TV Everywhere Already Exists…and it Has 1 Billion Users to Prove It

TV_EverywhereThe promise of TV Everywhere is being realized, but not where you would expect it. Towards the end of March Magine announced the launch of an internet-based, cable-like offering which allows subscribers to watch television shows live or on-demand across any device without the need of a set-top box. The caveat: it’s only available in the company’s home country of Sweden.

So what about the rest of us?

With a popular slate of original programming including Boardwalk Empire and Game of Thrones, HBO has always been considered the catalyst for unlocking TV Everywhere in the U.S. This, despite fact that the only way fans can watch these shows is by first subscribing to pay television from cable or satellite service providers before signing up for HBO at an additional monthly fee. The hope has been that HBO would eventually go direct-to-consumer with its HBO GO service (like Netflix does with its streaming service), but with pay TV partners funding the marketing for HBO’s content across their platforms, the un-bundling of HBO GO into a stand-alone service won’t happen anytime soon.

With traditional media companies not in any hurry to upset these profitable distribution arrangements, a true TV Everywhere experience will need to come from outside of this framework. Fortunately there’s a company that’s been building the digital media alternative that just celebrated its 8th birthday and hit 1 billion monthly users. Yes, YouTube, the skateboarding-dog-showing, Gangnam-Style-popularizing, space-jump-live-streaming video website is consumers’ best bet for delivering TV Everywhere.

Here’s why.

Even though YouTube has become the destination for video content on the web, its evolution has followed that of traditional television in many ways. When commercial television launched in the late 1930s in the U.S., music and variety comedy were the most popular types of content. Over time, additional programming made it to the airwaves and remained free to watch, as long as you had a television with antennas, since all the content was ad-supported. Towards the end of the 1940s the first cable channels, which required consumers to pay a subscription fee to access the content, were introduced.

Now replace the word ‘antenna’ with ‘internet’ and you end up with YouTube instead of broadcast companies. And just like broadcast television, you get to watch all of the most popular content (music and funny videos) for free because they are also ad-supported. Having checked-off additional content categories since then (such as live events and movies), YouTube launched a $100 million fund to invest in 100 channels of original online programming towards the end of 2011 and followed that up with an announcement of additional funding for 30% to 40% of the most promising channels late last year to continue improving the overall content quality of YouTube. With the company now starting to talk about allowing subscription services for video producers on the site, YouTube’s content experience has nearly completed the same evolution as traditional television- and in about the same amount of time.

That’s not to say that producers of traditional media are standing by watching this happen from the sidelines. Ricky Gervais, comedian and The Office creator, announced in March that he has signed up to provide exclusive content to YouTube. This news came on the heels of Alien and Blade Runner producer Ridley Scott partnering with YouTube-hit Machinima to produce 12 short films earlier in the month. Even old media execs see the value of YouTube, investing in services like Fullscreen that help video producers manage their presence on YouTube.

YouTube_Firefox_TabletAs important as YouTube’s ability to aggregate and curate all of this content has been to its success, providing users with any-screen access by way of PC and mobile websites as well as a variety of mobile and television applications has been equally critical. This has resulted in 25% of YouTube’s global audience watching videos via mobile devices, and a remarkable 50% of Gen C visitors. These users are connected to the video platform by more than just devices though as the social engagement around sharing video links and comments truly makes YouTube the second largest social network in the world and the largest social television experience- giving the company a unique advantage in building a TV Everywhere service.

While the bite-sized entertainment offered up by YouTube might be prefect for Gen C consumers, it still doesn’t replicate the current programming available through pay television. Fortunately for YouTube, Google has started to build out the actual infrastructure necessary to bridge this gap. Google Fiber, which promises internet connection speeds up to 100 times faster than today’s broadband as well as high-definition television, recently announced the second and third cities to deploy its service as well as adding premium subscriptions from HBO and Cinemax to its channel line-up. By combining traditional media content with digital video from YouTube, Google can create the ultimate TV Everywhere experience for any audience in a Google Fiber city going forward (which could cost an estimated $11 billion to build out if Google wants to compete with other providers on a nationwide basis- well within the possibility considering Google’s capital structure).

Regardless of whether its YouTube or even Google TV (because of its ability to incorporate media-specific apps into its framework) that drives adoption, most consumers will finally get what content they want (as well as when and where they want it) either directly from Google’s combined efforts or indirectly from market rivals being pressured into providing more competitive offerings. Until then, 1 billion YouTube users will have plenty of content to keep them entertained.

Mobile Video: The Final Frontier for Ad Networks?

Earlier this month TechCrunch broke the news that mobile video ad platform Transpera had been acquired by online video ad network Tremor Media. The deal came almost exactly three months after Tremor’s last transaction, the purchase of video ad network ScanScout. The Tremor-ScanScout merger was part of a string of announcements in the online video ad space last fall which began with top 10 online display advertising network Specific Media acquiring video ad platform BBE and ending with another leading ad network, Undertone, buying Jambo Media, a video solutions company.

With advertising a major theme at last week’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona could this latest Tremor news set off the next round of capabilities expansion and provider consolidation amongst ad networks?

With online video projected to grow 55% annually through 2014, making it the fastest growing online ad format worldwide, it’s easy to see why there’s interest from both traditional display and pure play video ad networks in acquiring online video market share. Looking at recent industry trends and projections, mobile video might be poised to follow this same type of growth trajectory, creating a similar opportunity for ad networks looking to provide cross-platform digital ad solutions to agencies and advertisers.

  • Devices: Worldwide smartphone shipments passed PCs in total volume for the first time in the 4th quarter of last year while tablet shipments, led by Apple’s iPad, are expected to reach nearly 56 million this year and 172 million by 2014.
  • Network Traffic: In Cisco’s Visual Networking Index Forecast, updated this month, the company predicted that, by 2015, two-thirds of all global mobile data traffic would be video.
  • Advertising: Mobile ad spending is projected to exceed $18 billion worldwide by 2015, representing over 15% of digital advertising’s spend. While in the U.S. video is expected to continue growing faster than any other mobile segment through 2014.

Together, these data points confirm that the PC-based era of the web has been officially replaced by the mobile web, which consumers are already taking advantage of through the proliferation of mobile device types. According to The Nielsen Company, Americans, led by teens and young adults, watch an average of 3 ½ hours of video a month on their mobile devices. To understand just how quickly video consumption habits are evolving look at YouTube’s announcement last month that it has reached 200 million video views per day on mobile devices- an increase of 300% over the beginning of 2010.

Media companies and marketers are looking at ways to quantify this audience in aggregate in an effort to bring advertising economics to parity across all “three screens” (television, web and mobile). This represents a big opportunity for ad networks willing to put forth the technical and execution effort to target mobile audiences fragmented by app-type (mobile web versus native apps), device (smartphones versus tablets), operating system (Android, BlackBerry, iOS, etc.) and ad unit interactivity (passive versus touch-screen).

Because ad guidelines and standards for the mobile web are still maturing in comparison to display and online video, ad networks interested in entering the mobile video space would benefit from acquiring video delivery expertise and an embedded distribution network. Any M&A activity would involve one of these three types of acquisition strategies:

  1. Buy capabilities and market share: This tact was used by Specific Media to enter the online video market by acquiring a top 10 video ad provider and instantly gaining reach. If leading online video advertising networks BrightRoll and YuMe, which launched their respective mobile advertising solutions last fall, don’t see adoption of their offerings, they might be forced to take this route in order to match Tremor Media’s cross-platform scale in video. From the display advertising perspective, only Microsoft and Yahoo as well as the largest ad networks will be able to afford this type of acquisition due to lofty valuations in mobile and video.
  2. Buy capabilities, leverage market share in current business: Undertone took this route by leveraging its own scale on the display advertising side with its video technology purchase to become a top 10 online video ad provider of its own within a couple of months of the acquisition. This is the most capital efficient way for any ad networks to enter the mobile video business, though acting quickly will be the key to successfully executing this strategy due to the limited number of acquisition options and venture capital being invested in the segment.
  3. Extend capabilities and market share: As for Tremor Media, already a leader in the online video advertising space, its deal allowed the company to add product expertise (video overlay ads) while growing its reach and video ad volume. Millennial Media, the largest independent mobile ad network which raised $27.5 million earlier this year, and has raised $65 million overall, is the best positioned mobile ad network to take advantage of this strategy due to its profitability, exit options and capital on hand.

While Google bought its way into a dominate position in the U.S. mobile advertising market (including interactive video ad capabilities) with its purchase of AdMob last year, the growth of YouTube’s mobile website has allowed Google to become a cross-platform provider of mobile video monetization solutions. Apple on the other hand used its acquisition of AdMob competitor Quattro Wireless to build the iAd Network solely for its own mobile operating system (iOS). With two of the largest ad networks having been acquired by the two leading mobile operating platforms what merger opportunities still exist in mobile video advertising?

  • JumpTap: The company added video to its suite of mobile ad formats last year in an effort to broaden its appeal to clients. JumpTap, which delivers ads across all major smartphone platforms (Android, BlackBerry and iOS) as well as the iPad, is considered the largest independent mobile ad network in the U.S. after Millennial Media. As such, the company will most likely have to wait and see what happens with Millennial (which will either go public or get acquired) before drawing interest from the likes of Microsoft, Yahoo and potentially Research in Motion (maker of BlackBerry) who have all been rumored acquirers of a mobile ad network and the only companies large enough to digest JumpTap’s $69 million in capital raised.
  • Mogreet: The company provides mobile video advertising solutions through SMS and MMS mobile messaging services, allowing Mogreet to address the feature phone audience as well. Considering the limitation of their offering, especially when you consider the growth of the smartphone and tablet markets, and the $7 million invested in the company thus far, an acquisition of this company would be a stretch for a U.S.-based ad network but maybe not for a network in a large developing market such as Brazil, India, Indonesia or Russia where feature phones dominate the market.
  • Rhythm NewMedia: From a pure play mobile video ad network perspective, Rhythm NewMedia has built the most envious, cross-platform network out there of the remaining independent players. The company, which recently raised $10 million, only works with premium brand advertisers and publishers across Android and iOS mobile platforms covering both smartphones and iPads. Having raised $37 million in total funding makes Rhythm a pricey acquisition for anyone not named Microsoft or Yahoo at this point though.
  • Vdopia: While the company is an online video ad network with extensive operations and market share in India, it also operates iVdopia, a mobile video ad network. Its mobile offering covers both Android and iOS platforms (including iPads) as well as mobile websites. Claiming it has reached profitability, and with only $4 million raised, Vdopia would be a prudent acquisition for an online global ad network.

Beyond these mobile video ad companies there are several other start-ups that focus on providing rich media advertising solutions for smartphones, tablets and the mobile web that could provide the framework for a video offering for ad networks interested in getting into mobile video. Greystripe which focuses on rich media banner ads primarily for the iPhone, while supporting Android  and Java feature phones as well, has raised the most venture capital of the group ($18 million), followed by Medialets ($10 million) and Crisp Media (at least $5 million). Greystripe’s strength is in its ability to transcode Flash ads into HTML5 in order to support Apple’s Flash-restriction on iOS devices. Both Crisp Media and Medialets, neither of which are an ad network but instead earn revenue from serving rich media ads to mobile devices, do provide video ad solutions for both smartphones and tablets. The biggest challenge facing these companies will be potentially pricing themselves out of the M&A market if they continue to raise capital. Based on this, Crisp Media might be an ideal technology pick-up for an ad network with a strong client-base and distribution network.

With the display inventory component of mobile advertising already being automated through demand side platforms like DataXu and real-time bidding exchanges like Mobclix, mobile video might be the last digital ad segment where ad networks can extract additional margin out of the industry through ad effectiveness and audience scale. Perfecting the online and app video experience will be important beyond just mobile as internet television, the next great digital ad opportunity, will leverage these advertising frameworks for its own platform monetization. As agencies begin to provide digital services at global scale to their advertising clients, ad networks that can deliver audiences across devices and digital formats, at scale, will garner the lion’s share of ad campaign dollars coming from these agencies going forward. To accomplish this ad network’s need to boldly go where most networks haven’t gone before.

Photo credit: fdecomite/Flickr

Where Does Online Video Go From Here?

Google’s acquisition of YouTube in October 2006 was supposed to usher in a new era of opportunity for video creation, distribution and monetization that leveraged the power of the internet. Now, three and a half years later, the biggest benefactors of the boom in online video consumption have primarily been YouTube’s founders and investors as profitability still eludes YouTube and revenues are scant in comparison for most others in the online video ecosystem. With webisode creators closing up shop or changing business models, television networks removing or withholding their content from partners and distribution channels, and well-funded online video aggregators Joost and Veoh shuttering their businesses, what role will the internet play in the video content experience going forward?

Here are today’s realities:

  • Television will not go the way of the newspaper industry. Clay Shirky, an internet and media consultant and professor at NYU, recently suggested that the television industry faced the same disruption in its business models as newspapers are experiencing today. What he failed to acknowledge was that the production value of video content creation cannot be commoditized in the same manner written content can (Avatar didn’t become the highest grossing movie of all-time by cutting corners on cost). In fact the cable industry seems to be strengthening its position with consumers- delivering record audiences for sports leagues, including the largest audience for a single cable network event (last year’s Vikings vs. Packers game on ESPN) and the signing of Conan O’Brien to host his new later night show on TBS. This performance is leading advertisers to commit an even greater share of their television ad budgets to cable networks in the coming upfront season.
  • There are no free lunches for online video consumers. Cord-cutting is somewhat of a fallacy. While a lot has been written about the growing minority of consumers who have given up their cable subscriptions in favor of accessing video content over the web from the likes of Hulu and Netflix, the fact of the matter is that consumers are still paying their cable or phone company to access this video content over their networks. Though monthly internet access can cost a quarter of the price of a monthly cable subscription bill, as they say, you get what you pay for. Without the ability to watch live events (American Idol, Super Bowl, etc.), or specific content from cable networks (Mad Men on AMC, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia on FX, etc.), in addition to no quality of service considerations for video playback on the web (when was the last time you experienced buffering while watching television through your cable service provider?), we are starting to see stories about consumers who have given up on the internet-only video experience.
  • The internet will be one of several distribution channels, not a panacea. While many consumers expect to find all content online, and for free, these people tend to forget that television’s economics continue to drive the decision-making process for broadcasters. It’s for this reason I’ve previously suggested companies such as Blip.tv should look to traditional television networks to extend the distribution and reach for their clients’ webisodic content. With the launch of the iPad and associated apps from video providers, and discussions around broadcasters working together to build a mobile television network, the number of ways consumers will be able to access movies and TV shows will continue to proliferate. While this should drive additional content consumption opportunities for consumers, it will be done so on the television industry’s terms.

And tomorrow’s opportunities:

  • Delivering “DVR economics” will bring more premium video online. For television networks to get comfortable with making more of their content available online after its original broadcast, the revenue opportunity needs to be comparable to what broadcasters are generating from their DVR-viewing audience. This makes sense since watching video online and via DVR are both non-linear viewing experiences intended for consumers to catch-up on missed shows. This will be an important metric for online video services to achieve in order to be considered distribution partners for broadcasters and networks going forward. With online consumers showing a willingness to sit through additional advertisements and both Hulu and TV Everywhere expected to charge for certain content, achieving parity with DVR economics seems to be an achievable goal as the dual revenue model  employed by the television industry (users paying for access to programming in addition to being presented with commercials while watching that programming) proliferates into new channels. This could become a recipe for enabling virtual MSOs like Apple TV and others to gain access to television shows that haven’t been previously made available online. Over time a bifurcated business model could emerge between real-time and time-shifted viewing with different price points for each experience.
  • Social TV will be the key to enhancing the video viewing experiences. Because the internet is a proactive, lean-forward experience most of the time, it is best leveraged as a companion to live event broadcasts to create a social television experience. With more and more people spending time online while watching television there’s an opportunity for programmers to engage audiences by allowing viewers to share their experience with friends or other fans in a meaningful way, creating larger and more loyal audiences. Events such as the Grammys and Oscars have benefited greatly by combining the social features of Facebook and Twitter with live broadcasts. Apps such as Hot Potato and Miso have been launched to aggregate these types of experiences on behalf of viewers, though broadcasters are now developing these services on their own as well. Regardless of the social network or app being leveraged, these services should be incorporated into devices such as mobile phones and tablets, and not necessarily directly into the television set via TV widget platforms, to not inhibit either experience individually and allow any service to compete for audience attention.
  • Unified audience measurement will be paramount. While video ad networks have probably been the greatest benefactors of the growing online video ecosystem, with over $90 million invested between BrightRoll, TidalTV and YuMe in Q1 of this year and Tremor Media earlier this week, until there is a way to merge audiences across different platforms (television, laptop, mobile phone, etc.) online video revenues will remain insignificant in comparison to broadcast television. Nielsen announced a solution to address this problem earlier this year that is expected to be rolled out for the fall television season. Looking to make buying video inventory online comparable to traditional television, two different online video ad networks have partnered with third-parties to create  an online equivalent to Gross Rating Points, called iGRP, which is used to sell prime-time ad inventory, to match online audiences with that of traditional television. As agencies and advertisers get more comfortable with quantifying users online in a similar manner as is currently being done through traditional television broadcasting more ad dollars will continue to flow to online video. This will allow online ad networks to compete for even more upfront ad dollars during TV’s traditional outlay season.
  • Opportunities exist for online video technology providers- to an extent. Brightcove, founded before YouTube ever existed, is arguably the most well know enterprise technology provider to the online video industry. In raising a fourth round of funding recently, the company disclosed it expected worldwide revenues of $50 million this year. Considering the company already works with most major media companies, what does this tell us about the market opportunity for the most important component of the online video ecosystem? If you concur with Frost & Sullivan analyst Dan Rayburn’s estimate of $300 million in total revenues for online video platforms this year, then it’s not that significant. It doesn’t mean that Brightcove won’t have a successful IPO, it’s just that for the amount of capital the company has raised ($100 million) the revenue potential ought to be 10 times Frost & Sullivan’s estimates. That being said, companies that can automate content encoding (i.e. Elemental Technologies) and distribution (i.e. TubeMogul) across disparate platforms and formats, provide rights management (i.e. Widevine) across access points and deliver aggregated audiences and reporting for advertisers will have the best chance for success, though primarily through acquisition. Companies such as Akamai will be the biggest benefactors as they can leverage their public currency to add these services to their CDN delivery business, allowing them to move further up the value chain with clients.

Add it all together and where do we end up? Most consumers don’t differentiate between what content they are accessing, broadcast network television (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) or cable networks (Discovery, ESPN, MTV, etc.), since in today’s digital environment you need a set-top box from a cable, satellite or telecom company to access any television programming. The same will hold true for how consumers access programming tomorrow, be it over dedicated coaxial cables, wireless carrier networks or over the public internet. As such, consumers will have tiered pricing (as either a bundle, how monthly subscriptions are currently provided, or a la carte as Apple is attempting to do) that incorporates how content is being accessed (real-time or on-demand) and from where (television, laptop or mobile phone). Whatever the model, viewers will be able to interact with audiences around the content, creating a more fulfilling experience. Advertisers will benefit from better audience targeting capabilities already being used on the web today across all these viewing outlets with the added value of unified reporting.

While the nirvana of free access to all video content over the internet will probably never be realized (except for one-off cases like YouTube’s wildly successful live streaming of a cricket tournament) the internet will play a major role in improving the online video experience from both a consumption and monetization perspective.

Bookmark and Share

What’s the Next Act for Webisodes?

PoltergeistAs the online video market has evolved so has the content being made available on the web. Faster internet connection speeds and increased broadband penetration has opened up the ability for us to watch high-quality, full length movies over the internet. Combined with better, cheaper video recording and editing equipment, the type of content being created has also evolved from repurposing of Funniest Home Videos to the creation of original scripted video programming online- more popularly known as webisodes.

In 2007 there were three catalysts that brought attention to web series as a viable business opportunity (1) the popularity of Lonelygirl15 on YouTube (2) the launch of Vuguru by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner and (3) the airing of Quarterlife by NBC on network television. These events showed that industry newbies could gain notoriety and success from creating original video programming online (Lonelygirl15), Hollywood believed in the potential of the medium (Vuguru) and web series could make the lucrative transition to television (Quarterlife).

The result was a number of high-profile production companies receiving funding in 2007/08 to capitalize on the opportunity. The likes of Funny or Die, Katalyst Media and 60Frames were launched in conjunction with Hollywood elites Will Ferrell, Ashton Kutcher and United Talent Agency (respectively) while others such as Agility Studios, DECA and EQAL (creators of Lonelygirl15) were founded by Hollywood outsiders.

Fast forward to the present where some have already started questioning the long-term viability of webisodes, as the likes of ManiaTV (an early entrant in the space) and the aforementioned 60Frames have already shut down this year while other production companies have been sold or changed focus. While the economy is the easy excuse for what is troubling the webisode market, it has only served to expose the deficiencies in the business model faster.

The basic problem has been one of customer acquisition and retention. Actual show content and quality aside, without a sizeable enough audience to target, advertisers won’t spend the time or money sponsoring a web series. Thus, online video producers have two options for acquiring the necessary reach for advertisers:

Direct- spend money to promote a web series’ website to a potential audience. This can quickly get expensive, especially when you factor in that almost 2/3rds of a show’s audience does not return for subsequent episodes. That means additional dollars need to be spent on marketing to acquire a new audience and/or remind current viewers to return for future episodes. Without advertiser dollars to fund this acquisition or a portfolio of shows through which to cross-promote a new web series, additional funding is needed to build a sustainable audience.

Indirect- rely on YouTube and other video aggregators to drive their audiences to the web series content being uploaded onto their websites as well as provide the associated monetization. While this instantly provides a solution for both needs, audience traffic is greatly affected by site design changes and content owners only receive a portion (YouTube’s standard payout is 55%) of the associated ad revenues. Looking at data from the top 100 mid-tail video publishers on YouTube (many of which produce webisodes), on average they earn less than $50,000 per month from the site (assuming YouTube’s standard 55% revenue share and daily video views of 140,000, plus a generous 100% sell-through and $20 CPM on the ad inventory)- not a big enough business for most investors.

While there are plenty of webisodes that use a hybrid approach in combining these options, longer term this approach is inefficient. This is because the indirect channel undermines the goal, and dollars spent marketing, of the direct channel by turning a scarcely available product (with theoretically high economic value) into one that is widely available, thus reducing the economic value of each distribution point where the content is being consumed. Simple supply and demand is why ABC, Fox and NBC only make their videos available on their respective websites and Hulu.

So where does the webisode market go from here? The good news is that the opportunity will only continue to grow as video consumption habits evolve. The potential bad news is that traditional television studios might soak up most of this opportunity as the likes of CBS and NBC have started building out their own original online video presences.

For original web series producers that means they have two options: beat ‘em or join ‘em.

How to beat ‘em. Create a television network- for the online world. One of the main advantages that television studios have over a producer of a single show is the ability to aggregate TV show audiences on their network and spread the cost of customer acquisition and episode marketing Break_Originalsacross the entire content portfolio. Break Media is an example of an online property that has been able to successfully build such a network online. The company produces over a half-dozen webisodes that leverage Break Media’s network of male-focused web properties to deliver an audience to their original online video content. Because the company has built its network around a very targeted audience it has been able to differentiate itself, and thus thrive, in a YouTube-dominated market while providing some of the same video content (user-generated, 3rd-party webisodes and movies) experiences.

Another option is to compete on the networks’ terms by delivering webisodes to TV. Services like Boxee and even Hulu are providing web-based interfaces that are meant to be experienced through traditional television sets.  Blip.tv (the preferred video platform for web series producers, providing hosting, advertising, and distribution solutions) is taking this one step further by actually integrating its video platform into set-top boxes to allow Verizon FiOS users to view web video content through their television sets.

Blip.tvA truly audacious opportunity for Blip.tv, with its producer relationships, is to take the television delivery concept one step further and actually become a traditional cable television network. This would provide Blip.tv’s customers with direct access to the largest potential video audience out there and open up a new revenue stream in the process. This could be a lucrative opportunity while we wait for broader video consumption habits to evolve from today’s television network-centric experience to that of video on-demand over cable and internet.

How to join ‘em. EQAL has taken this approach by leveraging their online experience and success in developing original web series to help traditional television programs extend their TV show presences online. This makes sense, especially as it relates to primetime shows that do not produce year-round programming. Keeping fans engaged during the offseason, like NBC is doing with The Office, is more easily, and less expensively, done via webisodes. In the process of refocusing its business in this manner, EQAL retains its ability to work with multiple television networks while still retaining its ability to create its own webisodes.

Alternately, some networks like SpikeTV have decided to acquire webisodic content instead of creating it themselves and redistributing the videos on their cable channel. Having a show acquired is an all or nothing proposition for webisode producers, as the content needs to match with a network’s programming requirements. With only so many slots to fill in a daily TV schedule there will be many more losers than winners here.

Webisode producers- time to choose your story.

Bookmark and Share

April Showers for YouTube- What Will May Bring?

YouTube_ShowerMay did not come soon enough for YouTube. Starting the first week of April when Credit Suisse issued a research report estimating that the site would lose $470 million in 2009 and ending on the last day of the month with Hulu, its main competitor, announcing a much anticipated deal with Disney, YouTube spent April taking a beating in the media over its business model and outlook.

Looking past the media feeding frenzy though, there were several data points from March released by comScore during the month that keeps me believing in YouTube’s opportunity and enviable position.

  • Video. YouTube created the online video market and now delivers over 40% of the online video streams every month in the U.S., making it more than 10 times the size of the 2nd largest online video property Fox Interactive Media (which includes MySpace).

Now you can’t tell me that Twitter, MySpace or even Facebook wouldn’t love to have YouTube’s audience and market position. For Google though, the challenge remains- how to turn this opportunity into more meaningful revenues and a profit.

The company has started addressing the challenge through a series of recent initiatives. The most noteworthy (running Google TV Ads online and Video Ad Sense on unauthorized versions of copyrighted content) attempt to address the gap between the estimated 9% of videos that are currently being monetized by YouTube and the 80% of content that is professionally produced on the site (thanks to Dean Donaldson of Eyeblaster for this data point on slide 36). The other announcements (paid video downloads and ecommerce opportunities related to music, DVDs and games) are geared towards increasing the average revenue generated per user session.

From a deal perspective Google is attempting to improve the overall quality of YouTube’s content catalog, and associated CPM rates, by striking deals for TV shows and movies from Sony, MGM and Lionsgate, and getting clips from Disney’s ABC and ESPN properties. Combined, all of these initiatives can turn YouTube into a break even operation, but they do not unlock the real business potential which is promotion.

YouTube should embrace the promotional nature of its platform (just look at the list of most popular online videos of all time- mostly music videos and movie trailers) and consumption habits of its users (they watch over sixty 3 1/2 minute videos per month) to help content producers and advertisers reach this video “snacking” audience more effectively. Some companies already see the potential and are running their own campaigns for free across YouTube or leveraging companies like 750 Industries and Feed Company to help generate virality for their promotional videos.

Google has tried to address this opportunity by applying the automated AdWords auction model to videos through YouTube Sponsored Videos, which in theory makes sense but has its challenges from a delivery and brand experience perspective. Search works really well for text where there is context for the information you are looking for in determining the best results. This doesn’t hold true for video search which relies on inconsistent metadata tags to determine what the content is and doesn’t take into account whether the content is original, copyrighted or mashed-up. This can lead to inconsistent search results and magnify less relevant content which just won’t work for most advertisers. YouTube’s solution needs to be more dynamic to address advertisers’ concerns around presentation and adjacency.

With the soft-launch of YouTube RealTime, Google has another shot at getting the solution right. Adding social features to the YouTube experience will inevitably drive better user engagement and additional content consumption across users. Combined with Google’s recently announced behavioral targeting capabilities, YouTube could actually push targeted, relevant videos from advertisers as part of its video recommendation features and in the process enable video consumption to grow more virally across its users than is currently available.

For YouTube the key is being able, and open, to using the pieces it has at its disposal in unique combinations to turn this opportunity into revenue reality. This will require Google to think outside of its search black box, which can be difficult as seen with YouTube’s inability to capitalize on the Susan Boyle viral video phenomenon, and provide a more hands-on approach to delivering its solutions. If they can’t bring a media-type solution to media’s video promotion needs, then plan on continued rain in YouTube’s extended forecast.

Bookmark and Share