Video on Demand Consumption Grows, So Does Rest of "On Demand"

Video-on-demand services offered by cable, satellite and telco TV providers have been a modest success so far. In fact, one might well make the argument that digital video recorders represent the biggest innovation in "on demand" viewing in recent years, though some also would note even that viewing is relatively low, compared to total viewing.

Still, there was a 35 percent increase in VOD transactions in 2010, compared to 2009, according to Rentrak OnDemand Essentials, an audience measurement company.

According to the Leichtman Research Group, DVR penetration rates have reached 54 percent for consumers with households exceeding $75,000 while those with incomes below $30,000 only have a 16 percent penetration rate. See http://www.marketingforecast.com/archives/6941.

Last year, a Nielsen survey revealed that over 30 percent of consumers owned DVRs, but a more recent survey conducted by Comcast says that up to 60 percent of households may be time-shifting their TV viewing.

According to Leichtman analysts, live programming still represents about 80 percent of total viewing. But DVR now represents about 41 percent of that activity.

Online is 17 percent of total TV consumption while other forms of video on demand represent 16 percent of viewing.

But estimates vary. Overall, consumers watch an average of 158.25 minutes of TV per day, according to Nielsen. And they spend just 9:36 minutes watching time shifted TV daily, a 14 percent increase from last year, but still a small amount, according to Nielsen.

On-Demand Viewing Poses a Test for Broadcasters - NYTimes.com

Video on Demand: After 25 Years, Still Not that Big a Deal

Despite all the attention now paid to online delivery of movie and video programming, after 25 years, consumers globally still show an overwhelming preference for renting shows using some form of physical media.

Video-on-demand services, which have been available for 25 years, continue to lag other methods of delivery, DVD rentals and purchases being the dominant method.

The other significant issue is that demand for all forms of on-demand video seems to have flattened out, globally. That suggests displacement, not growth, is the strategic imperative. For VOD providers, the issue remains: can VOD grab more share of the market than developing online delivery methods?

Netflix Faces Stiffer VODCompetition

Netflix faces competition in digital video-on-demand and pay-per-view offerings from players like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Dish Network, according to analysts at Trefis. The reason is a
recent Federal Communications Commission decision allowing new films to be made available on-demand before such films are available on DVDs.

The FCC generally prohibits the use of so-called "selectable output control" technology, which encodes video programming with a signal to remotely disable set-top box output connections. But the FCC granted a waiver from those rules for Motion Picture Association of America members who want to protect copying of content if a new digital release window is created.

Allowing movie studios to temporarily prevent recording from TVs could pave the way for movies to be released to homes sooner than they are today. The FCC said the waiver is therefore in the public interest, because the studios are unlikely to offer new movies so soon after their theatrical release without such controls.

The FCC decision allows movie studios (like Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Disney Studios) to block analog signals on TVs and video recorders when consumers purchase their latest on-demand movies.

This decision was pushed for by Disney, Time Warner and Viacom to reduce the likelihood of content piracy, especially for new films where instances of piracy tend to be high. While this move gives movie studios more control over their content offering, it also gives a boost to cable providers that compete with Netflix to deliver the latest films to consumers, Trefis argues.

BBC Looks To Ban Over the Top Use of Its Content

The BBC, saying it seeks to maintain its brand, says it does not want to make its programs available to third parties for VOD distribution on an unbundled basis. In part, that is one more example of how the debate over content pay walls is being played out, and also an example of the broader ways in which the battle between open and closed ecosystems likewise has heated up.

BBC Looks To Ban Third-Party iPlayer Builds | paidContent:

Will 13% of Video Subs Cut All or Some of Their Services This Year?

It probably would not surprise you if the Yankee Group suggested that younger people are more likely to stop subscribing to cable, satellite or telco video services.

It might surprise you to learn that Yankee Group believes 13 percent of current subscribers will cut all or some of their video services within 12 months.

That would be unprecedented in the history of multi-channel video.

Keep in mine that Yankee Group says the forms of "cord cutting" might take the form of terminating premium channels or halting use of video-on-demand services, as well as terminating all service entirely. Still, that would be a stunning development.

Canadian Video Providers Test Partial "A La Carte" Buying of Video Channels

In an important test of market demand, Canadian cable and telco multi-channel video providers are beginning to test market demand for more-flexible ways of selling cable channels. It isn't a full-blown switch to à la carte television, but will provide an important test of how well consumers like the ability to buy service in ways that might offer more targeted buying of channels they actually watch.

Bell Canada now is offering a more-granular approach to buying multi-channel TV service. The service is being introduced in Bell Canada's Quebec service territory.

The company says it will allow television customers to subscribe to individual channels, rather than the standard bundles that have been the mainstay of the multi-channel video business.

Customers must first take a basic $25 package that includes standard channels such as Global, CTV, CityTV and CBC, and can then choose 15 channels for $15, 20 for $19 or 30 for $22. Bell is also offering individual channels for $2 each.

"TV just got better for subscribers in Quebec, who now have the ultimate control and flexibility to get the channels they want," says Kevin Crull, Bell's president of residential services.

Vidéotron already offers similar options, with basic service and 15 extra channels starting at $37 a month.

Quebec has been one of the most competitive regions for telecommunications, with some of the lowest prices in the country, says the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Bell Canada apparently is not offering à la carte channels in Ontario, its other main television territory.

Rogers, Bell's chief TV rival in Ontario, does offer individual channels on top of basic service at a typical cost of $2.79 each. Basic television services in Ontario from both Bell and Rogers start at around $35 and $30, respectively.

So far, no U.S. provider has taken this route, but consumer demand will be watched closely for any signs the practice might be useful in the U.S. market as a way of providing service differentiation.

Video Cord Cutting Threat is Overestimated, Parks Associates Says

Despite the growing amount of video available online, less than eight percent of U.S. broadband households, or about 5.5 million households, are considering canceling their multi-channel subscription services in favor of online video, according to Parks Associates. You may interpret that as good or bad news.

The 2008 study found 11 percent of U.S. broadband households were considering canceling pay-TV services, and in an earlier 2009 survey, the number was 10 percent. The upside is that people might be finding it is harder than they thought to replace their current multi-channel video experience with alternative sources.

Where there clearly seems to be more danger is in the area of churn. As many as 2.75 million of those households report they are considering a switch to a new service provider. That's the bigger danger, as consumers do not have to change behavior or lose any of the value when switching providers, but might save some money, or even increase perceived value for equivalent levels of spending.

Online viewing is correlated with switching propensity, though. Parks found that households saying they are likely to switch or cancel their services watch 10 hours of online video each week, much higher than typical video consumers.

They express strong interest in having online access to pay-TV channels as well. Such video-intensive customers also use offline video, such as DVD rentals, at higher rates than typical consumers do.

Their median number of DVD rentals from the last six months is 18, compared to two rentals among other households.

“Just 0.5 percent of broadband households appear to have cancelled their video subscriptions, according to  John Barrett, director, research, Parks Associates.

In fact, the profile of a "switcher" is someone who does not watch much TV. That makes sense. Though conventional wisdom is that "heavy" users are more likely to "cut the cord," in reality it is light users who are most prone to cancel their service, simply because the value-for-price equation is not so high.

Is Digital Delivery Destroying Other Parts of the Movie Ecosystem?

Reality typically is more complex than any forecast about reality. Consider the movie business and downstream ecosystem. Digital entertainment was supposed to destroy the movie theater business, but evidence is contradictory on that score.

It might be more accurate to say that the digital entertainment business is hitting "physical media" sales more than anything else. In the first half of 2009, ticket sales grew 17.5 percent, according to Media by Numbers, a box-office tracking company. You might argue that is the result of higher ticket prices or a desire to momentarily escape recession woes.

As it turns out, neither of those factors seem to be driving the trend. Attendance jumped by nearly 16 percent in the first half of 2009. If those rates hold for the whole year, it would be the biggest box-office surge in at least two decades.

There likely is some truth to the adage that "people go to movies more frequently in a recession." But the evidence is mixed on that score. The last time Hollywood enjoyed a double-digit jump in attendance was 1989, when the unemployment rate was at a comfortable 5.4 percent. That year, the number of moviegoers shot up 16.4 percent, according to Box Office Mojo.

In 1982, theater attendance jumped 10.1 percent to about 1.18 billion as unemployment rose sharply past 10 percent. Then admissions fell nearly 12 percent, an unusually sharp drop, in 1985, as the economy picked up.

The economy's effect is a bit unclear, in other words. As always is the case, though, movie attendance is higher when film-makers create movies lots of people want to see, and that likely is a part of the story.

The film industry over the last year or two has released movies that are happier, scarier or just less depressing than what came before, some might argue.

Still, the point is that digital delivery has not adversely affected theater attendance of late.

DVD sales are another matter. In 2008, movie ticket sales surpassed DVD revenue, according to Adams Media Research. Where 2009 box office receipts grew 10 percent $9.87 billion, DVD sales fell 13 percent to $8.73 billion.

For whatever reason, consumers are spending less money buying DVDs than they had been for most of the past 10 years, and a reasonable guess would be that video on demand and other streaming services finally are starting to have an impact. The other angle is that Netflix has kept growing as well, despite predictions by many that growth would falter as Internet delivery and VOD became more established behaviors.

Consumers may also have realized that they will not watch most movies more than once. That will shift behavior towards rental services and VOD.

The prevailing wisdom is that the DVD business is in a permanent decline. A few years ago many analysts wrongly predicted that theater sales would drop every year, as well. One should never underestimate the impact business decisions by the movie ecosystem can have.

Making movies people want to see plays a huge role, for example. Pricing and distribution decisions made in the DVD sales and rental channel also can have a huge and unforseen impact. Netflix disrupted the retail rental store business, for example.

Also, Blu-ray HDTV appliance adoption might be playing a role as well. Though the installed base of DVD players still represent the lion's share of device usage, Blu-ray obviously is growing. That could have consumers holding back on purchases of physical media they believe will someday go the way of casette tapes.

Video Now Driving Bigger Access Bandwidth Packages, says Compete.com

How much Internet-delivered video is being consumed by users of sites such as Hulu.com or Netflix.com? According to compete.com data, Hulu.com traffic has grown 210 percent over the last year.

"If Hulu.com continued this growth trajectory for another year, we could see it break into Compete.com’s top 50, surpassing unique visitor traffic to sites like the NYtimes.com and Netflix.com," says Matt McGlinn, Compete.com writer.

From September 2008 to September 2009, Netflix.com’s volume of unique visitors viewing movies and other content online increased 163 percent, says Compete.com.

The good news for Internet service providers is that these trends will keep driving end users to buy access packages featuring higher amounts of bandwidth, says McGlinn.

On Demand TV "Not So Everywhere"

Comcast Cable subscribers will be able to watch popular cable television series such as HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Mad Men" on your computer by the end of the year without paying extra — as long as you're a Comcast Corp. subscriber watching at home.

The initiative is a starting point for Comcast, which hopes to eventually offer what some call "TV Everywhere" service: linear video programming on demand, over any broadband network.

Comcast, wanting to make sure the shows will remain off-limits to non-subscribers, apparently still is working on providing access over competing home broadband systems as well as on the go — at work, on laptops and, one day, over cell phones.

Comcast will be the first cable TV operator to unlock online access to a many cable shows and movies, aiming to replicate what's available on television through video on demand.

Comcast subscribers can initially watch shows and movies only on their home computers after being verified by the cable system. And for now, the online viewing will be restricted to those who also get Internet service through Comcast, and not on any broadband connection.

That might be helpful for Comcast consumers watching on-demand fare at home. It will not be so helpful if those customers would prefer to watch on their mobiles or any other broadband connection.

But it is a start.

Will Hulu be a For-Fee Service in 2010?

It looks like much Hulu content, especially network TV fare, will move to "for-fee" status sometime in 2010.  Hulu, owned by News Corp, NBC Universal and Walt Disney Company, is quite popular, attracting more than 300 million views in the month of February 2009, but ad revenues have been disappointing.

 “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online,” says News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey.

“We’re exchanging analog dollars for digital dimes,” and that simply cannot continue, Carey says. “I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content."

"I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value,” Carey adds. “Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”

Precisely what content will be "behind a pay wall" is not yet clear. Hulu is not likely to charge fees for all content on its site, but what it intends to do is not yet clear.

The planned move illustrates the continuing problem virtually all content providers and distrbutors are having with IP-delivered content: gross revenue in legacy channels is not being matched in digital channels.

What Future for Downloading, Streaming Video?

The conventional wisdom now is that movie downloading will replace DVD sales and rentals, and that this replacement is only a matter of time. The conventional wisdom may well be correct, up to a point. On-demand viewing, in one form or another, has been increasingly for decades.

To some extent, the rise of the cable industry was an early and crude form of on-demand viewing, to the extent that viewers began to break away from the "three networks" experience, starting a process of audience fragmentation that continues today in much more diverse forms.

But movie downloading isn't the only future. In fact, the way new visual media are being used suggests that consumers are taking an "all of the above" approach to media.

People might continue to rent DVDs as well. But maybe not in the same way. "Unless video stores are reinvented, it may be that in five years, there are tens of thousands of kiosks, millions of online DVD renters and very few video stores," says Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO.

If you look at any sort of DVD media as an example of "sideloading," as people sideload music onto their iPods and MP3 players, you get the idea. People download songs. But they also may stream or sideload. And though one often thinks online delivery is the only viable business format, one can imagine other ways to do things.

Price, for example, might be one way to differentiate the market. Online or to-the-TV downloads or streaming will have a higher price point, with a more "immediate" delivery format. But mailed DVDs will have a much-lower price point, with less immediate delivery. But the point is that the delivery time might not matter.

On the Netflix unlimited three DVD plan, can have as many as three movies "checked out" at any one time. And if a person is busy enough, viewing of those movies only happens on weekends. So "immediate" availability isn't required. The three selections have to be available on the weekend.

Release windows still are a factor as well. If you want to see a movie, and missed it in the theaters, you can view it about a month to 45 days sooner than any "on demand" outlet has the content, if you watch on a DVD. On an unlimited rental plan, the cost of any viewing is arbitrary.

Cable and Internet VOD costs something on the order of $4.00 per movie, and the content has to be viewed within a certain period of time, sometimes within 24 hours.

Selection probably will be an issue as well. It is hard to imagine an equivalent lineup of online titles as the Netflix catalog represents, especially in the "long tail" area of niche content.

"Despite the growth of VOD over the last five years, DVD rental has been stable, with online rental and kiosk rental making up for store losses," says Hastings. "In the United States, DVD spending, including purchase, is still approximately 20 times larger than cable and Internet VoD combined, according to Adams Media Research."

Just about everybody thinks this will change, at some point. The issue is whether online delivery is the only choice, or whether other delivery methods still will remain a significant part of the mix. Price, release windows, immediacy, and depth of catalog suggest there is room for multiple consumption modes.

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.