« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
November 30, 2005
IPTV now means Initial Projections Takeoff Vorldwide
IPTV to reach nearly 10% of European pay-TV market by 2009.
A report from Screen Digest says that IPTV will provide a significant challenge to the established satellite and cable operators in Europe. The pay report provides a European overview and individual country chapters.
The stats make me wonder about the non-competive corporate DNA within Europe's cable companies. But the take away is this: IPTV is technologically good enough and all it needs to succeed is a reason for consumers to opt into it. France, Italy, and Spain appear to have those reasons.
(excerpts from InformITV)
'... the total number of [IPTV] subscribers in Europe will rise from 658,000 today to reach 8.7 million. The number of subscribers to European IPTV services increased by 66 per cent in the first six months of 2005.
'The three main operators in France currently have 280,000 subscribers between them, but that number is forecast to rise to 2.4 million in 2009. IPTV will have a 9.4 per cent share of the European pay TV market by 2009. In Italy that figure will reach 20 per cent, followed by 17 per cent in France and 16 per cent in Spain.'
“Although some technical and content issues have yet to be resolved, the combination of compelling, competitively priced triple-play offers that include true video-on-demand will prove a winning formula,” said Daniel Schmitt, author of the [Screen Digest] report. “Many traditional pay television providers are finding that they too must adopt IPTV technologies in order to remain competitive.”
Multimedia Research Group forecasts that IPTV services will reach 36.9 million subscribers worldwide in 2009. MRG says that the number of IPTV networks with more than 100,000 subscribers will grow from five to over 40, including eight networks with over a million customers.
According to a report from Infonetics Research, 53 million households worldwide will be watching television over broadband by 2009.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 29, 2005
Google Video provides interviews with Hollywood elite
 |
Google has teamed with the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Foundation to make the Foundation’s Archive of American Television interviews available for free viewing on Google Video.
Interviews include Alan Alda, Sid Caesar, Diahann Carroll, Ossie Davis, Phyllis Diller, Michael J. Fox, Andy Griffith, Robert Guillaume, Florence Henderson, Angela Lansbury, William Shatner, Dick Van Dyke, Betty White, James Garner, Dick Wolf, Steven Bochco, Dick Clark, Sherwood Schwartz, Norman Lear, Grant Tinker, David Wolper, Carl Reiner, James Burrows, John Frankenheimer, Bob Mackie, Gene Reynolds and Ted Turner.
“The Foundation’s Archive of American Television is probably the most diverse, complete and fascinating resource of its kind. The stories are told through the eyes of the creative geniuses – in front of and behind the cameras – who shaped and continue to shape television into the most powerful medium in the world,” Steve Mosko, Chairman of the Television Academy Foundation, commented.Posted by Martino Mingione at 05:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
The Traditional Television Business Model and Video on Demand
Ultimately, there are two immovable parties in television: the people who create something worth watching and the audience. Without either, there is not much a business. Everyone else is an intermediary: broadcasters, networks, stations, cable operators, satellite providers, Internet TV portals, telco’s, television guides, set top box makers, etc. These intermediaries exist only so long as they fulfill a function that cannot be economically replaced with some viable alternative.
In the picture below, the important takeaway is that when well established rules exist, each party is free to seek a business advantage without owning the whole ecosystem. For example, the networks know that most of their revenue comes from the $27B in national ad revenue with their main expense being the studios. TV stations allocated ad inventory to compete for part of the $25B in spot advertising with their expenses being station management. Cable companies get 88% of their revenue from subscriptions with 12% coming from an additional $5B in spot advertising. Their primary expenses are plant operations and network carriage fees.
The picture is a generalization of the business. Each sector (broadcast, cable, and satellite) have unique specifics. Some companies participate in multiple boxes. NBC, for example, has some studios, is a network, and owns 13 stations. IPTV will look more like cable when it is deployed.
The best content still comes from the traditional studio mechanism. Until studios test changes to their business model, broadcast and cable networks like CBS and USA (for example) will still loom large. Recent news indicates that the networks are leveraging this power by looking only for incremental revenue streams through new distribution channels. In terms of the picture above, they test system operator changes; put 100% dependence upon viewer fees for revenue; and ignore advertiser subsidization.
The last few weeks have seen a host of business deals aimed at making it easier for television viewers to watch shows whenever and wherever they choose. These new arrangements include NBC and CBS's plans for 99-cent video-on-demand and Apple's iPod link-up with ABC for $1.99 per episode.
The Apple iPod deal with ABC tests one possible idea about how mobile, non-linear viewing might be monetized. Apple is a new player in the equation, but what they are testing is the use of their iTunes web site as an alternative distribution mechanism, replacing the stations and cable companies. Their iPod is a replacement for the television itself. Expect more things like this as cell phones gear up for big offerings next year.
The CBS deal is the same experiment sans the word ‘mobile.’ It too is an experiment that keeps the existing network fully in control of the non-linear viewing process. CBS still airs it popular content on linear television, still collects significant ad revenue from advertisers, and uses Comcast’s VOD servers as an alternative distribution mechanism.
The Wall Street Journal points out that “these pacts might give the networks added leverage in their contention that they should be compensated by cable and satellite companies who distribute the broadcasters' signal into the vast majority of U.S. homes.”
… “For years, broadcasters and local television stations have been frustrated that cable carriers shell out fees to … cable networks based on the number of subscribers … but pay nothing to transmit the signals of ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS... So, for example, big cable companies like Time Warner Inc. or Comcast pay 55 cents to General Electric Co.'s USA Network for every household that receives the cable signal.”
The gist of their article is that these experiments are supposed to give the networks leverage in eventually extracting carriage fees from Comcast and Time Warner. The article fails to mention that USA Network also turns over to the cable companies 2 minutes per hour for local ad insertion – something that ABC, CBS, and NBC would never accept.
But if the WSJ is correct about the broadcaster’s thinking, then that strategy misses out on the real opportunity: determining how Comcast and CBS might eventually scrap the whole carriage fee idea that works only in linear television. In its place they could put a new arrangement that splits up non-linear advertising dollars amongst the parties.
The entrepreneur in me keeps a close eye on the ABC and CBS experiments because what they are really testing is whether the viewer is willing to pay ever more money to watch non-linear video. I suspect that both experiments will fail to create any enduring revenue streams. But the unintended success might be in forging the business relationships between powerhouse broadcasters and cable companies VOD distribution.
This step is necessary to support a sustainable business model for non-linear television. If I had to sum up what is missing before VOD can take off it is this: the parties do not yet know how to seek a business advantage without owning the whole ecosystem. This is in sharp contrast to the linear model.
What's apparent is that consumers appear to be clear winners, as competing sides of the entertainment industry jostle for their attention. But the group most ignored in the debate is the one that theoretically could gain the most from the shift in how consumers watch television: writers and producers. Traditionally this group negotiates with networks for distribution. The networks really are a branding and promotion business that assumes the risks associated with advertising by shifting it off of the producers. A truly radical change to the business model will occur when they begin experimenting in new ideas.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 08:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackWhat we have here is a failure to communicate
The advertising business is in a transition that no one fully understands or controls. The advent of Internet Television and the Internet giants entering into video on demand, it is useful to see what each company is doing vis-a-vis traditional commercials.
Yahoo is a company loaded with executives from the media sector. Google is a company loaded with engineers. Here are two recent quotes from the companies as it pertains to television advertising.
“Advertising was not a business built by logic, and we don’t work by algorithm,” said Wenda Harris Millard, Yahoo’s chief sales officer. “Yes, we need to be more accountable, but that doesn’t mean you sacrifice art and creativity.”
Eric Schmidt acknowledges that as Google explores moving into television, it may well face a conflict between its core belief that advertising must be useful and the typical television commercial that is “based on feeling and emotion.”Posted by Martino Mingione at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 25, 2005
MPAA reveals plans to jail its best customers
Just before Thanksgiving, I wrote a post called MPAA: 'This week we created a great plan, next week we allocate resources to revise the plan'. I came across another MPAA story from earlier in the month at IP Democracy entitled Grandfather Sued for Grandson's Movie Downloads.
 |
(excerpts from the IP Democracy post)
... MPAA has filed suit against a 67 year-old grandfather whose grandson downloaded four unauthorized films from the web. The MPAA [is] seeking as much as $600,000 in damages for [the] four movies ... three of which the family already owned on DVD.
Hollywood filed suit after Lawrence, who had no knowledge of his 12 year-old grandson’s activities, couldn’t afford to pay the $4,000 settlement fee the MPAA sought.
“I can see where they wouldn’t want this to happen, but when you get up around $4,000 … I don’t have that kind of money,” Lawrence said. “I never was and never will be a wealthy person.”
If Lawrence couldn’t afford to pay the $4,000, I wonder how MPAA plans to collect its $600,000 if it wins the case. No matter. There are plenty more elderly people, not to mention widows and orphans, for Hollywood to sue.
A review of the 1990's AT&T business plan shows an overlooked section to compete against itself
You gotta like the irony in this situation: Comcast buys AT&T Cable to become the prodominant provider of cable television in the U.S. Fast forward to 2005 and what's left of AT&T is being paired with SBC with the emphasis on creating a new IPTV infrastructure to compete against Comcast.
 |
Comcast reaches 21,477,000 households today. SBC estimates that its new services could reach 18,000,000 of the current SBC-AT&T 36 million households in nearly three years. Comcast's numbers are here-and-now while SBC's indicate a market potential.
AT&T execs say the company can deliver 1,000 or more channels of TV within 18 months, and their video plans include targeted TV advertising, TV via cell phone and video on demand.
Yahoo, which has been working with SBC on search technology and advertising, will continue working with AT&T.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackKeep throwing spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks
Here are 3 ideas that marketers are trying to fight the ad-skipping technology built into our DVR's. I suppose of this list, the 5-second spot at the end of a commercial break makes the most sense. For the advertisers, that has a major limitation: there are only 4 to 6 of those in any given hour!
(excerpts from the Wall Street Journal)
... marketers are worried about new technology that allows viewers to zap through commercials. So they are pushing reluctant networks to rethink the age-old format of the ad-break -- known on Madison Avenue as a "pod."
Among the options: special "pod-puncher" ads -- blips as short as five seconds -- strategically positioned at the end of a commercial break to get more attention from viewers. At the other extreme, marketers are working on ads lasting several minutes, as well as groups of ads that mirror a program's theme.
... Selling individual premium positions, the networks have held, would complicate an already complex system.
... To get its five-second ad on the air -- the one appearing at the precious end of the pod -- AOL also had to buy 30- or 60-second spots to run in the same pods. ...
... Some ad firms are coming up with novel proposals for their clients. These include grouping several commercials together in a single pod to play off the theme of the program. For example, a rental-car company might band together with a hotel chain to air their ads together during a program about travel...
Other possibilities: running never-before-seen footage for a movie during an ad break, or showing multiple ads over several pods that add up to tell a single story ...
Posted by Martino Mingione at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 23, 2005
MPAA: 'This week we created a great plan, next week we allocate resources to revise the plan'
There is only one way to fight illegal P2P networks; start offering a value added legal service that consumers embrace. I am a simple guy, so my definition of "value added" is this: fast downloads, dependable delivery, good quality, and no fuss. You do that, why not pay a small fee for P2P delivery of video?
Forbes had an article today that helps point out why the MPAA might be more interested in PR and is not focused on real solutions.
(excerpts from Forbes)
 |
It sounds great: The guy behind the software that moves a good portion of illegally swapped movies and TV shows through the Internet hooks up with the studios that make the movies and TV programs.
That is what Bram Cohen, creator of BitTorrent software, and the Motion Picture Association of America, Hollywood's lobbying arm, said. Just listen to the press release: "The announcement today is historic in that two major forces in the technology and film industries have agreed to work together."
... But if Hollywood is looking for a way to solve its online piracy problem, this isn't it.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that Cohen can't do a thing to stop folks who want to use his software to swap copyrighted files, no matter how well intentioned he is...
Even folks who use Cohen's official software ... aren't necessarily affected by the agreement. Only users who use a search engine Cohen installed earlier this year will notice a difference, because Cohen has agreed to take down links to pirated files...
So what does the deal really mean? For Cohen, who just recently transformed himself from a programmer with no interest in business into an entrepreneur who has received $8.75 million [in venture capital], it means he can operate his company without being sued by a Hollywood studio...
... NBC Universal has already struck a deal with privately held Wurld Media to begin using peer-to-peer software to distribute some of its films beginning next year. ... [this] could ultimately mean that consumers could pay less for an Internet download than they would through other outlets.
"We could literally take a 1 gig piece of video and sell it for 10 cents and make money," says Wurld Media Chief Executive Greg Kerber. "You can't do that with conventional electronic distribution."
November 22, 2005
Earth to America on Internet TV
AOL began offering the TBS comedy special, "Earth to America," on-demand free-of-charge on its Web portal. The special stars aline-up of high-profile comedians Jason Alexander, Jack Black, Rob Corddry, Cedric The Entertainer, Bill Maher and Julia Louis-Dreyfus and other celebrities (Leonardo DiCaprio, Dustin Hoffman and Conan O'Brien). The show is intended to raise awareness of environmental issues. It aired on TBS.
The broadband VOD version of the special is available through the end of the year. Supposedly, it includes material that was not used in the broadcast version, and is also divided into segments, so that viewers can go directly to the acts and performers that are of most interest to them.
Infonetics Forecasts IPTV Revenue
Research firm Infonetics Research predicted that worldwide IPTV revenue will hit $44 billion by 2009 with 53 million subscribers.
I don't mean to be a party-pooper, but that is a tad high in my book. Instead of picking on the 53M subscriber number, let's look at the revenue per subscriber in their assumption: $69+ per subscriber per month. The statements eminating from SBC and Verizon imply that they will compete on price against cable. That suggests that the television component of their packages will probably start in the mid-$30 per month range.
SBC: 40 down, 109,999,960 to go
During a UBS Warburg LLC analysts conference, SBC CTO John Stankey said that they hope to launch SBC's IPTV service beyond San Antonio in late second-quarter 2006.
While initial testing in 40 homes is complete, Stankey said, SBC is waiting on several product issues to be resolved before heading to a full rollout. There is one more release of software from Microsoft he added, which will give us the full feature set, including HDTV services.
SBC is also waiting for its two chip vendors, STMicroelectronics and Sigma Systems Canada Inc., to complete system-on-a-chip-set design and integrate the technology with set-top vendors Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc.
Once that's done, "we'll get a far better price point than our cable competitors," Stankey said.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 09:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 21, 2005
Verizon: 'Can you see me now?'
IP Democracy is reporting that Verizon is ready next week for its second market launch; this time the DC exurb of Herndon. This market puts them in competition with cable provider Cox Communications. The first market launch was in Keller, TX.
"Verizon is undercutting the prices charged by incumbent cable operator Cox, charging $39.95/month for its main package of more than 175 music and video channels; $12.95/month for a basic package of 15 to 39 local broadcast and community channels, and $32.95 for a bilingual package of nearly 140 channels."Posted by Martino Mingione at 09:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 20, 2005
Chambers: 'We almost forgot that video was part of the Quadruple Play!'
Cable operators are entering a cycle of network and set top box upgrades to deliver advanced video services. Telco’s also have begun building entirely new infrastructures for video entertainment. This cycle is projected to grow from $3.6 Billion in 2004 to $9.9 Billion in 2009. That is a compound annual growth rate of 22%!
Is there any doubt why Cisco would be interested in filling in its missing element -- video -- from its far-reaching effort to penetrate the consumer market? There is no way for them to buy Motorola, the largest provider of set boxes, so they picked up the number two player instead.
(below are excerpts from the Wall Street Journal, read the entire article)
The networking giant's $6.9 billion deal to buy Scientific-Atlanta gives Cisco a line of widely used TV set-top boxes as well as server systems used by cable operators to distribute programming. The technology and customer relationships could help Cisco sell products to carriers developing "quadruple-play" services, a term for offerings that encompass voice, video, Internet and wireless, the companies said.
 |
"It's both a consumer play and a service-provider play, and a growth opportunity outside the U.S., where Scientific-Atlanta did not have as strong a presence," said John Chambers, Cisco's chief executive officer, in an interview.
Cisco … mainly sells its networking devices to corporations and phone carriers. But the company also sells hardware that cable companies use to provide Internet access. In addition, it sells products such as wireless-access devices directly to consumers, since its 2003 acquisition of Linksys Group Inc.
Those technologies, combined with Scientific-Atlanta's expertise, could help Cisco exploit the conversion of video into the format used on the Internet. That evolution can make today's cable systems more efficient, as well as bypass such video-only networks to allow the delivery of programming over the Internet...
While Scientific-Atlanta will be largely operated independently, the two technical teams will work closely together, the companies said
Scientific-Atlanta sued over Cisco deal
Complaints allege that set-top box maker agreed to an "inadequate" takeover price.
November 24, 2005
November 19, 2005
People, do you really know how to use your DVR?
The phrase 'time shifted' television is what happens when people record their favorite shows onto a DVR and watch them later. In my household, it is probably fair to say that over 90% of television is time shifted and we skip the ads whenever possible. But, recent evidence suggests that this practice is not widespread.
In a CBS study, DVR users estimated that they time shift 40% of their TV viewing. In a similar TiVo study, customers estimated their time-shifted viewing at 32%. However, in the recent Houston trial of Arbitron’s portable people meters (PPMs), a passive media measurement tool, DVR households only time-shifted 9% of their TV viewing. The PPM study also showed time-shifted viewing varied by household member.
That tells me that advertisers have far less to fear from the wide-scale adaption of DVR's across America. The alternative possibility is that people in Houston don't know how to use their devices yet! (just kidding, Houstonians). But just in case, I checked at Amazon.com and did find a book called TiVo for Dummies
Nielsen is already measuring time-shifted viewing in metered markets that don’t use local people meters, or LPMs. On Dec. 26, Nielsen will begin rolling out its active-passive meters, which detect time-shifted viewing.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 18, 2005
Robert Iger Believes Large-Screen Version Worth More Than $1.99
... or at least that is what he said during Disney's recent financial reporting. I think that he is in error, but this is what he believes:
 |
Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger doesn’t expect the media company’s recent decision to offer episodes of “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost” on Apple Computer’s iTunes store to cannibalize the company’s bread-and-butter broadcasting business. Instead, he said, he views the offering as an opportunity to generate incremental revenue.
“While the iPod is offering a wonderful experience, and the quality is sensational, people would not opt to watch a program on an iPod and not on a large screen,” Mr. Iger said during the company’s fiscal full-year earnings call. “We actually believe this is incremental consumption.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Iger appeared to signal that Disney would be interested in offering alternative forms of distribution of its content for the large screen, but that the price points would be higher for content broadcast on TV than the $1.99 per download currently being charged for “Lost” episodes on the iTunes service. His competitors, NBC and CBS, recently said they would charge 99 cents per show for their prime-time shows on VOD service.
“We have to consider the impact on large-screen platforms,” Mr. Iger said. “We should charge more for the large-screen experience than the [small-screen experience].”Posted by Martino Mingione at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 14, 2005
Connecting Dots
I was reading in AdAge about how ABC dropped 15% in weekly ratings after it began airing repeats of Desperate Housewives and Lost. This immediately reminded me of the recent Apple iPod announcement whereby viewers can pay $1.99 to download and view those same programs.
So, let's think about this. When consumers can watch reruns of those programs for free with convenience on their HDTV's, they stop watching in rather large numbers. But Steven Jobs is hoping that they will pay real money with some inconvenience to watch it on a small screen? I don't think so.
For anyone interested in why advertising is the mother's milk of the television business: the average cost of a 30-second spot in “Desperate Housewives” is $439,499, while the same ad in “Lost” costs buyers $333,166, according to Advertising Age’s fall pricing chart.
That's a lot of downloads.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 08:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackAOL Mail: "You've Got Horshack"
If Microsoft or Google strike a deal to buy AOL, I am doubtful that it would be for the entire entity. More likely any deal will be a partnership with Time Warner retaining a significant piece of AOL.
 |
As one piece of evidence: today AOL has announced that it will launch a free online television network in January called In2TV. By the end of 2006, the service will offer over 3,400 hours of archive programmes from 100 series of Warner Brothers productions in its first year.
“This builds on what has been our programming focus for many years and aligns well with our move to the open Web,” says Kevin Conroy, AOL Media Networks executive VP. “Our focus is on building a media business and driving advertising revenue.”
Now I ask you: would Time Warner (who owns both AOL and Warner Brothers) allow In2TV to air their WB content if they were not going to share on the revenue upside with a future partner?
The move fully embraces an advertising model. Conroy says the model likely will show four spots for each half-hour of content, with single 15- or 30-second spots. This strategy allows Time Warner to bring more content online faster. That, in turn, means more eyeballs, he says, to drive ad revenues and additional content.
“There are reasons that there were decades of ad-supported TV before there was the first pay channel,” Conroy says. “We firmly believe the ad model is the way to build a market and business.”
In2TV’s six original channels are
* LOL TV (comedies such as Welcome Back Kotter, Perfect Strangers and Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper),
* Dramarama (Falcon Crest, Sisters and Eight Is Enough)
* Toontopia (animated shows like Beetlejuice and Pinky and the Brain)
* Heroes and Horrors (Wonder Woman, Lois & Clark: The Adventures of Superman and Babylon 5)
* Rush (action shows such as La Femme Nikita, Kung Fu and The Fugitive)
* Vintage (Growing Pains, F-Troop and Maverick)
Two channels will be added next year for reality shows and cancelled series, the latter perhaps becoming a clearinghouse for unseen programs.
For now, In2TV will have its strongest appeal with nostalgia buffs who miss those shows they can no longer find on TV. Noting that those shows, not surprisingly, were easiest to get the rights to, Frankel adds that newer programs will soon be in the fold.
“In six or eight months, we’ll have shows that are playing on popular cable networks or have recently come off a network,” he says. “We’ll be getting deeper into the mix.”
December 8, 2005
Apparently, NONE of AOL is for sale. Read IP Democracy.
November 13, 2005
Hello? I can't talk now, I'm watching Lost
Back in the 90's, there was a venture capital clique that goes something like "a technology in search of a solution." As in so many areas of media, the fact that a technology exists to do something doesn't mean consumers will rush to adopt it. In the case of downloadable TV, it appears that they will not.
The U.S. market for downloadable TV is likely to remain tiny for many years, with relatively few cell phone users bothering to take advantage of the feature.
(excepts from Media Life Magazine)
According to a recent study from Mobinet conducted among 4,000 cell phone users in 21 countries. A joint venture between Cambridge University in Britain and the consulting firm A.T. Kearney in Chicago, Mobinet found that around the world just 15 percent of cell phone users were willing to pay to watch TV shows on their cell phones.
That figures rises among younger people. About 24 percent of cell subscribers under 25 years old told researchers they were willing to pay for content.
Among all those surveyed, 49 percent said their first choice would be news clips. Sports came in a distant second at 17 percent. Entertainment followed, with music videos at 16 percent, movies, 9 percent, and TV soap operas and reality shows, 8 percent.
These results are hardly surprising when you think about it, say the researchers. Who wants to watch a TV show on their cell phone?
“If you can wait until you reach your office or home, you are most likely not going to watch it on a cell phone. That’s why the applications that are time-sensitive, like news and sports, fit very well. There is a value to that.”
The study found that cell phone subscribers in North America were the least interested in TV content. Only 6 percent said they're willing to pay to download TV clips.
Of course, video features and the promise of a boatload of streaming ads on cell phones have long been talked about, but so far with little to show for it.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 08, 2005
Network Execs: "Record the show on your DVR for free, unlimited viewing, or pay us to add some restrictions."
Twin bombshells hit today and just when I was starting to wonder if VOD was going to die a slow death from lack of quality content. But given the ultra-cautious approach and limitations, we cannot categorically state that VOD is off and running. But, when big names find common ground, it just may eventually get us to VOD heaven.
First, NBC Universal hooked up with satellite operator DirecTV with an on-demand service that allows viewers to download prime-time shows commercial free for 99 cents. A few hours later, CBS announced its video-on-demand service through Comcast’s digital cable system.
The CBS-Comcast VOD deal leaves the national commercial spots embedded within the show's programming. That is an interesting placeholder that should keep viewers mindful of the need to let advertisers support the medium just as they have for some many decades. However, I can't help but wonder when the national spots are overrode with targeted ad inserts.
Broadcast networks have experimented with on-demand viewing in fits and starts, mostly offering the content for free through major Internet sites. CBS sibling UPN, for example, premiered “Everybody Hates Chris” on Google, and last year NBC aired the pilot of “The Office” on MySpace.com.
Since satellite does not do VOD too well, their new NBC programs will require DirecTV’s Plus interactive digital video recorder, which is their replacement for the TiVo DVR. DirecTV expects the new DVR to hit retailers next week. CBS’s VOD content will be available starting in January to Comcast’s digital cable customers living in markets with a CBS owned-and-operated station.
I don't think much will come of the NBC-DirecTV deal. Not only does it cost 99 cens but each episode is available a few hours after they initially air but only until the next episode airs. It would make sense for local viewers to use the DVR to tape the episode and watch it when they want.
According to a DirecTV spokesman, the company is talking to other networks and content providers hoping to reach agreements similar to the NBC deal. DirecTV has 15 million subscribers.
In the CBS-Comcast deal, the drama series "CSI" and "NCIS" will remain on the VOD server until the next episode airs. "Survivor," however, will be available as part of a library format through the duration of the shows' seasons. I guess that is a first step, but it too is lacking.
Casting some 'Illumination' onto Brightcove
Internet TV player Brightcove has hired several new advertising executives. Buried below the headlines is this little diddy:
(excerpts from Kevin Newcomb at ClickZ)
The new hires come as Brightcove takes the wraps off a relationship with Publicis Groupe Media Ventures, which has been helping it develop a business model that would fill the needs of advertisers.
The partnership, which began in May 2005, gives Brightcove access to Publicis Groupe media agencies and clients for strategic advice on things like ad formats, metrics, desired features and policies.
"In the last six months, we've gotten a variety of strategic input... We've been working closely with programmers who are preparing to launch these ad-supported broadband channels to understand their requirements, and we've been working closely with Publicis to understand what kinds of formats, metrics and policies are going to be meaningful to TV advertisers coming into this medium," said Jeremy Allaire, Brightcove's founder and CEO.
Brightcove has developed a platform to allow publishers of commercial video to distribute their content over the Internet using Flash. Smaller publishers can use a self-service interface, while larger ones will have access to more advanced tools used by traditional broadcasters. Publishers upload their video, categorize it with metadata tags, choose a design template, create graphic overlays with their brand or an affiliate's brand, and publish the Flash file.
Publishers will be able to monetize their content either by selling and serving their own ads, by running ads from Brightcove's ad network, or by selling their content for purchase or subscription. The Brightcove platform allows publishers to create customized video players to distribute on their own site, or on affiliate sites. Brightcove offers the production and syndication tools, and handles the billing and collection for the publisher.
Content owners can specify the ad behavior and policies. They can define policies for where ads appear, how frequently they are shown, and limit the maximum number of ads per session. Publishers can also choose to target ads by daypart, by geography, and contextually based on the metadata they supplied.
November 07, 2005
Full 'NBC Nightly News' Runs Online
NBC Nightly News is the first network evening-news show to run in its entirety online. The full 30-minute newscast is available at MSNBC.com (specifically, nightlynews.msnbc.com. At ABC and CBS, individual segments are available.
| Monthly Data for Sept 2005; U.S. Home & Work |
|
| Brand / Channel | Unique Audience |
| MSNBC | 26,381,000 |
| CNN | 26,010,000 |
| Yahoo! News | 25,632,000 |
| AOL News | 15,409,000 |
| NYTimes.com | 13,165,000 |
| Garnnet Newspapers | 12,859,000 |
| Source: Nielsen/NetRatings | |
The move acknowledges what many of us know already: that many viewers are simply unavailable to watch evening-news broadcasts in the current 6:30 p.m. time slot and have turned to the Web for news during the day.
While NBC’s show is the same, the ad lineup may look significantly different. MSNBC.com will add its own broadband commercial inventory rather than carrying the existing advertisers over from the broadcast.
November 06, 2005
Cablevision To Pay Big Dividend
We can likely do without this story, but it is just too interesting to wonder what is going on in the dysfunctional company called Cablevision. If it were not for the fact that the Dolan's have over 3 Million subscribers in the most highly desirable market of NYC, this company would be close to worthless.
By John M. Higgins -- Broadcasting & Cable, 11/2/2005 5:51:00 PM
Cablevision’s board authorized the company to move ahead with a massive $3 billion one-time dividend that would pay investors $10.25 per share in cash.
The move is remarkable, given that the company’s stock trades for around $25 per share. Talk of the dividend should help support Cablevision’s share price following the collapse of a plan by Chairman Chuck Dolan to take the company private. However, borrowing money and actually paying it out should ultimately reduce the price to around $15.
The dividend would pay the Dolan family that controls the company $600 million. Some investors are clamoring for the company to instead use its financial capacity to shrink the company’s equity base by repurchasing stock. But the primary beneficiaries would be arbitrageurs who bought Cablevision stock around $31 after the Dolans announced their deal and are now in tremendous financial pain since the deal collapsed.
Posted by Martino Mingione at 12:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackNovember 03, 2005
Ads by Google
In the recent Time Warner financial report was this comment:
"AOL reported 16% higher operating income, as higher online advertising offset a continued decline in the traditional Internet-access business. Time Warner Cable showed the benefit of consumers switching to high-speed services with a 17% increase in operating income."
We should recall that 12% of Google's SEM revenue comes from its deal with AOL. If AOL's financials are that much improved from online advertising, then so is Google's.
