Category Archives: Television

Everything you know about media is changing dramatically

I mean it. Everything. The media and entertainment industry as we have come to know it is being disrupted, and so is this blog, more on that later. Where to start? Because I did say everything is changing.

Broadcast is dead

Until I spent time this week wandering the exhibit hall and attending talks at INTX 2016 this week, broadcast’s obituary was going to be buried a little deeper in the post. I frontload so heavily because I know how long the average reader spends here. Although I am tempted to name my posts something like “20 things are changing in the media and you won’t flippin’ believe number 19” and then present it as a slide show, I respect your time enough to make but the important stuff first.

We’ve been declaring broadcasting has been braindead for years, but now it’s time to start harvesting the organs. Sports and regional news won’t cover the bill to keep the ventilator pumping indefinitely.

The spectrum currently used by digital television would be put to better use quenching consumers’ insatiable thirst for wireless bandwidth. To that end, the FCC has allowed broadcasters to opt into the Broadcast Incentive Auction. The idea here is simple. Give up spectrum so it can be licensed to wireless providers for 5G service and make some money. As a disincentive to hoarding and holding for a higher price, the first part of the auction is a reverse auction, so it pays to get in early.

As infuriating as it might be for a taxpayer to watch broadcasters profitably sell back to the public airwaves they lobbied so hard for and swore they could not live out, you have to feel a little bit sorry for the dinosaurs now that the asteroid is in sight. I’m partial to the EU’s approach of reallocating the spectrum over 700 MHz for wireless and simply assigning new VHF channels to broadcasters, but here in the US corporations are people too, so we just can’t act in the public’s interest for the sake of the public interest. We have to think of the lobbyists.

Variety had a great explainer on the auction in March. My favorite numbers gleaned are below.

info graphic

The final act of this play will be streamed

Once the video over IP’s latency problem with live events is solved broadcast will have completely outlived its usefulness. We will have reached a point where even the Super Bowl can’t save it. Currently IP network latency delays live events up to thirty seconds. As an MLB.TV fanatic, I have to put the mobile down to enjoy a game otherwise I’ll witness the Twittersphere lighting up before I even see the batter step into the box to crush the game winning home run. For sports to remain a communal activity in the age of social media, latency has get down to about two seconds.

That date is very near. Using a combination 4G LTE bonding and some really nifty video file wrapping tricks, the Israeli startup Zixi has reached that bar with image quality that rivals today’s Xfinity and FiOS pictures. It’s just a matter of adoption. I put it at 24 months for Zixi or a rival technology to make broadcasting over the air obsolete.

The passing of traditional broadcast is interesting enough. In fact, I could stop here and call it a post except that I said everything was changing. And, dammit, everything really is.

Move over Viacom, Fox, and Disney

Amazon, Netflix, Google, Apple, Netflix, Facebook, and Microsoft all want to steal your lunch money. Wall Street believes they will, and these things become self-fulfilling prophecies in short order. They all already own or aspire to own a significant portions of the entertainment value chain. Microsoft and Facebook are longer shots but somewhat more interesting because they are not just looking at the traditional media value chain, but are approaching M&E through significant investment in gaming and VR. For them it comes down to whether VR technology will be ready for primetime soon enough. If one of them wins, just read Ready Player One to see how the story ends. Google’s gotten into VR as well, but it gets lumped it with the others due to its ownership of the world’s most successful online video platform. And how many OVPs does the world really need? Hint: The answer is not greater than two. One rare bit of investment advice from this publication… short OVPs and go long on CDNs.

It going to come down to who can afford to front the large sums of money to create tent pole content, who can store and protect it throughout its lifecycle without losing it to theft or in a theme park fire, who can monetize it effectively, and who can deliver it efficiently. That’s what will determine the winners. Amazon with Elemental and Apple with all its video expertise are positioned for an epic battle. Apple has the edge in video smarts while Amazon has the edge in distribution, pricing, and packaging smarts. How will Apple compete against free two-day shipping for underwear and great programming for $99 a year? Whatever the tech giants come up with will certainly beat a $300 a month cable bill.

Where’s Google in all this? I can’t help but feel that Google will mess it up. Media and entertainment is all about user experience. Google simply doesn’t value design and user experience enough. YouTube and Gmail are still ugly after all these years. While an email client can be ugly and a little clunky as long as it’s free and the user never loses anything, the presentation layer for the night’s entertainment should be inviting.

IaaS the big play

The real money in media then is infrastructure as a service. What Avid, Grass Valley, and the like have done in the past must now become exponentially bigger, more robust, and more open. Avid is right. The industry is crying for a platform. Unfortunately for Avid, it’s crying for a platform a mid-sized tech company doesn’t have the resources to provide. Amazon with Elemental is already closer to realizing Avid’s dream than Avid is. A lot of small players have the necessary pieces built to connect to a network, a larger company, not viewed as  a direct competitor by potential partners is better positioned to roll them up into a unified platform offering.

Simplifying it a bit, whoever can provide the storage, rights management, and monetization tools will win. Dell-EMC is extremely well positioned to contend in that space with its hardware, virtualization expertise, and storage smarts. It makes the servers and intelligent storage. It owns VMware and Virtustream, so it will be able to provision data centers like no one else. Dell-EMC should be able to take a commanding early lead repurposing hardware in real time as audience usage patterns change. Add an acquisition like Telestream or Harmonic, and we have a new media and entertainment powerhouse.

IBM is the cicada in all this. Once every few years IBM shows interest in M&E only to shift focus shortly thereafter. With the right timing, IBM could get lucky.

Over the next few years, the remaining media-specific tech companies will have to become more focused on their core competencies. Their customer bases are buying less, forcing them to compete in a race to the bottom in a shrinking pool. While all are moving as nimbly as they can to make the transition from signal-based to IP video, they are faced with R&D resource limits and the drag of legacy customers such as large state broadcasters moving more slowly to the future.  These legacy customers account for significant portions of media tech’s revenue stream and cannot be ignored until the business transformation is complete.

Acquisition and Post are about to be disrupted too

Camera evolution is the total wildcard that can change the whole production and post process dramatically. When light field cameras get high enough resolution and come down in cost, the cost of shooting will drop dramatically due to shorter set up time and the need for fewer cameras. Composition, focus, lighting, tracking and green screen will all be handled in post, much of it algorithmically. Editing becomes a smaller part of the post process with DPs, directors, and VFX taking on larger roles once shooting stops. As post production for the 2D display requires more 3D capabilities, look for the post solutions market to bifurcate with Adobe taking the lion’s share with a combination of Avid and Autodesk tools owning the extreme high end. Don’t be surprised to see Media Composer land at Autodesk, or Autodesk’s media and entertainment business go to Avid. A number of former (and extremely talented) Avid engineers are now in Autodesk’s media and entertainment development organization.

Adobe has a leg up in the light field world. These cameras have been in development for some time. Light field still image capture is already available to the market, and Adobe has tools under development to enable Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere, and After Effects to thrive in this new world.

How media is created, distributed, and consumed is all changing. No career in media will be untouched. No company will be sheltered from the disruption. Be agile. Embrace the disruption.

Everything includes this little nook in the internet

I will follow my own advice by embracing disruption and becoming more agile. It will no longer be focused exclusively on media and entertainment technology. Instead I will draw upon my experience of the past fifteen years in technology design, development, and product management. I will adjust my gaze away from LA and put more focus closer to home in the technology hotbed of Boston.

Aereo is not a Betamax moment

But pro wrestling could give us one

vcr-displayAll eyes were on the US Supreme Court this week when arguments were heard in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.  While an interesting legal exercise, it’s hard to imagine any outcome that would upend the broadcast television industry as we know it is highly unlikely. The court that gave us the Citizen’s United ruling is not predisposed to ruling against large business interests. The justices’ questions hinted they were looking for a way to rule against Aereo without affecting other cloud business models, and they appeared to find it. Don’t expect the vote will be close. It might even be unanimous.

In the unlikely event the court were to rule in favor of Aereo, the broadcasters have threatened to power down their transmitters and morph into cable networks. Virtually no one watches television over the air these days, so few prime time viewers would notice. David Carr of the New York Times explains the numbers and the disruption to local broadcasters’ business models. For viewers tuning in to local broadcasters for news, weather, and sports, the TV world will look very different. But no one seems to be concerned about that right now, though they should. Do we really want the large swaths of the populace being informed solely by cable news outlets?

Even assuming Aereo goes away, for broadcast and cable television the status quo remains untenable. The sea change has begun. “Cord cutting” and “binge viewing” are now part of the vernacular. Netflix and Amazon Prime are established players already going at it for top spot in the post cable universe, but unless each becomes a content owner in its own right, they are fighting today’s war with yesterday’s weapons. You either own the content or the infrastructure that delivers it to the end consumer, or you are relegated to a shrinking role.  This is because content owners like Major League Baseball (MLB.tv) and the WWE Network (soon to be launched)  have decided to cut out the middle man and go directly to customer.

After seriously considering launching its own cable network, WWE changed course.

From Forbes April 14, 2014:

[WWE CEO Vince McMahon] roostered onto the stage at Las Vegas’ Consumer Electronics Show in January to announce a bold new venture: the WWE Network. McMahon told the cheering audience that the WWE Network would not be broadcast on cable television, where Monday Night RAW has consistently been a top-rated program each week, nor would it be another pay-per-view (PPV) play. Rather, the WWE network will stream content 24/7 directly to viewers on the Internet or what’s known in the entertainment industry as going over the top. It’s a move that directly endangers both WWE’s PPV revenues ($82.5 million) and its potential new TV deals, a huge gamble that according to some estimates could double the size of the WWE’s business in two years–or fall flat on its face…

WWE estimates it needs a million subscribers at $10/month to reach breakeven. Considering that watching all 12 WWE pay-per-view events each year costs over $600, another $120 per year for the complete WWE archive will seem like a bargain to its rabid fanbase.

An over the top, a la carte future is what consumers have been pining for. Content owners salivate over the opportunity to sell directly to customer, letting the customer pick up the tab for a good portion of the delivery costs through wireless and broadband access fees. What’s not to like? Well, for both the content owner and the consumer it can start with the FCC’s decision to abandon the concept of net neutrality. With so many Americans receiving broadband services from the cable providers, the cable providers will have the pricing power to keep themselves in the game for a while to come. If they have to pony up for access to the Internet’s express lane, the barrier to entry into the new over the top world will be prohibitive to all but the largest content owners. Plus ça change…

Light reading September 29, 2013

Articles of interests to techs, geeks, and capitalists.

It appears Android has overtaken iOS in unit numbers of, but declarations of the iOS demise would be premature. If Apple spun out its iPhone business it alone would be ranked 10th based on revenue in the S&P 500. Bloomberg has compiled a slew of other iPhone fun facts.

This would be humorous if it wasn’t so creepy. The NSA can scan our social network, phone, email, and travel itineraries, but a federal judge allows a class action suit against Google to proceed because Gmail’s ad serving technology might violate federal wiretapping laws.

As baseball’s regular season winds down, Jonathan Mahler of the New York Times asks why such a wildly successful enterprise like Major League Baseball feels so irrelevant. Could it be that TV killed baseball? Is the Game Over?

And finally, the obligatory Breaking Bad reference. This Economist column favorably compares the lessons learned from Walter White to a Harvard B-school MBA.

Rethinking Ratings

Last week the NY Times reported in its Media Decoder blog that Nielsen is rejiggering the way it tabulates ratings to include Internet connected TVs. Of course media executives are in favor of any upwards pointing tweak to the algorithm, but how much closer to reality is this making the ever dubious ratings game?

I think not much. Nielsen still isn’t counting laptops, tablets, and phones. Just big, old flat screen TVs.

The new definition “will include those households who are receiving broadband Internet and putting it onto a television set,” said Pat McDonough, the senior vice president for insights and analysis at Nielsen. Currently a “television set” is the flat-screen kind…

…just 0.6 percent of households in the United States meet the new description.

It’s a start, but for how long are advertisers going to care about the aggregate? If everyone isn’t seeing the same ads, what good is the data? And don’t we already have good numbers on ads that reach viewers via IP?

To an advertiser a ratings point equals 1.1 million or so households viewing its ad. Advertisers don’t really care about who viewing the surrounding content. In the age of the DVR, VOD, and TV over IP, that’s not just semantics. The discrepancy between eyes on the content and eyes on the ad can be significant.

According to Wikipedia, the number of homes with televisions dropped by 500,000 form the previous year. A cynic might argue that a mere 0.6% upwards adjustment was concocted to maintain the value of a rating point, not the value of the data. It’s time for a fundamental overhaul of the ratings system. Television might be the first case in the modern media era where the IP-delivered ad has greater value than the traditionally delivered ad due to targeting and mandatory viewing through technologies like fast forward disabling in VOD.

Some Oscar Night Reading

This week’s Economist features a brief article on the state of Hollywood. Though not a lot will be revelatory to those of us in the space, it does remind us of some interesting trends that many of could hardly imagine just a few years ago.

One example, rumors of television’s demise were premature.

TV is relatively stable and currently lucrative. TV networks earn money from advertising and from the fees that cable and satellite operators pay to carry their programmes. These fees amount to some $32 billion a year in America, and are growing by about 7% annually. People love watching TV, and, per hour, it is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.

In contrast, film revenues are volatile. Attendance swings like the moods of Claire Danes’s bipolar character, Carrie Mathison, in the TV show “Homeland”. In 2011 American cinemas sold 1.28 billion tickets, the smallest number since 1995.

As studios continue to experiment with new distribution models, and companies like Netflix are getting into the content creation business, both the motion picture and television industries might be in for a period of growth.

 

%d bloggers like this: