Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts

08/06/2007

Joost gets new CEO and eyes SetTop future

After gaining 45 million in funding from a bunch of companies Joost has hired a big name hardware industry hot shot to pave a gold brick road for the future of IPTV.

The Joost blog announced earlier this week that they had signed a new CEO: Mike Volpi has been appointed chief executive officer. Volpi succeeds the company's founding CEO, Fredrik de Wahl, who remains at Joost as chief strategy officer.

"Volpi joins Joost from Cisco Systems, Inc., where he spent 13 years in a variety of strategic management roles. Most recently, he managed a US$11 billion business as senior vice president and general manager for Cisco's Routing and Service Provider Technology Group, which included Scientific Atlanta."

At first thought I was curious how a hardware guy would be a good fit for a web based new media start-up. Is it possible Joost is trying to build a strategic alliance with the hardware guys to ensure their technology is supported at the lowest possible level? We all know they've had some technical hicups that left them red in the face (bandwidth, server issues etc.). Is building these strategic partnerships an upmost necessity for Joost's success? Volpi is certainly connected in the industry selling Cisco switches to the big media giants like Comcast and Time Warner and people often say it is not about what you know, but who you know!

In his first interview at Joost Volpi stated to a New York Times reporter that:


"Joost is a piece of software and it can reside on a variety of platforms,”
he said. “It could be on a television set-top box. Or potentially it could be
imbedded in a TV set with an Ethernet connection, or on a mobile phone, or in
some alternative device that might come out in the future. The flexibility is
really high.”

It wouldn't be the first time I've suggested that IPTV will take over the traditional television market. It's just hard to predict when that would be. Apple is there with their AppleTV SetTop box (which I hate) many other companies are either already in the market (HP/Microsoft) or looking to enter (Joost).

It only makes sense to eliminate the PC from the Television delivery channel. I've blogged about this too many times to count so I won't do it again.

Can't wait for the Joost SetTop!

Over And Out

09/05/2007

Joost Signs Another: Warner Bros; Future of TV?

Joostâ„¢ the best of tv and the internet

I Joost can't say enough good stuff about Joost. I got a free beta invitation, and well, the content just keeps piling on.

"As one of the premier television production studios, the fact that Warner Bros. has chosen to create its first online channels on the Joost platform shows that we are creating a unique, communal television experience for viewers where content owners can distribute professionally-produced programming with the quality and security they need," said Yvette Alberdingk Thijm, executive vice president, content strategy and acquisition. "The program offering that Warner Bros. will showcase on Joost demonstrates the depth and breadth of our content – from classic programs to current hits, from sitcoms and dramas to sci-fi and adventure, the Joost platform offers channels and programs that have broad appeal and are in high demand." - Link

One of the big things that caught my eye is that Warner Bros. has signed an exclusivity deal with Joost. If Joost can manage to continue down this road they will do pretty well. I mean can you really argue with the guys who started Kazza and Skype?

I keep blogging about this stuff because IPTV is here to stay, it's still a fairly immature technology (meaning adoption from the network side isn't happening too quickly, and neither is critical mass developing), BUT it may represent the largest growth opportunity on the net right now(other than mobile, especially as we recognize Video Advertisement ROI).

If video ads in IPTV can target all of the niche benefits of advertising similar to magazines (Video Advertisement ROI: The Internet as a Magazine), it's possible that some of those shows you never wanted to get cancelled, won't actually get cancelled.

All that is missing is critical mass on these services. But hey, there are 30 million people in Canada that can watch lame CRTC regulated telvision. This 30 million does not even come close to touching the number of broadband internet users world wide. So from an advertising perspective, if Joost can monetize viewers viewing habits and custom tailor ads for those users it could be a gold mine ($61 billion on television advertising in 2006).

Finally, and I think that it's brilliant to be able to link to Steve Paikin's The Agenda (gotta love Canadian content). They did a nice 30 min segment on the future of television in Canada last night. It is amazing that TVO the public Canadian station who hosts The Agenda, can't put together a better panel to talk about this stuff. Either way, they talk to a lot of the real economies involved. Oh and, you'll have to scroll half way through the below video to see the future of TV talk - and it's 30 mins long.


video removed please click link - MS

Other relevant stories I've posted about Joost

Over And Out

18/04/2007

TV going down the tube? Or is it like a bunch of tubes Mr. Bush?

Why is TV so bad? Possibly because we can skip advertisements, watch the web cast version tomorrow on iTunes or YouTube, and or because of shows like American Idol stealing the ratings.

I can't write today so read the below article.

Local TV stations face Net threat
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6176561.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

Then think about how cellular subscribers subsidize cell phones.

Then think about how amazing it would be if you could get a 70 inch LCD HDTV for $1000 when signing up for Google IP TV on a 3 year contract.

P.S., $75 billion market for TV advertising.

I'm going back to sleep.

Over and Out.

12/04/2007

Viacom Stiffs Google, Gootube, and Yahoo! comes out on top

I read a very interesting post on Mark Cuban's blog back in late October entitled "Some intimate details on the Google YouTube Deal" where some insider comments were posted with respect to backroom deals that went on during Google's acquisition of YouTube.

The basic jest was that Google may have paid copyright holders equity in the YouTube deal so they would drop current all current legal suits, they setup a backroom fund (rumored to be around 1/2 the sale price of YouTube) to combat future copyright cases, and purchased a certain window (Q3, Q4 2006) in which the major copyright holders promised not to send take down notices or bring legal suits against YouTube while Google took the reins. At the time, several industry experts made sense of the Google YouTube deal as a means of Google purchasing the rights to control and monetize the advertising on YouTube (in some cool new video ad format including Adsense).

Well, it looks like that may just be coming back to bite them in the rear end.

Since that Q3, Q4 grace window ended in January 2007, YouTube has been in the news constantly for being served with take down notices (NBC, Viacom etc.) and it looks as though it is starting to harm Googles core business as Viacom (CBS network, MTV, Infinity broadcasting, Simon & Schuster, Blockbuster and Paramount Pict) has decided to partner with Yahoo over Google for search advertising on 33 of it’s websites.

This may also be a Viacom’s response to the search giant’s plans to enter some of the more traditional advertising spaces such as Radio and Television. This move has irked many of the big broadcasters who typically control advertising within their broadcasts. Such advertising ultimately allows TV or Radio shows to be aired or be cancelled (if the ads can’t pay the show’s contract the show is cancelled) and could significantly affect the quality of television should Google get into the mix and command a portion of each networks ad revenue (pay less for advertising on major networks)

Obviously, for a company like Viacom this represents a huge threat and no doubt is another reason why they would enter into an advertising deal with Yahoo!’s Panama platform. Terry Semel the head of Yahoo! responded, “Aligning Viacom’s popular brands, leading content and large audience with Yahoo!’s more targeted, relevant advertising, marks the beginning of a powerful and engaging partnership between our two companies.”

The increasing popularity of YouTube has enlightened experts to an industry trend of popular versus non-popular media on the site. In fact, at the height of YouTube – in its Q3, Q4 window of freedom - only 3 of the top 20 most popular videos on the site were user generated content. “Whats interesting is that Gootube has gone corporate. Its primary application is to host commercials. Commercials for TV shows. Commercials for Products. Commercials for cheesy websites. Gootube may host a bunch of user generated content, but thats not what people look at.“ - Mark Cuban. However according to a recent study, we’ve seen a steady increase in user generated content in the most popular feeds (if this is because there is less illegal video and hence user generated content is receiving higher popularity ratings is unknown - but the methodology of this study is being questioned).

Either way, if YouTube, the internet media giant, continues to hide behind the DMCA we will certainly continue to see more traditional media outfits (or their holding companies) rally against Google’s best interests. Especially if they believe YouTube is improperly profiting off the unlicensed content. One of the easiest ways these companies could seriously impact Google’s success in the traditional advertising space is simply by adopting Panama (Yahoo’s), Microsoft’s (Adcenter), or a Home Brewed platform to control advertising on their web sites (anything other than Google Adsense). I'd argue by adopting Panama they will further the success of Google's direct competition which is probably more in their best interests than going at it on a home brewed individual level even at the cost of higher profits (protect the industry & keep online - online). Google is known to be a one trick pony, they do search well, and their advertising platform keeps them a float. If their ad revenue stagnates whatsoever, investors will see this as a very bad sign and the stock will probably take a big hit and affect what new markets they may enter.

Currently only 5% of advertising dollars are spent online – this figure is expected to rise to 45% - 50% in the next decade so regardless these firms will continue to make money hand over fist.

I don’t know what type of creative measures companies like News Corporation, Time Warner, or Rogers Communications in Canada could do to prevent a hostile takeover of their advertising revenues. But I’m sure it could get really nasty akin to the Microsoft suits of the ninety’s. Today CBS said that it has launched the CBS Interactive Audience Network, which will distribute advertising-supported shows across Web properties including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Microsoft's MSN, CNet Networks Inc., and Joost as reported by WSJ but also includes deals with Cnet, Comcast’s Comcast.net and Fancast.com, Bebo, Brightcove.com, NetVibes, Sling Media and Veoh. The deals vary but include clips, full-length programs, remixes, library content, current shows. No doubt, CBS will expect to at least share the advertising revenue with these sites, and even possibly dictate the % depending on how successful this is. Obviously, CBS will also not be too quick to embrace the Google Adsense platform, saying they will use whatever unique ad platforms are required (EX// Joost is an IP TV company so they will probably run standard TV ads - possibly this will be the case accross their entire network).

Other Notes:

Since the Panama Ad Platform rollout in February Yahoo’s share price has increased from the $27-$28 mark to $31-$32 dollar mark nearly an 18% increase. Keeping in mind Yahoo’s stock is extremely sensitive to industry news – and that I’ve picked extreme highs and lows to prove my point (the Viacom deal happened yesterday) – over the same period, Google has seen its’ stock fall around 8 percent from the $490-$500 mark to the $460 mark (with extreme lows of the high $430’s).

YouTube, by far the most succesful video sharing site on the net, has emmerged into a sort of mobile video channel, where cell phone users, who may not necessarily have data plans, have an unlimited connection to YouTube and can view unlimited videos at no additional cost on their phone. The fact YouTube has been able to get to this point is pretty amazing and could seriously undermine any efforts from the big media firms in gaining traction in this market. Further it may eventually force the big media firms to license certain types of content to YouTube in a relationship where YouTube is the price setter.

If you have any comments please contribute.

Over and Out