Content, TV Display Key to Online Success

The most-important things online movie download services can do to succeed is offer a broad selection of content and make it possible to view that content on TVs, which is the expectation users now have for movie content. That's because the single most important ingredient for success for any video offering is the content.

That isn't to say content pitched to mobiles or PCs can't find a niche. It is to say that the broad mass market for online-delivered movie viewing won't become a mass phenomenon until user behavior is consistent with what consumers expect today.

"When it comes to movie rentals and purchases, the quality of content matters," say analysts at The Diffusion Group. The second crucial element is that "getting video downloads to the TV is absolutely imperative."

The ability to view movie downloads on any TV in the home is of critical importance, both to those that have used online movie download services and those likely to do so soon, The Diffusion Group says.

The use of mobile phones for video viewing is not considered sufficiently desirable to justify using an online movie download service, Diffusion Group researchers find. "As such, cell phone video viewing will not in-and-of-itself be a compelling attribute for an online movie download service, especially of full-length movies.

And there's a difference between users and proponents. Proponents emphasize the interactive capabilities online content enables. But users don't seem especially enamored of those sorts of features, as fond of them as interactive proponents are.

Adult broadband users don't agree. "Only 28 percent rank this attribute positively and 42.3 percent rank it unimportant," Diffusion Group researchers say.

Apple, Netflix ramp up Online Video Efforts

There are many reasons lots of people ought to be paying attention to streaming and downloaded video. Lots of people work for companies making a living delivering video products and everybody watches video in its various forms. Lots of companies are making expensive bets about what people want to watch, how and where they want to watch, what features are required and how much they will watch. The two mid-January developments in the area of particular note are the Netflix "unlimited online viewing" offer and Apple's launch of a video download service.

Up to this point Netflix has allowed its subscribers to watch online movies on a limited basis, corresponding to their monthly plans. Basically, hours of online viewing roughly correlated to the monthly subscription price. The big change is that Netflix now allows users on unlimited rental plans starting at $8.99 a month to stream as many movies and TV episodes as they want on their PCs, choosing from a library of over 6,000 familiar movies and TV episodes.


Now, subscribers on unlimited plans can stream as many movies and TV episodes as they want from the smaller instant watching library, unconstrained by any hourly limits. The move widely is viewed as a preemptive response to Apple's launching of its own video download service, using a rental model rather than "download to own" approach. Up to this point Apple has seen modest success with an approach based on Apple TV hardware and content from two studios, Disney and Paramount.

All major Hollywood studios have agreed to make their content available as part of the new Apple service. They include Paramount, Universal, Walt Disney, Warner Bros, Sony Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Lionsgate, New Line and News Corp's Fox.

Using Apple's iTunes online store, US consumers will be able to hire new-release movies at $3.99 for 30 days. Older titles are priced at $2.99 for the same duration.

These movies can be viewed on iPhones, iPods and television. One can debate the impact of Apple's more-aggressive move into online downloads and streaming. In fact, one can argue that the streaming business is a different segment from the "download to own" market or the "rent by downloading" segment.

One also can debate who wins and loses in the video rental business: Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon.com, Joost, iTunes or others. Even the impact on Netflix is debatable. If consumer use of the streaming feature increases, Netflix will pay more money in licensing fees to the studios who own the content. It also will incur more bandwidth charges. On the other hand, Netflix might spend less money on postal charges, shipping and handling of physical DVDs.

Probably more important is the strategic impact: Netflix's ability to retain existing market share as new competitors enter the market.

The other issue is which market is affected. To some extent the "view on PC" segment is where Apple, Netflix and others compete head to head. There are other segments, such as the "watch on my iPod" market, where Netflix and others delivering to the PC do not play.


Also, one might debate whether a subscription service is different from a pay-per-view model. Heavier users arguably will prefer a subscription model. Lighter users might well prefer the "pay as you go" model. Also, there is little question but that mobile, iPod, PC and TV viewing segments will emerge as full-fledged markets at some point, irrespective of the payment model.

Business motivations also are different. Apple sells content at prices as low as possible so it can create a market for its devices. Its market is rNetazors (devices) not razor blades (recurring revenue). Netflix has the opposite business model: it only cares about devices as platforms to sell content on a recurring basis.

To some extent, then, Netflix and iTunes ultimately compete with telco, wireless and cable on-demand programming offerings, in addition to competing with each other to some extent. Netflix and iTunes now are in the video on demand business, not the "DVD rental" business.

Telcos and cable companies investing heavily in broadband access networks play in the linear TV space as well as the on-demand video space. They compete directly with each other and satellite providers. But over time each of the three main linear programming providers also competes in the on-demand entertainment market, especially as such viewing can be supported on TV screens at some point.

Movie Download Business Won't Be That Easy

Until now, most consumers have been reluctant to purchase movie downloads. There are lots of reasons. It is a new behavior, and learning to do things in a different way takes time. There's little compelling reason to change current behaviors, either. Whatever else one might say, the ability to rent or buy movie material is not a pressing problem.

So Web downloads of the same material consumers easily can get is not a winning proposition for most people: it simply doesn't solve a big enough problem, or save enough time or money. Not when DVD retail, Netflix, Blockbuster rental channels, IPTV and video on demand are so easy to use, both absolutely and comparatively.

And so far, it would be hard to argue that paid movie content delivered over a Web connection for viewing on a standard TV actually saves either money or time.

Download-to-burn services offer a way to get around these limitations and might prove more appealing to consumers, says The Diffusion Group. But not for a while. The number of titles available for D2B services is extremely limited, and that won't be an easy problem to fix.

Not for any technical reason, but because movie content owners are acutely tuned to the distribution methods that net them the most money. And there's no way they'd take a chance on harming existing channels by aggressively deploying a new channel before they have some assurance that cannibalization is minimal and new markets can be created.

CinemaNow and Movielink, both of which offer who offer D2B services, have found uptake to be poor. The problem is pretty simple. Movie rentals and purchases are all about the content, and when the content can be had. Since the studios are cautious, the content D2B offers is widely available elsewhere, through the traditional channels.

While 49 percent of adult Internet users are to some extent familiar with online movie stores that offer downloads, less than five percent report having purchased a movie download.

Not surprisingly, those most interested in D2B services are also the heaviest DVD buyers. On average, D2B potential users purchase 55 percent more movies than users who say they won't, or probably won't use D2B services.

Price sensitivity for B2D services also is significant as well. Still, the biggest problem is simply that the hassle factor is too great, the content selection available elsewhere and the price or time savings minimal to non-existent. This is going to be a tough market to jumpstart.

Joost will provide a new test, of course. But it still is hard to see how the incremental value outweighs the hassle, at least for most consumers. Non-traditional content likely will be the more important factor, ultimately.

Joost Chooses Level 3

Level 3 Communications has been selected by Joost to provide content delivery services for the new Internet television service. Under the terms of the agreement, Level 3 will provide Joost with network solutions including high speed Internet access and colocation services in North America and Europe. Level 3 has made a big commitment to providing CDN services and can claim, by means of its (former Vyvx)broadcast video services unit, to be supplying top U.S. cable and over-the-air broadcasters with a significant part of their overall backhaul and studio feed operations. The Joost deal will not make or break Level 3's CDN business or strategy. But it is a nice customer to have.

Volpi Joins Joost

Joost has named Mike Volpi CEO. The ex-Cisco executive says "traditional television as we know it is gradually going to go away.” Separately, Apple TV now supports the display of YouTube video. In principle, there is no reason why Joost software could not be embedded into a TV set top decoder, into a TV itself, a mobile phone or personal digital assistant. Given the early support provided by Time Warner and Viacom, it appears video content owners have gotten the message the music industry did not: the Web is a new distribution medium.

To this point, most telecom executives have taken an approach to IP-based and Web-based services more akin to the music industry than the video industry. To wit, they've seen more threat than opportunity. That will change, at some point, just as every content, advertising or media business will have to adapt as well.