Skype Founders Try a Video Startup, Again

Skype cofounders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis appear to be working on another video startup called Vdio. They launched a video site called Joost in 2006 that got no traction. 


Whether the new venture will succeed is an open question. What technologists often forget is that success in the video entertainment markets always hinges on access to the content consumers want to watch, and rarely on huge technology innovation. 


Technology can help, of course. Recommendation engines of the sort Amazon and Netflix have built are quite helpful in terms of the end user experience. But it all comes down to content access, and content owners are doing everything they can to make sure any new delivery channels create at least as much revenue as the legacy channels do. 

Skype Alums Building a Netflix Competitor

TV Shift for Decades Has Been in the Direction of "On Demand"

One can argue that the evolution of television and movie consumption over the last few decades has been one story: of a shift from linear consumption to consumption on demand.

Digital technology has improved the quality of the experience, but is not solely responsible for the trend.

People just want to watch what they want, when they want it. Evolution of home video

Dish to Unveil Blockbuster Streaming Service

Dish Network Corp. will announce pricing next week for its Blockbuster streaming-movie service, which will compete with Netflix. Bloomberg reports.

Though the service will be offered initially to Dish subscribers, non-Dish customers who only want Blockbuster’s offering will eventually be able to do so. Dish to Unveil Blockbuster Streaming Prices

The number of people watching video on the Internet is expected to nearly double by 2015 to 1.5 billion while the amount of video they watch on the Web is also seen doubling to more than an hour a day, according to Cisco Systems. 


Not all that video will be of the subscription sort, of course.  Cisco forecast

Netflix Splits in 2: Why?

Netflix says it is separating its DVD by mail and streaming operations into two separate business units, with Netflix retaining the current brand name, while a different "Qwikster" brand being created for the DVD by mail business. Netflix splits in 2

"Streaming and DVD by mail are becoming two quite different businesses, with very different cost structures, different benefits that need to be marketed differently, and we need to let each grow and operate independently," says Netflix CEO Reed Hastings.

Qwikster will be the same website and DVD service that everyone is used to. It is just a new name, and DVD members will go to qwikster.com to access their DVD queues and choose movies.

Qwikster will add a video games upgrade option, similar to the current upgrade option for Blu-ray, for those who want to rent Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360 games.

Hastings says the separate, non-integrated websites will offer greater simplicity for users, though that might be a point of contention.

Each website will be focused on just one thing (DVDs or streaming), and will be even easier to use, Hastings argues. But a negative of the separation is that the Qwikster.com and Netflix.com websites will not be integrated.

Since about 60 percent of Netflix subscribers appear to pay for both streaming and DVD access, the implication is that 60 percent of users now will get two separate bills, have to use two different sites, and see partial sets of recommendations and reviews on each site. If you rate or review a movie on Qwikster, it doesn’t show up on Netflix.

"If you subscribe to both services, and if you need to change your credit card or email address, you would need to do it in two places," Hastings says.

What is clear is that it will be better for Netflix. The price move was not a “decision,” so much as a “reality” presented to Netflix from the content owners in Hollywood, argues Bill Gurley, a venture capitalist at Benchmark Capital. The first sale doctrine  likely is involved. Basically, under U.S. law a product (a DVD) can be purchased and then lent or sold without further payment of royalties to content owners. 


The key point is that "first sale" does not apply to streaming services. If you want to know why content owners prefer streaming to DVD rentals, that's the reason: they make more money. 


Netflix must negotiate for each and every streamed title, and the price of the right to stream that digital title is up to the whim of the content owner. If an owner says "no," no distributor can get access. Copyright rules under "first sale"

If you assume Hollywood stuidos wanted a price per month per user to license streamed content, there is an economic problem for Netflix. Netflix obviously would prefer to pay only for content that users actually watch. 

By separating the two businesses, Netflix actually pays less (if the scenario is correct) because the number of potential subscribers is less. Though susceptible to the charge it has made a bit of a kludge out of its business, Netflix might have been forced to do so for financial reasons beyond its control. 

IHS Screen Digest Does Think People are Substituting Online Video for Cable TV

The number of multichannel subscription TV households in the United States declined by nearly 380,000 in the second quarter of 2011 as traditional cable and satellite video providers continued to lose subscribers because of economic factors and lower-priced Internet video solutions, according to new IHS Screen Digest findings from information and analysis provider IHS.

The noteworthy angle here is that IHS does believe over-the-top online video is having an impact. Most observers say customers are "cutting the cord" to save money, or because they are not so interested in TV, but not specifically to watch online alternatives. IHS thinks the substitution is happening.

Total U.S. TV subscriptions in the second quarter—the latest time in which full figures are available— decreased to 100.9 million, down from 101.4 million in the first quarter.

Overall, the loss of approximately 378,000 households during the period was much greater than the increase of 345,000 seen in the fourth quarter of 2010. The decline also reversed much of the gains that occurred in the first quarter this year when some 461,000 subscriber households had signed on to new services. The last time a loss of this magnitude took place was a year ago in the second quarter of 2010, when the industry dropped approximately 249,000 subscribers.

US Pay-TV Subscriptions Decline by 380,000 in Q2

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

Amazon Prepping Netflix-Like Streaming Service:

Amazon.com appears to be readying a service that would make 5,000 movies and TV shows available to watch instantly, at no incremental charge, for members of the online retailer's $79-per-year "Prime" free-shipping membership program.

The service would provide "unlimited, commercial-free, instant streaming" of 5,000 movies and TV shows' with content similar to what is available through Netflix's streaming component. Amazon's service, though, would be limited to standard-definition video.

The notable observation here is that Amazon will try to create a business model that does not rely directly on incremental revenue, but rather on increasing subscribers to another existing service Amazon deems important. That's similar to Apple selling music and video to sell iPods and iPads. Netflix, Comcast and others, on the other hand, have less wiggle room, since their video businesses are about selling video.

Comcast, of course, also is trying the Amazon tactic, tying a fixed-line cable subscription to its mobile and untethered online video service. Still, it always is dangerous when a new competitor proposes to give away what another company sells.

Amazon Prime is a membership program that provides free two-day shipping as well as one-day shipping for $3.99 per item on certain purchases.

Currently Amazon offers a selection of more than 75,000 movie and TV show rentals or purchases through PCs, Microsoft's Xbox 360 and connected-TV devices, including those from TiVo, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Vizio and Roku.

Amazon.com's agreement to buy full ownership of LoveFilm, a European DVD rental and movie-streaming service, confirms the e-commerce giant intends to beef up its digital-video offering.

Operating in the U.K., Scandinavia and more recently Germany, LoveFilm's service is very similar to that of Netflix in the U.S. But it is well behind the American company, both in subscribers—1.6 million versus 17 million—and in the amount of streaming content it has licensed.

read more here

How Soon Will Linear TV Face a Real On-Demand Challenge?

Deloitte doesn't think a major challenge to linear TV delivery is going to happen soon. That shouldn't be taken as a firm judgment that on-demand formats will not be big at some point, or pose a grave challenge to the current model.

But most transitions of this magnitude take much longer than most supporters expect. But after the inflection point does occur, change will occur more rapidly than expected. It's a bit like an ice cube melting or water boiling: you can raise or lower temperature for quite some time and you still see a solid or a liquid. Then there is a quantum change. Most significant technology innovations get adopted in the same way. There is a longer than expected gestation period. Then there is rapid change.

Cisco's View of the Video Future

Newspapers Stream More Video than Broadcasters

With the caveat that usage and bandwidth are not direct proxies for "revenue," Brightcove and TubeMogel report that newspapers surpassed broadcasters in total minutes streamed for the first time in the third quarter of 2010.

Brightcove suggests that newspapers are rapidly adopting and producing video content for what was once a print business. Of course, broadcasters probably figure they are "streaming" (broadcasting) all day, so online might not be so important to them.

Online media properties (which includes pure-play Web properties and blogs) also had a strong growth quarter in player loads (127 percent growth) and titles uploaded (23 percent growth), suggesting that video adoption and production activity is on the rise across the growing media category, Brightcover says.

Perhaps significantly, game consoles such as the Wii and PlayStation lead in viewing time with an average
of 2:45 minutes watched per view, compared with online video averaging out to just under 2:27 minutes per view.

read more here

What is Netflix's Long-Term Position in Online Video Business?

Netflix has confounded naysayers for years. The basic argument has been that the DVD rental business would be replaced by online video, and that Netflix would not make the adjustment.

So far, Netflix has proved doubters spectacularly wrong. By all accounts, it is making a steady transition to online delivery, and its customers seem to be adapting as well. So perhaps a new consensus has developed: that Netflix is among the firms that will survive the transition from physical media delivery to online delivery.

If you have been in most Best Buy outlets recently, you get a sense that Best Buy is serous about ultimately phasing out sales of physical media content, to the extent that floor space is an indication of what a retailer expects to sell.

Perhaps oddly, then, one might ask the question of whether online delivery is an unalloyed good thing for Netflix. Some might argue it will pose new, and different questions, for Netflix.

Up to this point, most seem to agree that switching to online delivery saves Netflix money because the company avoids paying postal fees for delivery. That's true.

But content owners are becoming more aggressive about protecting their online rights, and it is a reasonable prediction that Netflix will have to pay much more, in the future, for access to content it can stream. That obviously could pose issues for the revenue model, given the low costs Netflix now imposes on users of its library.

If its content acquisition costs rise, Netflix will face margin pressure, with the obvious choice of raising prices or watching its margins tumble. Higher prices might limit growth, but higher prices seem almost inevitable, at some point.

In the chart, for example, note the blue bar, representing streaming content costs, compared to the white bar, which represents  DVD content acquisition costs.

At the same time, a switch to streaming, rather than DVD rentals, will cost Netflix more, over time. Now, Netflix can buy a DVD, pay once, and rent the disc until it is worn out. When streaming, the typical deal is that the content owner gets 60 percent of the gross rental fee. So there is more financial leverage when sourcing content by buying DVDs.

Other distributors pay similar amounts, of course, but generally price each viewing at higher rates, ranging from $1.99 to $4.99 per movie (or more) on Apple's iTunes, Amazon On Demand, Vudu, and cable, satellite or telco video on demand services, for example. TV show rentals might cost the end user $1 per episode.

Netflix now offers a $7.99 per month unlimited streaming service, and you can guess that the economics can invert, given reasonable volume. You might wonder how Netflix can even offer the unlimited $7.99 streaming plan, and the answer is that it has agreements that were very generous. But it takes no insight to argue that future agreements will not offer such advantages.

The Netflix deal for Starz contnet, signed in October 2008, gave Netflix access to approximately 2,500 Disney and Sony movies for less than $0.15 per subscriber per month for its content, compared to the $2 to $4 per subscriber per month that TV operators typically pay Starz.

Netflix signed a deal to stream content from Epix, which is owned by three studios, Paramount Pictures, Lions Gate and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The exact terms of the deal haven't been disclosed, but numerous reports say it's for up to $1 billion over five years.

Importantly, Netflix won't be able to stream Epix's movies until 90 days after they have reached Epix's distribution window, which is typically 6-12 months after a movie is first available on premium movie channels, so this deal won't address Netflix's problem that it offers no current releases.

On the operating cost side, one might argue that more streaming means less mailing of DVDs, and hence less cost. That's correct. But one might quickly conclude that Netflix will have to pay more for streaming rights than it can possibly save in postage and fulfillment costs.

Perhaps the impact already is being felt. In the third quarter of 2010, Netflix's operating margin was 12.6 percent and net margin was 6.9 percent, down from 14.9 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively, in the second quarter. Some would say that is the result of higher content payments not balanced by an equal reduction in distribution cost.

There are other issues as well. At some point, if consumers start paying for bandwidth consumed that accounts for higher video consumption, the implied cost of streaming delivery will grow, increasing the "price" part of the "value versus price" equation. That could make other alternatives, especially a multichannel video subscription plus digital video recorder, a much more attractive "value."

That will especially be true for wireless providers, as people are getting used to watching video on their mobiles, and viewing on an iPad or wireless-connected PC also can be a satisfactory experience. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, for example, expects the revenue per megabit for wireless providers to fall from 43 cents today to just 2 cents in 2014.

Down the road are other potential risks to the business model as well. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued adecision that calls into question the First Sale Doctrine. Though it was a case related to re-selling software, the court observed that the policy implications might affect movies as well.

To get early access to fresh content, Netflix will have to pay more. If it chooses not to do so, the value of its library might weaken, from a customer's perspective. If it pays more to acquire more, and fresher content, its costs go up. So Netflix might have to raise prices. That could change its place in the market.

Netflix could accept lower margins, up to a point. Amazon certainly seems willing to do so. But assuming Netflix can manage those challenges, it does seem that a strategic choice has to be made. Netflix can offer a wider array of current content at higher prices, or a more-limited range of library or catalog content at lower prices. Some would argue it will do both, offering "enough" content at "good enough" prices to establish its position within the overall online video market.

Even in the more-established "premium" channel space, there is content differentiation between HBO, Starz and Showtime because none of the networks can afford to buy rights to all "new release" movie content, for example.

The trick will be to build on the library while adding just enough fresh and recent content to remain competitive. It's a tall order, but Netflix has confounded its critics in the past.

Whitney Tilson: Why We’re Short Netflix - Seeking Alpha:

TV Viewing Fragmenting Across Devices

Fully 87 percent of users age 13 or older say they have played video games of some kind for Xbox 360 and Wii, with 80 percent saying they have done so for PlayStation 3. Much of this is the result of traditional offline play, but nearly half of Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 users say they play games online.

read more here

But that might not be the most-important development in the gaming console space. The second-most popular use of consoles is for watching DVDs/Blu-Rays, most noticeably for PlayStation 3 but also for Xbox 360 (DVD playback is not a standard feature on the Wii.

PlayStation 3 users indicate that DVD/Blu-Ray viewing occupies 27 percent of their time with the console, about the same amount of time as users spend with offline gaming. DVD viewing occupies 11 percent of time on an Xbox 360

Video-on-demand and streaming services such as Netflix, MLB Network and ESPN3, account for 20 percent of Wii users’ time, 10 percent of Xbox 360 users’ time and 9 percent of PlayStation 3 users’ time.

In the second quarter of 2010, the average person watched more than 143 hours of television per month. What is perhaps new is the growing amount of time spent using gaming consoles for some of that viewing.

read more here

Online Video Will Probably Follow the Early Steamship Model

Over-the-top video clearly resonates with consumers. The big challenge is figuring out a revenue model for the content owners and providers that supplies the content people want, at prices they are willing to pay.

Some might predict that the interim business model will essentially be the same as was adopted by sailing ships as the "age of steam" arrived. At first, sailing ships were outfitted with boilers, and used both methods of propulsion. Only later did virtually all ships convert to steam-only propulsion.

That's probably going to happen with entertainment video as well.

Verizon's "Flex View for FiOS" is one example, as is "TV Everywhere." FiOS subscribers can rent or purchase on-demand content and watch it on up to five devices.

Netflix takes a somewhat similar approach, allowing consumers to rent either DVDs or stream content, all as part of a single subscription.

One suspects that is going to be a dominant pattern, for the time being. Content owners and networks will not want to move too quickly to essentially cannibalize one existing revenue stream while trying to grow the new one.

Yankee Group :: Research Report

Old Debates Over "A La Carte" Might Not be Relevant in Future

An economist might say the typical video bundle works because it allows distributors to apply scale and scope economics.

 
The corollary is that most networks, which are advertising supported, want to be part of a "no choice" basic tier for business reasons of their own, namely the ability to better sell the advertising that underpins their business models.

According to some studies, relatively few networks actually make a $100 million or more in annual ad revenue, though.

When multichannel video distributors say a bundled approach creates economics that favor smaller, niche networks to thrive, they are right.

Deprived of carriage on a broad "enhanced basic" tier, perhaps 60 percent of networks might find themselves immediately imperiled, as going concerns.

An end to bundling would likely decimate most smaller, more-lightly-viewed networks. To the extent that content and program diversity is a desired end user benefit, "choice" in all likelihood would decline in a full a la carte environment, because most people would not buy most channels.

The possible advent of over-the-top TV viewing worries most in the current ecosystem for one compelling reason: "households view less than one quarter of the networks they are forced to buy in the bundle," the Consumers Union noted in an past analysis assuming a 50-channel offering. Even today, with hundreds of available channels, end user behavior does not seem to have changed much.

Most people watch a dozen or so channels on a regular basis.

Cable operators have argued that end-user costs might actually climb in an a la carte environment, for a number of reasons. Higher customer care costs, operating and marketing are likely, cable operators have argued. Part of the argument has been based on the need to supply new decoders to customers who did not previously need them. That is likely not much of an issue these days, as cable operators convert to largely-digital or all-digital services where customers already must be provided set-top boxes.

So perhaps some of the historic objections from a distributor point of view have eroded.

Separate studies by the Federal Communications Commission seem to have concluded that unbundling could save money, or wouldn't save money. See this study. One of the studies suggested “consumers that purchase at least nine networks would likely face an increase in their monthly bills" when buying a la carte.

Likewise, one of the studies suggested bill increases ranging from 14 percent to 30 percent under a la carte, while the other suggests a consumer purchasing 11 cable channels would face a change of bill ranging from a 13 percent decrease to a four percent increase, with a decrease in three out of four cases.

The point is that it is very hard to tell, conslusively, what might happen if providers shifted to a la carte viewing. With online delivery coming to the fore, it might not ultimately matter. A la carte might happen, but on the Internet.

Comcast Tests New Service That Combines Internet, TV

Comcast Corp. is testing a new service that combines linear television and some Internet content. The new set-top device combines digital video recorder functions with the ability to watch some web-delivered video and search for programs.

(click on image for larger view)

But it isn't just the ability to protect themselves from Netflix, Apple TV and other competitors. Typical cable set-top boxes are a bit underpowered in terms of supporting elegant user interfaces.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admits that over-the-top services have better user interfaces.

"I would not sit up here and say our user interface is really good," Britt said recently. "It's not as good as theirs."

Edward Rogers, deputy chairman and controlling shareholder of Rogers Communications also pointed out that set-top evolution in the cable industry has not kept pace with other developments in consumer electronics. "We realize that the evolution of these boxes has been a little slower than what we need," Rogers said.

Comcast Tests New Service That Combines Internet, TV - WSJ.com (subscription required)

http://www.cable360.net/technology/MSOs-Blame-Set-Tops-For-Their-OTT-Problems_44366.html

Time Warner Cable Tells Subs How to Cut Cord

Though it is Cablevision Systems Corp. that now is feuding with Fox over the cost of programming, the temporary content blackout is not unprecedented. Time Warner Cable has had its own programming cost disputes, and produced this video to show its customers how to connect their PCs to their TVs to watch content online, during the blackout.

Cablevision is doing the same at the moment. It's ironic, though.

Internet TV and The Death of Cable TV

Lots of people believe video distribution is going to change, and the only question is how long it will take. Some think the important thing is the number of alternative venues now available, or which will likely be made available, to view professionally-produced content users now associate with "cable TV."

All you need to know is what the content owners want to do, and when.

The networks aren’t blocking Google TV access to content because Google is uniquely disruptive. They are blocking Google TV access to network content because "web TV" economics likely would be incredibly disruptive to the current business.

Content owners want preservation of existing revenue streams--at least the magnitude of those streams--as "over the top" delivery modes develop. One might question whether that is possible, but there is no question the networks will attempt to maintain the existing business practices to the greatest extent possible.

Cable, for its part, claims the lowest-possible distribution cost, from an end-use standpoint. The objection many users will have is that the cost to deliver programming that is not wanted is not the important metric. What matters is the cost to view only the content any single viewer wants to watch.

The key is what content owners are willing to accept.

Internet TV and The Death of Cable TV

Future of TV: One Investor's View

At some point, "over the top" video distribution is going to be a bigger financial force in the television business, but it won't happen as fast as many believe, simply because the amounts of business revenue at stake are so enormous. As hard as attackers will try, access to quality content still will be a key issue, as content owners will not be in a hurry to jeopardize their current revenue streams.

"Over the top" options will continue to proliferate, and device manufacturers will attempt to create ecosystems around their products to entice content owners to buy in. But it will take time to create the scale content owners will want to see before making adjustments in content relationships.

Also, existing distributors, such as cable companies, know exactly what is at stake and will work furiously to enable online video in ways that complement, rather than compete with, their current offerings.

Virtually all the contestants in the ecosystem will be looking at ways to "move up the stack" in terms of providing more value. Many of those attempts will fail.

Software and applications are not core competencies for many of the ecosystem providers, and that ultimately will limit the success of "up the stack" efforts.

Almost by definition, the real combat will take place over second and tertiary screens, rather than the large TV screen. Tablet PCs and smartphones will provide key examples, even though game consoles and other devices using the TV display also will fight for attention.

Perhaps the key issue is the future of content bundling. Nearly all the technology developments will create alternatives to the multichannel TV subscription. Perhaps an analogy can be glimpsed in the music business, where the "bundled" album or CD lost favor compared to purchases of discrete songs.

Also, the trend in video entertainment over the past several decades has been a shift away from linear formats and towards on-demand consumption. Digital methods are only the latest examples of a trend that began with the videocassette recorder.

Television originally was designed for a mass audience in a single country. But global content and its ability to develop a “niche” global audience now is a new trend. Think of about the rise of Japanese Anime, Spanish Novelas, Korean Drama or the rise of Bollywood entertainment from India. It’s not a mass, mainstream audience but I would argue that it’s “global torso” content that will be meaningful at scale. Websites like ViiKii, which have been launched to create realtime translations of shows by fan-subbers, have huge followings already. And I’m sure that this is what popularized the SlingBox in the first place. British, India & Pakistani ex-pats on a global scale want to watch cricket.

NetFlix might be winning the battle for distribution of movie content online. Linear television remains much more fluid. One app to watch is YouTube, which might graduate from user-generated video to a distribution mechanism for "linear" professionally-created video as well. Potential audience size always matters, and YouTube is aggregating an enormous potential audience.

That same argument goes for gaming consoles, which now represent an installed base of U.S. devices numbering about 60 million terminals. The issue is not simply the game console's ability to deliver online video, but the role gaming might ultimately play in building audiences for gaming-plus-TV experiences.

Content discovery will be important as well. In a universe of content, it is hard to find "the good stuff." In part, that is why some believe "social TV" is a growth area. People talk about video and movies they like. That will help with the "discovery" problem.

Another unknown is the way narratives are crafted. Hollywood is the master of the long-form story.Whether that will be the only, or even dominant narrative in the future is open to question.

What happens when content production & distribution is easy to professionally produce and distribute at mass low-cost scale? Will we still have predictable story lines? Or can we develop more fragmented content to meet the needs of fragmented audiences and interest groups?

What happens in a world where content producers have a direct relationship with the audience and can involve the audience directly in story creation? Or maybe even as wacky as involving the audience in the story itself?

read more here

Long-Form Online Video Viewing Keeps Growing

Viewing of long-form (movie length) online content is growing, to nobody's surprise.

The big question is how soon critical mass is reached, and there are repercussions for alternative viewing modes.

Part of the answer hinges on willingness to pay for such viewing, either as part of some other subscription service, such as cable TV or Netflix, or new appetite for on-demand viewing, for which there is a discrete fee.

Live TV Losing Younger Adults

Nearly three in five US consumers watch at least some video on a device other than a television, according to market researcher Morpace. Time shifting using a digital video recorder, DVDs, online and video on demand represent about 48 percent of overall video consumption.

Overall, across demographic cohorts, Morpace found 52 percent of total TV viewing time consisted of live TV. Among younger adults ages 18 to 34, that proportion fell to 41 percent. Adults 55 and up watched live TV almost two thirds of the time, but even Gen Xers and younger boomers were evenly split between live TV and several timeshifting nethods.

Online was the most popular alternative to live TV, with about half of consumers using some online source for viewing video content, and another 23 percent using a streaming video service.

Live TV Losing Younger Adults