| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSWith all the talk of broadband replacing television, there is a question I keep asking myself. What is television: "content" or "delivery"? I do know that television started as over-the-air broadcast, then became cable, and is now split between cable and satellite. TV video has seen three delivery methods over 30 years, but has always been classified simply as "television." This leads me to believe that the compelling content made popular by television remains independent of its delivery in the minds of millions of consumers, and broadband is really just the next "delivery method" for this video content.
Having recently seen a demonstration of wireless video connectivity from a PC to a flat panel monitor, I realized that video's delivery method is going to be redefined quickly as more consumers reduce cable and satellite expenditures for increased broadband capability. Great story-telling, which has gone on for thousand of years, will continue to be what consumers demand most, regardless of delivery method. Here are the stats to prove it:
According to a spring survey by Integrated Media Measurement Inc, 20% of consumers are now watching first-run episodic content delivered via broadband, while 90% of prime-time broadcaster shows are available via broadband delivery (Forrester Research). Ninety-six percent of monetized, broadband-delivered video will be network and professional content (Diffusion Group TDG). In fact, CPMs for television content delivered via broadband are garnering television advertising rates. Television as we know it isn't changing; the delivery method is.
But broadband as the new "delivery method" does have risks for networks and broadcasters. If networks allow their digital video to be syndicated without ultimate control of the content, they eliminate their ability to monetize. Monetization is what matters most; without the ability to show positive returns on investments, the broadband video story-telling business will go away, and fast. Networks and broadcasters have to eliminate monetization risks as broadband delivery of video becomes typical.
The solution for networks, broadcasters and studios is to syndicate content vis-à-vis syndicating their video players. Distribution of a video publisher's branded video player coupled with their content management and DRM solutions puts them in control of their brand, digital video, viewing rights, and ability to sell advertising against their content.
If great story-telling is what matters most to consumers, then it seems that the networks have more opportunity in broadband than they did in cable. Why? Networks can syndicate their player or drive consumers back to their Web sites. And if networks and broadcasters can drive consumers back to their sites, they have the ability to dictate revenue splits when syndicating their video players. Networks never had this in cable! Yes, I am saying that if networks and broadcasters understand syndication risks and opportunities, and formulate the right approach toward broadband-delivered television, they may have the ability to greatly expand their monetization options with broadband more than they ever have had with cable. And, after all -- monetization is what matters most.
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
CONTROL seems to be the most important part of syndication. You do not want your content and its supported advertisements being adjacent to any user environment unsafe for the advertiser's brand.
Advertisers and agencies ultimately want to know exactly where their ads are being displayed in order to determine what type of audience is being reached.
Publishers (who are the entity that has the audience to begin with) have their own brands to protect and their own salesforces to feed, and confining them to taking a content producer's player means they may have to circumvent their own video players. For aggregation sites like MeFeedia that's not a problem, but for other sites who want a unified video platform for their users, which they can use to easily monitor their inventory and monetize leveraging the relationships they have with existing advertiser-clients, being forced to have 100 different players on their site for each different piece of content, may cause an issue both aesthetically and operationally.
If we could start by standardizing metrics, DRM and data portability across players, then it wouldn't matter whose player the content was in, as every entity (the producer, the distributor and the exhibitor) would be able to see how the content is being viewed, how it's being monetized, and what portion of those dollars is allocated to them.