Subscribe by Email

Your email:

Industry Trends

A flood of video is about to be released over the Internet.  There will be room for many players, but after an initial euphoric land-grab, there will be a wave of consolidation following this inundation, as not all boats will rise with this tide.  

How many streaming video sites will be supported?  I can't conceive a reason that the hundreds existing video delivery plaforms, services and ASP's will survive as independent companies.  However, video curation sites will proliferate biologically.   Syndication will multiply like spors.  Monitization and user revenue streams will be incurable viral explosions.   S/He who understands the key components of online video media delivery will prosper:  quality, long-form, player in background, no hardware or software to buy, syndication and user inputs for valuable consideration, and free with fee options video streams, as well as download to buy options.  Security and privacy will also be central concerns, addressed by the best of these services.

KlikVU Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Disintermediation of TV? Implications for Broadcasters

Posted by Lowell Klikvu on Mon, Jul 21, 2008 @ 04:05 PM
Digg digg it | Reddit reddit | del.icio.us del.icio.us | StumbleUpon StumbleUpon 
 

When a business broker or intermediary finds its relevance questioned, the implication is existential.  If someone can go around him/her, and thereby save money, it won't be long before a trickle becomes a torrent.  However, technology until now has been accommodating of new developments.  Radio supplemented newspapers; TV did not kill radio, etc.  Yet in a world where newspapers are broken and the industry is consolidating and shrinking rapidly, where the music business is adrift, what are the implications for TV?  Never before have ‘old media'  been considered a broker or intermediary, until now.  That's what scares the wits out of folks.

Asia (ICCTV, China NetComm CHA, China Telecom CN) in China, in Korea (KBS, MBC, C3TV) in India (Doordarshan,  Indiavision,  NetGuruIndia) seems to be leading the trend which we see developing sooner rather than later in the US.  Europe is following close behind, and is rich in broadcast and technology providers.

As the US is transitioning to Digital TV (Globecomm {KlikVU's Partner}, Cisco, Broadstream Communications) media distribution questions are timely. How fast will CPM rates come down in TV, and go up online?  What will be the likely transition in rural America between traditional broadcasters and new telephone company services? How likely is the competition between new telco services, traditional cable, satellite and new outlets and OTT, and what are the probabilities? What role will wireless play in this transition?

Already, online video ads are fetching more than traditional TV ($35 CPM vs. $45 for online video ads), primarily due to the increased audience metrics and the ability of OTT video providers to precisely target viewers.  But upfront sales of TV advertizing are higher this year than last; the fear is that returns on the $billions spent by NBC for Olympic broadcast rights will be diluted by infringing Internet distribution from China.  This is a dynamic, confused market, in which signals are crossed and contradictory.  Consumer behavior is more unpredictable than ever, and technology advances have profound and quick effects on that behavior (viz. the iPhone.)

Telephone companies are in the TV business in a big way now.  Cable is already responding with ‘triple play' telephone offerings in response.  Satellite and wireless have both entered the fray.  The net result?  The pricing of telephone calling is being compressed, and the competitive local exchange carriers will have to enter the IPTV business to hold onto their profits.  And the need for a good mix of specialized content will be critical for IPTV and others to gain subscribers and retain them.

Wireless companies can compete by enhanced value-added services as well as even entering the traditional land-line business, for example. 

Old-school observers say something like: 

"The major barrier to entry is getting a set-top box installed in a significant number of households.  (The reality is that U.S. households are not going to watch movies on their computers.)  The companies that already have a set top box installed with a HD, have an enormous advantage: The cable companies (DVRs) Microsoft - Xbox 360 Sony - PS3, TiVo?

The other companies that stand a chance in this arena are companies that have big early adopter customer bases:  Apple, Netflix, Amazon..."  - John Campbell

Industries are colliding in a remake of TV and other digital content providers.  Cable, Satellite, TV, Hollywood and other media subsets are feeling the relentless pressure to rapidly evolve into new delivery models without traditional broadcast:  Over the Top (Internet) delivery.  See recent announcements by Amazon is launching their OTT streaming and downloading service soon, after they sunk over $100 million into Unbox and abandoned their distro deal with Netflix, who in turn recently announced their own OTT solution. 

The promise of upside for viewers in this massive economic disruption is multi-faceted:  lower pricing, more choice, better advertising models and community interaction and personalized services.   

TV may not go away, but its place in our society is morphing fast. 

There are many intertwined issues with complex relationships.  We invite comment.  This ongoing dialogue will be with us for quite some time.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

I just read "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore, and it surprised me how eloquently he was able to paint a picture of the way in which a participatory democracy could only have been dreamed of in the golden age of the printing press. Any opinionated citizen could get a pamphlet printed, and most concerned people would read it. He explains how radio, and then television, created a new phenomenon: a one-way monologue to replace the dialogue that had allowed our democracy to flourish. His ultimate point is that the web, and blogging in particular, currently holds the most promise in terms of restoring the conversation of democracy. I think part of what's failing, in television, is the one-way paradigm; I think people are suffering the fatigue of being "talked at" so much, and crave participation. Just spend an hour on youtube, and you can feel the hunger that's being satiated there. I think television will undergo a radical transformation, especially in terms of its economic model, and we may all end up with a true hybrid in the combination computer screen/television screen. IMHO, anyway.

posted @ Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:17 PM by Jeffrey Townsend


A recent analyst report from Parks Associates shows that over-the-top video (Internet streaming) will be connected to TV's (or flat screens) in a big way. Either laptops are being dedicated to home media systems, or Internet video is being displayed from the homeowner's set top box. Legacy cable operators will be accomodating video-over-DOCSIS as set-top-boxes with improved processing power are allocated greater channel allotments by cable operators. When that IP video is delivered from the operator's VOD server, you get QoS. When that video is from the Internet, there is no guarantee of quality, and not all Internet video serving is capable of high-quality full-screen TV-like viewing experience. Cable operators will still be the gatekeepers to the cable box, but Internet-direct threatens to steal viewers and ad revenue, propelling operators to get busy. Broadcast networks are reduced to the roll of content broker, buying from production companies and delivering viewers, so why would they limit their activity to their legacy network viewers when they clearly know how to exploit Internet and other distribution outlets? The age of everything-everywhere is closer than you think. But current leaders in new media delivery are typically focused on just one medium or just one format. Smart aggregators will emulate broadcaster brokering. Smart content owners will work with anyone they can to generate viewers. It takes a multi-platform aggregator to exploit the opportunities, protect, and monitize content to the benefit of the production community such that revenues can sustain production. There are dozens of individual vendors that would take your content and serve it their way, but one-note vendors, such as Netflix playing only to Netflix subs and on the low-res Roku box, misses millions of laptop users around the world, and misses set-top-box users in cableTV and IPTV systems. Should content owners manage these various platforms themselves? It's a moving target as distribution opportunities evolve, and cross-platform requires multiple formats, each optimized, not just transcoded from a legacy format, especially if you plan to fill that large flat screen. Various billing, playback, DRM, and customer service solutions should be both tailored to various outlets, and standardized for a consistent user experience, so as to generate consumer confidence that promotes an impulse pay-per-view purchase, or assures an advertiser of a proper showing of the ad.

posted @ Monday, August 18, 2008 12:02 PM by Chip Ruhnke


Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Receive email when someone replies.