicated. Ad-skipping is surely high, but it's unclear exactly how high. For example, last Nov, the NY Times reported Nielsen research that somewhat remarkably showed that 46% of viewers age 18-49 still watched a program's commercials when in DVR playback mode. A different story is told by TiVo, which released data last Sept saying that for the programs that won the top Emmy awards, somewhere between 55-83% of the audience viewing these programs in DVR mode skipped the ads.

Just to round off, if we say that 60% of the ads in DVR playback are skipped, then DVR economics - and therefore ABC.com's economics - are in the $.20-$.30 range on a per program per viewer basis (i.e. 40% of $.50-$.75). Even on the low side of that range, that's better than my previous estimate of $.15 per program per viewer for Hulu in particular (which in reality was probably a little high anyway).

Further, Albert said that there's plenty of room for improving online's economics. One key focus is increasing the ad load, possibly to as much as double the current 5 ads per program. ABC.com has experimented with this and its research shows that neither the viewer nor the advertiser experience is diminished. As a result, ABC is inclined to increase the ad load to continue improving online economics further, but is somewhat constrained by advertisers' desire to minimize clutter and their own desire to remain consistent with non-ABC sites' ad loads.

Online distribution of full-length programs is still in its relative infancy. Yet as consumers hunger for it, broadcast networks have little choice but to provide it. The key is how to make this new delivery method profitable and also not harmful to the traditional network P&L. The use of windows for example, seems like an effective tactic insofar as there exists an audience intent on watching a program the moment it's shown on-air. Based on last week's conversation with Albert, along with prior ones, it seems like ABC is balancing things well - taking steps to pursue online, but doing so in a well-researched and analytically sound manner.

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 30th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for September 4, 2009.

This week Daisy shares more detail from her most recent New Media Minute, concerning what broadcast networks are doing this Fall with online video extensions of their shows. For example, CW is launching an original series in conjunction with "Melrose Place." ABC is doing a 3rd season of an "Ugly Betty" web series and a tie-in for "Lost." CBS is launching its first web series, via TV.com, with Julie Alexandria, focused on recapping highlights from various shows. Daisy notes that these efforts are focused mainly on marquee shows and when advertisers are already on board.

In the 2nd part of the podcast we discuss my post from yesterday, "2009 is a Big Year for Sports and Broadband/Mobile Video." In that post I observed that many big-time sports, and the TV networks that have the rights to televise them have realized this year that broadband and mobile distribution are friend, not foe. As a result they've rolled out many different initiatives. We also touch on the various lessons other content providers can take away from what's happening with sports and broadband/mobile distribution.

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Last Monday, in "Netflix's ABC Deal Shows Streaming Progress and Importance of Broadcast TV Networks," I tried making the case that from Netflix's perspective, in order for its Watch Instantly streaming service to succeed, it would most likely need to strike more deals with the broadcast TV networks (as it announced with ABC).

Now how about the flip side of the question: how can broadcast TV networks make online video payments a significant revenue stream?

There is certainly no lack of interest by broadcasters in getting paid for online access to their content. For example, CBS has joined Comcast's TV Everywhere trial, and its CEO Leslie Moonves has been outlining his arguments for why cable's authentication plans should generated new revenue for the network. News Corp head (and Fox owner) lately Rupert Murdoch hasn't been shy about his interest in charging for content, though his first focus appears to be on newspapers. And Disney CEO Bob Iger (and ABC owner), recently told the WSJ, "People are going to pay for content. We are not worried about that." Meanwhile NBC's Jeff Zucker is trying to reposition NBCU as a cable network company (i.e. one that sells ads AND gets paid for its programs).

As I think through how broadcasters can succeed with getting paid, I keep returning to 3 core beliefs: first, broadcasters' efforts should not be undertaken individually, but rather through its joint initiative Hulu, second, the model needs to be subscription-based, not per program-based and third, the subscription service should be made in partnership with incumbent video service providers (cable, satellite, Netflix, etc.) and convergence device makers (Roku, Xbox, etc.).

Hulu has established a strong online brand, built a large audience and demonstrated online savvy. I have the most confidence in Hulu to be able to identify the differentiators needed to drive new value vs. free, including things like more timely access to hit programs, deeper libraries, higher quality streaming, options for downloading and mobile, etc. And assuming the federal government didn't step in and cry "collusion!" Hulu would provide the greatest negotiating leverage.

The key challenge for Hulu would be gaining the rights from the networks, producers, talent and others to launch such a comprehensive service. These stakeholders would be understandably wary, not knowing exactly how to value what they'd be providing.

Several months ago, I suggested a Hulu subscription service was in the offing, but so far Hulu has stayed on message, only emphasizing its free, ad-supported model. I hope it and its parents recognize that time is of the essence. With each passing day, as more people use Hulu ever more intensively, their expectations for free are being set, thereby raising the bar on their eventual willingness to pay. I do believe broadcast networks have any opportunity to evolve their business model and charge, but they must not dither. The online medium is still immature enough that they can influence its rules by acting now.

What do you think? Post a comment now.