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!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 41st edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for November 20, 2009.

This week Daisy leads off with thoughts on what the NFL is doing with both online and mobile video, based on her recent interview with Laura Goldberg, GM of NFL.com.

I then dig deeper into my post from yesterday, "YouTube Direct is Yet Another Smart Move" in which I explained why YouTube Direct, a new initiative which was unveiled earlier this week, makes a lot of sense for both YouTube and its content partners. I've been impressed with how YouTube continues to evolve away from its wild-west UGC roots, finding ways to add value for both its users and also for its partners. Listen in to learn more.

Click here to listen to the podcast (12 minutes)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

I continue to be impressed with how YouTube is evolving from an upstart UGC site, reviled by major media companies for its nonchalant approach to copyright, into a video platform with unmatched audience reach that can be leveraged in myriad useful ways. A great example is how YouTube is attempting to channel some of its users' recreational interest in video creation into more purposeful, and valuable, initiatives for 3rd party partners and brands. I wrote about the concept of "purpose-driven" user-generated content over a year ago and also recently cited YouTube's brand engagement contests.

Now, with "YouTube Direct," the company's latest initiative, unveiled earlier this week, news-oriented web sites can embed YouTube's upload functionality directly into their sites, giving them the ability to request videos directly from their audience members. YouTube Direct also gives the news organization a moderation panel so videos can be approved or rejected. For videos that are posted there's a link back to the organization's own site.

It's no secret that newsroom budgets have been under huge pressure, so the opportunity to access free video reporting should resonate with any organization seeking to bolster its coverage. There are different ways a news site can use YouTube Direct ranging from the CNN iReport model which invites users to upload whenever they see news happening to a more targeted approach of asking for video coverage of a certain event (e.g. a high-school football game or local election coverage) to soliciting video responses to news-of-the-day questions. In short, "citizen journalism" can have a lot of different flavors. YouTube Direct is already being used by NPR, Politico, ABC News, The Washington Post and others.

YouTube Direct capitalizes on the growing trend of consumers carrying pocket video recording devices. Whether a smartphone like the iPhone or Droid, a video camera like the Flip, or just a digital camera with video capability, more and more people are ready to shoot at a moment's notice. The prevalence of video devices is set to grow dramatically as smartphones proliferate.

The key to success is having a platform that's easy for news organizations to manage and for users to access. With tens of millions of individual user accounts, more and more devices that offer one touch "YouTube" uploading, and news organizations hungry for inexpensive video coverage, YouTube Direct has a lot going for it. What would make it even stronger would be ad insertion capability, more extensive video editing functions and integration with the news organization's social media applications. I expect all of these features will come over time.

YouTube Direct is another smart move by the company to change mainstream media's perception of it from foe to friend. Combined with Content ID, which allows media companies to manage and monetize user-uploaded videos, and the trial with FreeWheel to allow premium partners to sell their own ads, plus other initiatives, YouTube is well on the road to repositioning itself. From an outside observer's standpoint, the moves don't necessarily feel methodical or as well-communicated as part of a larger strategy, but they are producing dividends. This week's YouTube deal with Univision for full-length programs, which would have been unheard of not that long ago, is just the latest evidence.

With its share of all views continuing to hover around 40% and its monthly streams now exceeding 10 billion, YouTube has enormous reach to capitalize on. Figuring out how to tap its users' energies for the benefit of premium partners and brands should be a key objective.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

TV Everywhere is getting another shot of momentum this morning as thePlatform, one of the leading online video platform companies (and a subsidiary of Comcast) is rolling out new features aimed at giving TV networks greater control of their programs in the coming TV Everywhere world.

The key new feature is what thePlatform calls an "Authentication Adaptor," which is a mechanism for networks that want to offer their programs on their own web sites to authenticate users as current paying video subscribers of a multichannel video provider (recall that under current TVE plans it is a requirement to be a multichannel video subscriber in order to access programs online). The authentication adaptor works by instantly checking with appropriate multichannel providers' billing systems and returning a yes/no authentication response for that user.

If the user is authenticated, then the adaptor verifies that the specific program is available for viewing to that user, depending on what tier of service the user subscribes to. thePlatform does this by mapping each individual show to specific channels that each have an ID. The channel IDs are in turn mapped to the multichannel provider's subscription packages. For example if you were to try watching "Entourage" on HBO.com, but you didn't subscribe to HBO the linear channel via your service provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.), your request would be denied. As one can imagine, with the endless permutations of shows, networks, subscription packages and multichannel providers, linking all of this together and delivering fast response times to the user is quite a challenge.

What's also interesting here is that if indeed a request has been denied, a marketing opportunity has been created for both the TV network and the multichannel provider. In the Entourage example above, the denial message could be accompanied by offers to watch now on a pay-per-view basis or to instantly become a subscriber to HBO via Comcast, or to buy the DVD, etc. Or maybe the offer is just to watch free clips to improve sampling. thePlatform supports the creation of these types of rules and integration to appropriate 3rd parties. This is a great example of how TV Everywhere also opens up the instant-gratification online economy to networks and video providers.

The new features gain in importance as thePlatform is also announcing this morning more than 20 TV networks have recently become customers including Fox Sports Networks, E!, G4, Style, Comcast Sports Group (a group of regional sports networks), Travel Channel, Big Ten Network and others yet to be named. As TV Everywhere rolls out next year, TV networks will become increasingly interested in offering their programs themselves, in addition to offering access on their distributors' web sites.

Separate, thePlatform is also announcing today that it is working with Rogers, which is Canada's leading multichannel video provider, on an online video initiative. Though details aren't provided, Rogers recently disclosed that is also pursuing TV Everywhere, so it's probably logical to put two and two together. thePlatform also provides video management services to large American operators Cablevision, Cox, Time Warner Cable, in addition to parent company Comcast. Between the video provider deals and the TV networks deals, thePlatform finds itself squarely in the middle of the TV Everywhere action.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

EveryZing is changing its name to RAMP, and positioning itself around "Content Optimization." Ordinarily a name change signals a change in strategic or product direction, but in this case, as CEO Tom Wilde explained to me last week, the re-naming is neither. The change to RAMP unifies the company name with its platform name (plus descriptive extensions), and completes the evolution of the company as a consumer destination originally named PodZinger.

RAMP has continued to build out its platform since then, unveiling its "chromeless" MetaPlayer in Oct '08 that creates "virtual clips" so users can navigate to just the scene they're looking for, while content providers can maintain their existing business rules. Then earlier this year RAMP released "MediaCloud," which moved the metadata extraction process into the cloud, giving content providers the ability to manage the metadata themselves and deeply integrate it into their workflow and larger content publishing activities.

As metadata has become recognized as the currency underpinning content discovery and monetization, RAMP has added large customers, such as NBCU (also its lead investor), FOX, Meredith Publishing and others. RAMP's capabilities to handle all media types (video, audio, text and images) has become increasingly important as content providers realize that mixing and matching different assets is now required to provide audiences with the best experience. For the most advanced publishers, the days of siloing off video or audio are in the past.

In its new white paper, RAMP articulates well the fundamental shifts happening in the media business: the move away from "containers" (e.g. a magazine, album or newspaper) into content "objects" that users find, share and self-organize online; the trend toward syndication, where brand success is more about proliferating content everywhere on the web than attracting users to a specific destination site; the opportunity for content providers to enhance their monetization through dynamic contextual targeting rather than by simply selling eyeballs. Addressing these and other elements effectively is what RAMP calls content optimization.

Many of the themes RAMP espouses align with what I've been describing for a while now as the "Syndicated Video Economy." I only see these themes accelerating in importance as the supply of video escalates, devices proliferate and social media grows. With its flexible, SaaS platform that integrates well into other 3rd party content management and publishing platforms, I expect RAMP will continue to succeed as content providers become more sophisticated about how to operate online.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Yesterday's Multichannel News described a deal between MaxPreps.com and Comcast that shows how well broadband video and video-on-demand fit together, a notion I suggested earlier this year. In the deal, MaxPreps, a provider of high-school sports content (which is owned by CBS), is producing video content in the Houston market for exclusive distribution on Comcast's VOD system. The deal gives Comcast a local sports differentiator vs. satellite and telco competitors, while for MaxPreps it gives valuable access to TV viewers.

Gluing the parties together is Clearleap, a technology provider I last wrote about here. As Braxton Jarratt, Clearleap's CEO explained to me, MaxPreps uses a team of freelance videographers to shoot and edit the video. They're given access to dedicated Clearleap accounts so that they can upload the video for a local MaxPreps content manager to review their work.

The content manager uses Clearleap to make edits, set the release schedule, create playlists if desired, and approve the final package. Clearleap then transcodes the video to the appropriate format and pushes it to Comcast for general availability. Braxton said an hour-long football game could be live within 15 minutes for VOD viewing and that the deal was operationalized in just a few weeks, with very limited capex. In effect the process helps turn VOD into a dynamically programmed content outlet much the way we think of the web.

For those accustomed to working solely online, constant, near real time content updates are routine. But for anyone who has worked with VOD systems, which are characterized by long lead times to get content ingested, prepared and made live, this workflow is a breakthrough. In fact, the MaxPreps-Comcast deal and workflow provides a possible glimpse into how a hybrid broadband-VOD model could work in the future and again why incumbent video providers who already have a set-top box sitting in the living room enjoy certain advantages.

As I illustrated in last week's post about Comcast's results over the last 3 years, incumbent video providers are in a steel cage match for subscribers, particularly higher-spending ones who value digital options. Yet it has become exceptionally difficult to differentiate through exclusive content, as most channels now seek as wide distribution as they can get.

For cable companies, whose roots are in their local communities, local sports VOD content could be a meaningful point of difference. And sports are just a starting point. One can imagine local entertainment, events, and localized versions of national programs all created/managed via the web, but viewed by consumers on VOD. The key is having the technical ability to cost-effectively collect and manage the video, and then insert it into the VOD system.

If the MaxPreps-Comcast deal in Houston scales to additional territories, and Comcast rolls out additional VOD content, I expect other video providers will adopt a similar model.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Colin Dixon, senior partner at The Diffusion Group, and I will continue our complimentary webinar series, "The Terror of Technology II: Demystifying Broadband TV" today at 2pm ET/11am PT.

In today's session, Colin and I will discuss net neutrality and how it impacts online video. We're coming at this quite differently, so the webinar promises a spirited exchange of ideas. There will be ample time for audience Q&A. Please join us!

Click here to register

Talk about the big bang theory of PR: Sezmi, the next-gen video provider, is unveiling today a public pilot project in Los Angeles, pricing for its 2 tiers of service, and $25 million in additional financing. Dave Allred, Sezmi's SVP of Marketing and Product Management briefed me on the news last week.

Sezmi hit my radar 2 years ago, when, as "Building B," its co-founders Buno Pati and Phil Wiser began pulling back the curtains on a bold plan to create a full substitute for cable/satellite/telco TV service. Key to the company's plan was its "FlexCast" model for delivering video via digital broadcast and broadband networks, to a proprietary receiver which is packed with a terabyte of storage. Having seen multiple demos of the product, I've been consistently impressed with how it combines traditional linear TV with on-demand, broadband, DVR, personalization, social networking, advanced advertising and sophisticated navigation.

While Sezmi is the sleekest multichannel video experience I've seen, I've continued to be concerned about the following questions: Was the system technically sound and could it scale? Would the company overcome venture capitalists' nuclear winter to satisfy its fund-raising needs? Could it land a full complement of cable programming deals to offer a bona fide alternative to incumbent providers? Would Sezmi's eventual pricing live up to the company's assertions that it would be "substantially less" than today's providers? Today's announcements begin to answer those questions.

The pilot, which Dave says will be open to about a thousand LA-area residents will be the first time Sezmi will go beyond successful friends and family technical trials. The goals of the pilot are to do a final shakedown of the service before broader launch, test marketing collateral and start to scale up in advance of a Q1 rollout. The pilot will also begin a process of close scrutiny by consumers and competitors of how well Sezmi stacks up.

Pilot participants will get their service for free and be offered equipment discounts to continue after the pilot wraps up. Dave explained that going forward Sezmi plans to offer 2 tiers of service, a $24.99/mo "Supreme" option that includes all local broadcast channels in the LA market, many familiar basic cable channels (the pilot includes 23 channels, from Turner, NBCU, Discovery, Viacom and Rainbow), broadband programming from YouTube and others. Premium programming from networks like HBO, Showtime and Starz will be available on a subscription VOD basis (i.e. no linear feed will be available). A "Select" tier for $4.99/mo, which will carry just the broadcast channels. Subscribers to both tiers can either buy the equipment for $299 or lease it for $11-$12/mo (for each TV).

Sezmi's value-pricing will invite immediate comparisons to DISH Network, which has been the low-price leader in video services. On the other hand, Sezmi's next-gen technology approach will resonate most with early adopters. Dave said that the company's research consistently found a sweet spot of consumers interested in having DVR and HD capability, plus an integrated video system, but unhappy about paying $60-$70/mo, which is the typical monthly rate from cable/telco competitors once promotional discounts expire. Sezmi's belief is that people are "over-served" by today's providers and that by focusing on the basics, executing on them with a tech-forward but approachable solution and pricing aggressively the company will gain share. Its marketing strategy feels similar in some ways to what JetBlue has pursued in the airline industry.

Prospective customers will first focus mainly on Sezmi's content. As yet, Sezmi does not have deals with all the major cable programmers. Most prominently missing from the current list are the channels owned by Disney-ABC, Fox, Scripps and A&E. While its likely to assume Sezmi will eventually close those deals, until they do the company is playing with one hand tied behind its back (it's impossible to compete effectively without, for example, ESPN, Fox News or Food Network). The company's goal is to carry channels that account for 80-90% of consumers' actual viewing.

Sezmi will not have the full array of channels now available in HD. Dave explained that Sezmi's bandwidth constraints forced it to make choices. For some viewers that won't matter if the price is right; for others it will be a deal-breaker. Sezmi also will not be carrying linear feeds of premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz, instead focusing on offering them on a subscription VOD basis, plus offering thousands of pay-per-view movie titles. Lastly, Sezmi will have limited appeal for sports fans as it lacks content like NFL Sunday Ticket, RedZone, MLB packages and popular regional sports channels.

Still, Sezmi has a lot going for it. Beyond low price, the personalization features are likely to resonate most. Once Sezmi learns a user's profile, it automatically records programs, and organizes them into each family member's "Zone." Pressing the "mi" button on the remote provides a customized view of that particular content. Sezmi also seamlessly integrates broadband content, today from YouTube, but in the future from many others into the overall experience.

As I've described before, Sezmi's model is to partner with telcos, broadband ISPs and retailers for its go-to-market strategy (there's an unnamed partner involved in the pilot). There will be heavy marketing costs involved to educating the public about Sezmi's benefits, so partnerships are essential. While no names are being cited yet, Dave alluded to a number of key partners, who will be announced in January. I'd bet on AT&T for one, although anyone who wants to be in the video business likely will have a look at Sezmi as well, particularly those seeking to offer a triple play bundle.

Despite all the talk about over-the-top video and cord-cutting, Sezmi is still the only bona fide new competitor I'm aware of that could be a replacement for cable/satellite/telco services. The company still has a long road ahead of it, but today's announcements are solid evidence of its progress.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Talk about the big bang theory of PR: Sezmi, the next-gen video provider, is unveiling today a public pilot project in Los Angeles, pricing for its 2 tiers of service, and $25 million in additional financing. Dave Allred, Sezmi's SVP of Marketing and Product Management briefed me on the news last week.

Sezmi hit my radar 2 years ago, when, as "Building B," its co-founders Buno Pati and Phil Wiser began pulling back the curtains on a bold plan to create a full substitute for cable/satellite/telco TV service. Key to the company's plan was its "FlexCast" model for delivering video via digital broadcast and broadband networks, to a proprietary receiver which is packed with a terabyte of storage. Having seen multiple demos of the product, I've been consistently impressed with how it combines traditional linear TV with on-demand, broadband, DVR, personalization, social networking, advanced advertising and sophisticated navigation.

While Sezmi is the sleekest multichannel video experience I've seen, I've continued to be concerned about the following questions: Was the system technically sound and could it scale? Would the company overcome venture capitalists' nuclear winter to satisfy its fund-raising needs? Could it land a full complement of cable programming deals to offer a bona fide alternative to incumbent providers? Would Sezmi's eventual pricing live up to the company's assertions that it would be "substantially less" than today's providers? Today's announcements begin to answer those questions.

The pilot, which Dave says will be open to about a thousand LA-area residents will be the first time Sezmi will go beyond successful friends and family technical trials. The goals of the pilot are to do a final shakedown of the service before broader launch, test marketing collateral and start to scale up in advance of a Q1 rollout. The pilot will also begin a process of close scrutiny by consumers and competitors of how well Sezmi stacks up.

Pilot participants will get their service for free and be offered equipment discounts to continue after the pilot wraps up. Dave explained that going forward Sezmi plans to offer 2 tiers of service, a $24.99/mo "Supreme" option that includes all local broadcast channels in the LA market, many familiar basic cable channels (the pilot includes 23 channels, from Turner, NBCU, Discovery, Viacom and Rainbow), broadband programming from YouTube and others. Premium programming from networks like HBO, Showtime and Starz will be available on a subscription VOD basis (i.e. no linear feed will be available). A "Select" tier for $4.99/mo, which will carry just the broadcast channels. Subscribers to both tiers can either buy the equipment for $299 or lease it for $11-$12/mo (for each TV).

Sezmi's value-pricing will invite immediate comparisons to DISH Network, which has been the low-price leader in video services. On the other hand, Sezmi's next-gen technology approach will resonate most with early adopters. Dave said that the company's research consistently found a sweet spot of consumers interested in having DVR and HD capability, plus an integrated video system, but unhappy about paying $60-$70/mo, which is the typical monthly rate from cable/telco competitors once promotional discounts expire. Sezmi's belief is that people are "over-served" by today's providers and that by focusing on the basics, executing on them with a tech-forward but approachable solution and pricing aggressively the company will gain share. It's marketing strategy feels similar in some ways to what JetBlue has pursued in the airline industry.

Prospective customers will first focus mainly on Sezmi's content. As yet, Sezmi does not have deals with all the major cable programmers. Most prominently missing from the current list are the channels owned by Disney-ABC, Fox, Scripps and A&E. While its likely to assume Sezmi will eventually close those deals, until they do the company is playing with one hand tied behind its back (it's impossible to compete effectively without, for example, ESPN, Fox News or Food Network). The company's goal is to carry channels that account for 80-90% of consumers' actual viewing.

Sezmi will not have the full array of channels now available in HD. Dave explained that Sezmi's bandwidth constraints forced it to make choices. For some viewers that won't matter if the price is right; for others it will be a deal-breaker. Sezmi also will not be carrying linear feeds of premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz, instead focusing on offering them on a subscription VOD basis, plus offering thousands of pay-per-view movie titles. Lastly, Sezmi will have limited appeal for sports fans as it lacks content like NFL Sunday Ticket, RedZone, MLB packages and popular regional sports channels.

Still, Sezmi has a lot going for it. Beyond low price, the personalization features are likely to resonate most. Once Sezmi learns a user's profile, it automatically records programs, and organizes them into each family member's "Zone." Pressing the "mi" button on the remote provides a customized view of that particular content. Sezmi also seamlessly integrates broadband content, today from YouTube, but in the future from many others into the overall experience.

As I've described before, Sezmi's model is to partner with telcos, broadband ISPs and retailers for its go-to-market strategy (there's an unnamed partner involved in the pilot). There will be heavy marketing costs involved to educating the public about Sezmi's benefits, so partnerships are essential. While no names are being cited yet, Dave alluded to a number of key partners, who will be announced in January. I'd bet on AT&T for one, although anyone who wants to be in the video business likely will have a look at Sezmi as well, particularly those seeking to offer a triple play bundle.

Despite all the talk about over-the-top video and cord-cutting, Sezmi is still the only bona fide new competitor I'm aware of that could be a replacement for cable/satellite/telco services. The company still has a long road ahead of it, but today's announcements are solid evidence of its progress.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Brightcove is launching the fourth generation of its platform today and is also introducing a new low-priced "Express" option that complements its "Professional" and "Enterprise" editions. Brightcove's SVP of Marketing Jeff Whatcott recently walked me through the new features and Express strategy.

Brightcove is enhancing its customers' ability to publish across 3 screens by introducing, among other things, a "universal delivery service" option which allows the same video to be delivered via multi-bit rate streaming and progressive download. When selected, this means that publishers' video can be uploaded once, but delivered more intelligently depending on the device being targeted and the bandwidth available. Brightcove is also introducing an SDK for iPhone publishing which streamlines the workflow for publishers targeting the iPhone. Brightcove is also broadening its appeal to non-media customers that require a behind-the-firewall solution, providing delivery only to approved IP addresses and helping manage assets stored on private CDN infrastructure.

Given how increasingly strategic video is for its media customers, Brightcove is also introducing live streaming (including ad insertion), improved video sharing (with a particular focus on Facebook's Live Stream Box Widget), better analytics and monetization and improvements in media sharing across multiple divisions within an organization.

Brightcove is also introducing a slew of under-the-hood improvements that streamline the workflow, improve integration with 3rd parties and enhance SEO. These include new player APIs allowing more customized experiences, ad rules APIs and integrations with other web applications.

Importantly, the company is also broadening its target customer base. Although Brightcove had recently started focusing more on non-media (e.g. government, education, business) customers, these were still typically larger entities with high willingness-to-pay. Jeff explained though that with Brightcove's well-known brand, it was receiving many daily inquiries from prospects looking for a low-cost, turnkey solution. Lacking one, Brightcove felt it was leaving business on the table.

Now with the Express product (with 3 monthly price points, $99, $199 and $499), the company is making its first concerted effort to satisfy those with smaller video libraries, less need for customization and simpler monetization strategies. Moving to the low-end of the market puts Brightcove into more direct competition with players like Fliqz, Delve and others, while creating another new option for those with modest needs that have used YouTube.

As I've written recently, the video platform space continues to be quite crowded, with new entrants continuing to crop up. While I suspect that will continue to be the case, Brightcove argues persuasively that its feature set is far beyond anything that newer players yet offer, and that its track record of delivering video globally, at scale, provides major content providers quality assurance that others cannot yet match.

While the video platform space continues to evolve, Brightcove always impresses me with the methodical approach it takes to its product roadmap. Having been in the business for so long and having wide breadth of customers, the company is unlikely to fall behind anyone else when it comes to new customer requirements. Even in instances when competitors get a jump on it by offering distinctive new features, Brightcove is quick to respond. Brightcove 4 positions the company to continue as one of market's key leaders.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Brightcove is a VideoNuze sponsor)

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 9th week:

1. Will Cisco's new Flip Video camera ad campaign fly? - Cisco deserves credit for its new "Do You Flip" ad campaign for its Flip Video camera, a real out-of-the-box effort comprised entirely of user-generated video clips shot by ordinary folks and celebrities alike. As the campaign was described in this Online Media Daily article, finding the clips and then editing them together sounds like heavy lifting, but the results perfectly reinforce the value proposition of the camera itself. The ads are being shown on TV and the web; there's an outdoor piece to the campaign as well.

Cisco acquired Flip for nearly $600 million earlier this year in a somewhat incongruous deal that thrust the router powerhouse into the intensely competitive consumer electronics fray. Cisco will have to spend aggressively to maintain market share as other pocket video cameras have gained steam, like the Creative Vado HD, Samsung HMX and Kodak Z series. There's also emerging competition from smartphones (led by the iPhone of course) that have built-in video recording capabilities. I've been somewhat skeptical of the Cisco-Flip deal, but with the new campaign, Cisco looks committed to making it a success.

2. YouTube brings ad-skipping to the web - Speaking of out-of-the-box thinking, YouTube triggered a minor stir in the online video advertising space this week by announcing a trial of "skippable pre-roll" ads. On the surface, it feels unsettling that DVR-style ad-skipping - a growing and bedeviling trend on TV - is now coming to the web. Yet as YouTube explained, there's actually ample reason and some initial data to suggest that by empowering viewers, the ads that are watched could be even more valuable.

One thing pre-roll skipping would surely do is up the stakes for producing engaging ads that immediately capture the viewer's attention. And it would also increase the urgency for solid targeting. Done right though, I think pre-roll skipping could work quite well. At a minimum I give YouTube points for trying it out. Incidentally, others in the industry are doing other interesting things improve the engagement and effectiveness of the pre-roll. I'll have more on this in the next week or two.

3. Watching the NY Times at 30,000 feet - Flipping channels on my seat-back video screen on a JetBlue flight from Florida earlier this week, I happened on a series of highly engaging NY Times videos: a black and white interview with Oscar-winning actor Javier Bardem, then a David Pogue demo of the Yoostar Home Greenscreen Kit and then an expose of Floyd Bennett Field, the first municipal airport in New York City. It turned out that all were running on The Travel Channel.

Good for the NY Times. Over the past couple of years I've written often about the opportunities that broadband video opens up for newspapers and magazines to leverage their brands, advertising relationships and editorial skills into the new medium. By also running their videos on planes, the NY Times is exposing many prospective online viewers to its video content, thereby broadening what the NY Times brand stands for and likely generating subsequent traffic to its web site. That's exactly what it and other print pubs should be doing to avoid the fate of the recently-shuttered Gourmet magazine, which never fully mined the web's potential. I know I'm a broken record on this, but video producers must learn that syndicating their video as widely as possible is imperative.

4. Nielsen forecast underscores smartphones' mobile video potential - A couple of readers pointed out that in yesterday's post, "Mobile Video Continues to Gain Traction" I missed relevant Nielsen data from just the day before. Nielsen forecasts that smartphones will be carried by more than 50% of cell phone users by 2011, totaling over 150 million people. Nielsen assumes that 60% of these smartphone owners will be watching video translating to an audience size of 90 million people. Its research also shows that 47% of users of the new Motorola Droid smartphone are watching video, vs. 40% of iPhone users. Not a huge distinction, but more evidence that the Droid and other newer smartphones are likely to increase mobile video consumption still further.

Enjoy your weekends!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 40th edition (whoo-hoo!) of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for November 13, 2009.

This week Daisy first shares observations on her recent interview with Gary Vaynerchuk, who is best known as the host of Wine Library TV/The Thunder Show. Gary has a new book out called "Crush It!" part of a 10-book deal he did with HarperStudio. The book focuses on how you can build your personal brand using all of the Internet's various communications tools. Vaynerchuk has a lot of credibility as he's built up a huge following for Wine Library TV. Now with the books, he's showing how online popularity can be leveraged into the print world. For a good example of the show, check out this episode featuring Wayne Gretzky.

We then shift to my post from earlier this week, "Sony Gets It Wrong with 'Meatballs' Promotion." I took Sony Electronics to task for a new promotion they're starting which provides a free 24 hour rental of the movie "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" to buyers of connected Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray disc players. It's also available as a $24.95 rental for current owners of these devices. I explain more about why I think this promotion falls way short and does little to advance the agenda of delivering movies via broadband.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 12 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

I continue to be impressed with how the mobile video market is gaining traction. It seems like rarely a day goes by now where there isn't an announcement by a technology vendor, content provider or service provider related to mobile video. Though it's still well behind online video's adoption, all of the pieces continue to fall into place for mobile video's continued growth.

From a consumer usage standpoint, the iPhone has of course been the key driver. Whenever I'm with an iPhone owner, I'm struck by how deeply they've integrated video into their mobile experience. It's not just that they've downloaded TV shows and movies to watch on planes and so forth, but rather how natural it is for them to start playing a video and then pass their phone around so others can watch also. The iPhone has turbocharged the whole concept of shared, out-of-home video experiences.

And though the iPhone's 30 million estimated units sold represents a huge footprint of new mobile video users (in turn generating a large ecosystem of app developers), from a device standpoint, new entrants are poised to grow the market even further. Devices powered by the Android mobile operating system are continuing to come to market, with the most recent, high-profile example being Motorola's Droid, offered by Verizon Wireless. Verizon is putting a huge marketing push behind the Droid, contributing to a growing sense of awareness by consumers of the appeal of smartphones and their video capabilities in particular. Not surprisingly given its Google parentage, YouTube has also weighed in on the benefits of Android in allowing easier uploading at higher video quality.

In addition the iPhone and Android, among business users, Blackberry continues to dominate and internationally, Nokia has the largest smartphone position. This all suggests there will be vigorous competition among these 4 platforms, leading to lots consumer-facing promotion and rapid innovation. In a recent AdAge piece, IDC estimated that 6% of U.S. cell phone users, or 18 million people, will watch video on their cell phones this year, rising to 27 million in 2013.

Content providers have taken notice of these dynamics and have been aggressively creating video-rich mobile apps, initially for the iPhone, but now also for Android, Nokia and Blackberry smartphones. In a recent conversation I had with Ujjal Kohli, CEO of Rhythm NewMedia, which specializes in "mobilizing and monetizing" broadcast and cable networks' TV shows, he explained how clients continue to bulk up their teams devoted solely to mobile video initiatives. An example of this is Warner Bros, which is among a number of film studios now pursuing mobile initiatives. In addition to building mobile video apps, Rhythm is also creating a mobile video ad network, like Transpera (which I last covered here). As mobile video usage surges, advertising will grow right alongside it. Mobile advertising in general received major validation earlier this week as Google acquired mobile video ad display network AdMob for $750 million.

With all this mobile video activity, technology providers are increasingly their attention to serving their content customers. Just yesterday, Kyte, a video platform company that focused early on mobile, announced that it has launched "application frameworks" for Android and Nokia, following on previous frameworks for iPhone and Blackberry. As Gannon Hall, Kyte's COO told me, its content customers have pushed Kyte for other platforms. Now with native support for all four platforms, Kyte's customers can quickly and cost-effectively adapt existing apps, incorporating full social and monetization functions. While Gannon believes Kyte has taken the lead among OVPs in offering mobile capabilities beyond just APIs, he envisions others ramping up as well. Some evidence of this is today's partnership announcement by VMIX and Qik, to integrate mobile live streaming into VMIX's platform. More will surely follow.

There are plenty of other examples of how the ecosystem supporting mobile video is being built out, such as Clearwire announcing this week $1.5 billion in additional capital raised for its 4G WiMax network, Verizon leading a group of venture investors in a $1.3 billion "LTE" 4G opportunity fund, Adobe releasing Flash Player 10.1 targeted for mobile devices, AT&T accelerating deployment of "HSPA 7.2" technology in 6 cities to boost 3G speeds and Akamai launching its "Akamai HD" network, which among other things supports HD video streaming to the iPhone. These and many other examples form the foundation for ever more robust mobile video experiences in the future.

One of my predictions for 2009 was that after many fits and starts, mobile video finally seemed poised to take off. Nearly 11 months into the year, I think we're seeing ample evidence of this happening. I expect only continued growth going forward.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

On Monday, Sony Electronics announced a holiday promotion in which buyers of select Internet-connected Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray players would receive a free 24 hour rental of the Columbia/Sony Pictures film "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs." In addition, current owners of these devices would be able to rent the film for $24.95. For all of these consumers, the film would be available from Dec. 8th to Jan 4th, the month leading up to the film's DVD release.

Ordinarily I would applaud any move by Hollywood to modify its rigid release "windows" to benefit broadband delivery of films. Yet in this case I think Sony's promotion is ill-conceived and is extremely unlikely to contribute any real momentum to studios' future broadband delivery plans. In fact, it may actually have the opposite effect and further stunt the broadband medium's emergence. Here's why:

The release window is too tight - Release windows allow Hollywood studios to mine new value from the same content given each successive distribution medium's unique attributes and audience. But by trying to squeeze in this promotional window, Sony is exacerbating an already very tight windowing plan for "Meatballs" that called for DVD release less than 2 months following its theatrical run. Remarkably, even as Sony is trumpeting this new promotion, the film is actually still playing in theaters nationwide. Given it's already only 27 days until Dec 8th, there will be virtually no gap between theatrical and promotional windows. That undermines the theatrical value proposition, in turn ticking off exhibitors who are threatening to pull the film early, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Theatrical to DVD windows have been getting progressively tighter as studios have sought to bolster sagging DVD sales. The problem is that like a good wine, lengthy windows allow a film to age and increase in value for both those consumers who saw the movie and those who did not. With this promotion, Sony is giving consumers an in-home opportunity to see the film immediately adjacent to the DVD's availability. That can do nothing but also hurt the DVD's sales.

The promotional offer isn't strong enough - For Sony Electronics, trying to differentiate its devices in a brutally competitive landscape is key. But do the marketing pros at Sony really believe that giving away a 24 hour rental is going to have a big impact? Personally I doubt it. The prices of the Sony TVs in the promotion are in the $1,000-$2,000 range, so a $25 incentive is easily swamped by the rampant deep discounts found in Sunday circulars (not to mention even deeper online deals). Further, I don't see any retailer incentives included in the promotion that would influence the sales process.

The "Meatballs" offer might have a stronger effect on sales of Sony's Blu-ray players, though here too, it's unlikely to be profound. With Blu-ray player sales lagging, manufacturers and retailers have largely decided that hitching their wagons to Netflix's Watch Instantly streaming is the best way to bump up sales. But with sub-$100 Netflix-capable Blu-ray players now available, a "Meatballs" rental valued at $25 on a $200-250 Sony player will have a hard time breaking through. Last but not least, it's important to remember, Sony's promotion is for a 24 hour rental. Not offering consumers ownership of "Meatballs" makes the promotional value ephemeral. And with Walmart, Target and Amazon now offering top DVDs for just $10 apiece, a 24 hour rental valued at $25 is underwhelming, not to mention somewhat specious, given it is Sony that's setting the "price." Given all of this, I suspect Sony would have done better by just offering a free "Meatballs" DVD with purchase.

Device audience too small to prove broadband delivery's appeal - Looked at differently, the small base of connected Sony Bravia and connected Blu-ray players, plus the new device sales over the promotional period, is unlikely to generate a large volume of "Meatballs" streaming anyway. That means that the promotion will do little to encourage Sony or other studios to more strongly embrace broadband delivery of their films. In fact, when the weak results of the promotion come in (as I expect they will), "Meatballs" could become future industry shorthand for "broadband delivery isn't ready for prime-time." That would be a shame, because I believe consumers very much want on-demand access to films in their homes. Netflix's success with Watch Instantly certainly proves that, as does the success VOD is having.

From my perspective, rather than setting up half-baked promotions like this one, studios should take a step back and think through how to do broadband delivery (for both rental and download-to-own) correctly. There are a lot of moving pieces, but clearly addressing what to do about the DVD window is critical. Studios are rightfully worried about killing off this cash cow. But compressing the DVD window and then trying to insert a new broadband delivery window isn't going to be the answer. Rather than seeing more "Meatballs" like promotions, I'd prefer to see a cohesive strategy out of Hollywood for how it can fully tap into broadband delivery's potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

On Monday, Sony Electronics announced a holiday promotion in which buyers of select Internet-connected Sony Bravia TVs and Blu-ray players would receive a free 24 hour rental of the Columbia/Sony Pictures film "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs." In addition, current owners of these devices would be able to rent the film for $24.95. For all of these consumers, the film would be available from Dec. 8th to Jan 4th, the month leading up to the film's DVD release.

Ordinarily I would applaud any move by Hollywood to modify its rigid release "windows" to benefit broadband delivery of films. Yet in this case I think Sony's promotion is ill-conceived and is extremely unlikely to contribute any real momentum to studios' future broadband delivery plans. In fact, it may actually have the opposite effect and further stunt the broadband medium's emergence. Here's why:

The release window is too tight - Release windows allow Hollywood studios to mine new value from the same content given each successive distribution medium's unique attributes and audience. But by trying to squeeze in this promotional window, Sony is exacerbating an already very tight windowing plan for "Meatballs" that called for DVD release less than 2 months following its theatrical run. Remarkably, even as Sony is trumpeting this new promotion, the film is actually still playing in theaters nationwide. Given it's already only 27 days until Dec 8th, there will be virtually no gap between theatrical and promotional windows. That undermines the theatrical value proposition, in turn ticking off exhibitors who are threatening to pull the film early, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Theatrical to DVD windows have been getting progressively tighter as studios have sought to bolster sagging DVD sales. The problem is that like a good wine, lengthy windows allow a film to age and increase in value for both those consumers who saw the movie and those who did not. With this promotion, Sony is giving consumers an in-home opportunity to see the film immediately adjacent to the DVD's availability. That can do nothing but also hurt the DVD's sales.

The promotional offer isn't strong enough - For Sony Electronics, trying to differentiate its devices in a brutally competitive landscape is key. But do the marketing pros at Sony really believe that giving away a 24 hour rental is going to have a big impact? Personally I doubt it. The prices of the Sony TVs in the promotion are in the $1,000-$2,000 range, so a $25 incentive is easily swamped by the rampant deep discounts found in Sunday circulars (not to mention even deeper online deals). Further, I don't see any retailer incentives included in the promotion that would influence the sales process.

The "Meatballs" offer might have a stronger effect on sales of Sony's Blu-ray players, though here too, it's unlikely to be profound. With Blu-ray player sales lagging, manufacturers and retailers have largely decided that hitching their wagons to Netflix's Watch Instantly streaming is the best way to bump up sales. But with sub-$100 Netflix-capable Blu-ray players now available, a "Meatballs" rental valued at $25 on a $200-250 Sony player will have a hard time breaking through. Last but not least, it's important to remember, Sony's promotion is for a 24 hour rental. Not offering consumers ownership of "Meatballs" makes the promotional value ephemeral. And with Walmart, Target and Amazon now offering top DVDs for just $10 apiece, a 24 hour rental valued at $25 is underwhelming, not to mention somewhat specious, given it is Sony that's setting the value. Given all of this, I suspect Sony would have done better by just offering a free "Meatballs" DVD with purchase.

Device audience too small to prove broadband delivery's appeal - Looked at differently, the small base of connected Sony Bravia and connected Blu-ray players, plus the new device sales over the promotional period, is unlikely to generate a large volume of "Meatballs" streaming anyway. That means that the promotion will do little to encourage Sony or other studios to more strongly embrace broadband delivery of their films. In fact, when the weak results of the promotion come in (as I expect they will), "Meatballs" could become future industry shorthand for "broadband delivery isn't ready for prime-time." That would be a shame, because I believe consumers very much want on-demand access to films in their homes. Netflix's success with Watch Instantly certainly proves that, as does the success VOD is having.

From my perspective, rather than setting up half-baked promotions like this one, studios should take a step back and think through how to do broadband delivery (for both rental and download-to-own) correctly. There are a lot of moving pieces, but clearly addressing what to do about the DVD window is critical. Studios are rightfully worried about killing off this cash cow. But compressing the DVD window and then trying to insert a new broadband delivery window isn't going to be the answer. Rather than seeing more "Meatballs" like promotions, I'd prefer to see a cohesive strategy out of Hollywood for how it can fully tap into broadband delivery's potential.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

A year ago, in "Comcast: A Company Transformed," I asserted that in the past 10 years Comcast has dramatically evolved from a traditional, plain vanilla cable TV operator to a digital TV, broadband Internet access and voice powerhouse. Comcast's Q3 '09 earnings, released last week, offered more proof that the company continues its transformation, capitalizing on consumers' shift to digital lifestyles.

As the chart below shows, Comcast's Q3 results were once again powered by higher digital TV penetration in its cable TV subscriber base, and additional broadband and voice subscribers.

These gains offset the steady erosion in Comcast's total number of cable subs, which at the end of Q3 stood at approximately 23.8 million. Comcast has lost cable subs for 10 straight quarters (totaling 1.25 million) as competition from satellite and new telco video entrants takes its toll. Still, the company has been able to drive revenue per video subscriber steadily higher, to $116.91/month in Q3 '09, reflecting the value of product bundling and success in its business services area. As I said last year, Comcast has effectively moved "up-market," targeting consumers who are willing and able to afford a $100-$200 monthly bill to enjoy the modern digital lifestyle.

Even as the company continues to turn in solid financial performance, Comcast's slowing growth in the core areas of digital TV, broadband and voice are evident in the chart below, which converts the net additions to each service, plus the contraction in basic video subs, into trend lines. With the exception of a few sporadic blips up, over the past 3 years, all 3 areas have shown a steady deceleration in growth. For example, in the most recent 4 quarters (Q4 '08 - Q3 '09), Comcast added 3.4 million digital TV, broadband and voice subs, but this was down 38% vs. the 5.5 million digital TV, broadband and voice subs it added in the year earlier 4 quarters (Q4 '07 - Q3 '08). In the most recent 4 quarters, Comcast also lost 657,000 cable subs, vs. 436,000 in the earlier 4 quarter period, a 51% increase.

Meanwhile, a big bright spot over the last 3 years for Comcast has been the strong progress it has made in converting its subscriber base to digital TV. As the chart below shows, digital TV penetration now stands at nearly 76% of cable subs, up from about 69% at the end of Q3 '08, and about 61% at the end of Q3 '07. Between bundling, new digital channels, HD, VOD, an improved channel guide and DVR availability, Comcast has strengthened the value proposition for subscribers to convert to a digital set-top box, bringing the company higher revenues and a larger universe to deliver new services to, not to mention a stronger defense against possible cord-cutting.

With the slowdown in net additions occurring, Comcast has clearly begun contemplating where new growth, as well as expense reduction, will come from. Given its negotiations for a controlling stake in NBCU, for now it looks like the company's main strategy is deepening its stake in the content business. Since Comcast hasn't even formally acknowledged the negotiations, much less revealed what the financial and strategic benefits any deal might offer, it's too early to weigh the deal's pros and cons.

Should the deal happen though, it will certainly absorb significant management resources. Given how important an effective rollout of TV Everywhere is to the company, anything that distracts from this task would be a setback. Further, as I recently speculated in "How TV Everywhere Could Turn Cable Operators and Telcos Into Over-the-Top's Biggest Players," Comcast must also keep an eye on competitive drivers that might require it to serve video outside of its traditional geographical footprint (note, Comcast executives say there are no such plans). Doing so would be a herculean management challenge. Last week's research revealing that potentially 54% of Netflix's 11.1 million subscribers now use the service to stream video each month was a reminder that powerful national competitors are steadily building their IP-based delivery businesses through a variety of connected CE devices. These kinds of "over-the-top" services are inevitably competitive to Comcast and other incumbent video providers.

As Comcast has transformed itself into a digital powerhouse it has positioned itself extremely well for continued market leadership. How it chooses to allocate its vast resources, and then how well it executes on its choices will determine how much of its significant potential is realized.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

On Friday, Forrester Research released an analysis of 6 online video platform vendors. As with other comparison reports that come out regularly, Forrester's will have value as a starting point in evaluating options, but should be considered far from definitive.

The downside of choosing only 6 is that a lot of other high-quality competitors, along with their particular strengths, are left out. This clearly skews overall conclusions. In Forrester's case it's also not entirely clear why the 6 - Brightcove, Ooyala, Kaltura, VMIX, Fliqz and Twistage - were actually chosen. For example, the report indicates that vendors that primarily focus on the high end of the market such as thePlatform and Digitalsmiths were not included. Yet arguably, Brightcove has as much focus on premium content providers as either of these companies do. thePlatform is also the most established player in the market, so to not include it means missing a critical market benchmark.

Forrester used 37 criteria to evaluate the vendors, grouped into 3 categories, Current Offering, Strategy and Market Presence. The sources of the data it used to assign scores to each vendor for the criteria were vendor surveys, product demos and customer reference calls. All of this is very useful, but it appears that Forrester did not do any hands-on testing itself. Having seen so many demos myself, I've come to believe that the only way to truly get a sense of the vendor's work flow and specific capabilities is to use with the platform directly. By definition demos are orchestrated to shine the best light on a platform's work flow; it's only through using one day-to-day that a nitty-gritty understanding can be gained.

Lastly, Forrester's conclusion that Brightcove and Ooyala are "Leaders," Kaltura and VMIX are "Strong Performers," and Twistage and Fliqz are "Contenders" feels like it could be more rigorous. For example, if statements like "stay away from these guys, they're truly inferior" or "if x, y and z features are critical to you, look no further" had been used, the reader would gain more clarity on where Forrester stands. Instead each vendor seems to have its own strengths, while weaknesses such as "...lack strong capabilities in areas such as distribution and scalability..." seem too high level.

All of this said, for customers looking for a first-cut evaluation of a limited segment of the market (which is how Forrester itself seems to be positioning the report), it is a useful tool. Whether it's worth the $1,749 asking price is another matter. I'd recommend also having a look at sources like VidCompare.com and the market snapshot from Marketing Mechanics.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Nov 2nd week:

1. Media company and service provider earnings underscore improvements in economy - This was earnings week for the bulk of the publicly-traded media companies and video service providers, and the general theme was modest increases in financial performance, due largely to the rebounding economy. The media companies reporting - CBS, News Corp, Time Warner. Discovery, Viacom and the Rainbow division of Cablevision - showed ongoing strength in their cable networks, with broadcast networks improving somewhat from earlier this year. For ad-supported online video sites, plus anyone else that's ad-supported, indications of a healthier ad climate are obviously very important.

Meanwhile the video service providers reporting - Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable and DirecTV all showed revenue gains, a clear reminder that even in recessionary times, the subscription TV business is quite resilient. Cable operators continued their trend of losing basic subscribers to emerging telco competitors (with evidence that DirecTV might now be as well), though they were able to offset these losses largely through rate increases. Though some people believe "cord-cutting" due to new over-the-top video services is real, this phenomenon hasn't shown up yet in any of the financial results. Nor do I expect it will for some time either, as numerous building blocks still need to fall into place (e.g. better OTT content, mass deployment of convergence devices, ease-of-use, etc.)

2. Blu-ray players could help drive broadband to the TV - Speaking of convergence devices, two articles this week highlighted the role that Blu-ray players are having in bringing broadband video to the living room. The WSJ and Video Business both noted that Blu-ray manufacturers see broadband connectivity as complementary to the disc value proposition, and are moving forward aggressively on integrating this feature. Blu-ray can use all the help it can get. According to statistics I recently pulled from the Digital Entertainment Group, in Q3 '09, DVD players continue to outsell Blu-ray players by an almost 5 to 1 ratio (15 million vs. 3.3 million). Cumulatively there are only 11.2 Blu-ray compatible U.S. homes, vs. 92 million DVD homes.

Still, aggressive price-cutting could change the equation. I recently noticed Best Buy promoting one of its private-label Insignia Blu-ray players, with Netflix Watch Instantly integrated, for just $99. That's a big price drop from even a year ago. Not surprisingly, Netflix's Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandros said "streaming apps are the killer apps for Blu-ray players." Of course, Netflix execs would likely say that streaming apps are also the killer apps for game devices, Internet-connected TVs and every other device it is integrating its Watch Instantly software into. I've been generally pessimistic about Blu-ray's prospects, but price cuts and streaming could finally move the sales needle in a bigger way.

3. Apple lurks, but how long will it stay quiet in video? - The week got off to a bang with a report that Apple is floating a $30/mo subscription idea by TV networks. While I think the price point is far too low for Apple to be able to offer anything close to the comprehensive content lineup current video service providers have, it was another reminder that Apple lurks as a major potential video disruptor. How long will it stay quiet is the key question.

While in my local Apple store yesterday (yes I'm preparing to finally ditch my PC and go Mac), I saw the new 27 inch iMac for the first time. It was a pretty stark reminder that Apple is just a hair's breadth away from making TVs itself. Have you seen this beast yet? It's Hummer-esque as a workstation for all but the creative set, but, stripped of some of its computing power to cost-reduce it, it would be a gorgeous smaller-size TV. Throw in iTunes, a remote, decent content, Apple's vaunted ease-of-use and of course its coolness cachet and the company could fast re-order the subscription TV industry, not to mention the TV OEM industry. The word on the street is that Apple's next big product launch is a "Kindle-killer" tablet/e-reader, so it's unlikely Steve Jobs would steal any of that product's thunder by near-simultaneously introducing a TV. If a TV's coming (and I'm betting it is), it's likely to be 2H '10 at the earliest.

4. Get ready for the "Anywhere" revolution - Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to Emily Green, president and CEO of tech research firm Yankee Group, deliver a keynote in which she previewed themes and data from her forthcoming book, "Anywhere: How Global Connectivity is Revolutionizing the Way We Do Business." Emily is an old friend, and 15 years ago when she was a Forrester analyst and I was VP of Biz Dev at Continental Cablevision (then the 3rd largest cable operator), she was one of the few people I spoke to who got how important high-speed Internet access was, and how strategic it would become for the cable industry. 40 million U.S. cable broadband homes later (and 70 million overall) amply validates both points.

Emily's new book explores how the world will change when both wired and wireless connectivity are as pervasive as electricity is today. No question the Internet and cell phones have already dramatically changed the world, but Emily makes a very strong case that we ain't seen nothing yet. I couldn't help but think that TV Everywhere is arriving just in time for video service providers whose customers increasingly expect their video anywhere, anytime and on any device. "Anywhere" will be a must-read for anyone trying to make sense of how revolutionary pervasive connectivity is.

Enjoy your weekends!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 39th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for November 6, 2009.

This week Daisy and I first dig into the research I shared about Netflix's Watch Instantly users that I wrote about earlier this week. The research, by One Touch Intelligence and The Praxi Group, indicated that 62% of respondents have used the Watch Instantly streaming feature, with 54% saying they use it to watch at least 1 movie or TV show per month. Daisy and I discuss the significance of these and other data from the research. As a reminder the research is available as a complimentary download from VideoNuze.

Daisy is in NY this week attending Ad:Tech, and she then shares observations from a couple of sessions she's attended. In particular she passes on the advice that Sir Martin Sorrell, head of large agency holding company WPP, about where the advertising business is heading and how he's preparing WPP for the future.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 45 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

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

Surfing over to YouTube the other day, I was struck by how the site could well become the ultimate brand engagement platform. Below is a screen shot of what I found - nearly all the visible real estate showcased 2 different brand contests encouraging users to submit videos for a chance to win prizes.

The first contest, the "Kodak True Colors: Video Portrait Challenge," was just kicking off, and therefore had prominent positioning. The contest urges users to submit as many 10-second videos as they'd like in pursuit of a grand prize including 2 tickets to a taping of the "Conan O'Brien" show. The other contest, "The Best of Us Challenge," by the International Olympic Committee, shows athletes doing something outside their specialty (e.g. Michael Phelps doing speed putting, Lindsey Jacobellis doing the hula hoop) and asks user to emulate these or create their own challenge. The winner receives a trip for 2 to the 2010 Vancouver winter games. The contest was featured in YouTube's "Spotlight," a section on the home page populated by YouTube's editors based on user ratings.

These types of brand contest are not necessarily new, nor are their inclusion in YouTube. Over a year ago I suggested there was real opportunity in what I called "purpose-driven user-generated video" - the idea that with YouTube turning millions of people into amateur video producers, their enthusiasm and skills could be channeled to specific purposes. The success of campaigns like Doritos' $1 Million Super Bowl challenge has amply demonstrated that great creative and great buzz can be generated from a well-executed UGV campaign.

What YouTube's home page that day demonstrated to me is that as brands continue embracing online video and user participation, the go-to partner will be YouTube. There's simply no better way to reach a broad audience of likely contestants than by making a big splash on YouTube. While YouTube's monetization challenges have become one of the most-talked about industry topics this year, I'd argue there's been insufficient focus on the fact that since May '08, YouTube's share of overall video viewing has stayed right around 40%, at least according to comScore. In that time, YouTube's videos viewed per month have more than doubled, from 4.2 billion, to 10.4 billion in September '09.

Even as sites like Hulu and others have launched and promoted new and innovative sites, YouTube continues to retain its share of the fast-growing online video market. YouTube has also matured considerably, with its Content ID system largely sanitizing the site from pirated video and helping change its perception among copyright owners. (Note that on my recent visit to YouTube I searched in vain for a video of Johnny Damon's double steal in Game 4 and found nothing but "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by MLB Advanced Media." In the old days a video like that would have been available all over the site.)

While YouTube has made headway adding premium content partners, a significant part of its appeal remains users uploading and sharing videos. YouTube's combination of massive audience, ubiquitous brand, user interactivity and promotional flexibility make it an ideal partner for brands looking to engage their audiences through video.

Last summer I got plenty of flak for my post, "Does It Actually Matter How Much Money YouTube Loses?" in which I argued that YouTube's long-term strategic value (and Google's financial muscle to support the site's short-term losses) superseded the company's current losses. While I didn't mean to suggest in that post that a company can afford to lose money forever, I was trying to contend that YouTube, the dominant player in a fast-growing and highly disruptive market will eventually find its way to profitability and is well worth Google's continued investment.

YouTube is a rare example of a "winner take all" situation; there is no other video upload and sharing site even on the radar. As video becomes ever more strategic for all kinds of brands, they will increasingly recognize that YouTube is a must-have partner. If Google can't figure out how to make lemonade out of YouTube's lemons, then shame on them. I'm betting, however, that they will.

What do you think? Post a comment now.