Paramount Offers Streaming of "Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

Don't hold your breath in expectation that a revolution in online delivery of streamed new release movies is at hand, Paramount Pictures is experimenting with a new digital distribution model for the most recently released Transformers movie. 


This is just a test, not the forerunner of a new service offering. But like an army gearing up for a battle it expects, without full knowledge of where the foe is, Paramount is probing and testing, trying to gain more experience with a delivery system that could erupt into a full battle at some point. 


By offering its own marketplace for customers to purchase the streaming video, Paramount’s parent company Viacom is essentially cutting out “middlemen” services like Netflix, Vudu and others, keeping a bigger cut of the overall revenue.


"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" can be rented in standard definition for $3.99. Windows users have the option of renting an HD version for $4.99. The movie is available to watch for 48-hours after making the purchase.

The promotion was emailed to an MTV mailing list. The offer will last through the end of February 2012, marking the first extended direct-to-consumer online streaming rental offered by Paramount. Paramount to test streaming

Dish Network in Line to Get Hulu?

Hulu has not announced any decision on whether it will sell, or to whom it might sell. There are reports Dish Network was the highest bidder, coming in around $1.9 billion, topping both Amazon and Yahoo. Google bid much more, something in the range of $4 billion, but Google wanted special conditions. Google wanted more content for a longer period of time, and perhaps other concessions as well. Highest Bid For Hulu

But the bidders all figured out pretty quickly that the TV companies who own Hulu now want to phase out free ad-supported content completely. So as soon as the current set of Hulu contracts expire in a couple of years, it would be back to the negotiating table. In other words, aside from buying the brand, and some back office technology, the new owners would not be acquiring the existing set of content offerings, which is the whole point.

In April 2011 Jason Kilar, Hulu CEO noted that the company was on pace to approach half a billion dollars in revenue in 2011. In the first quarter, Hulu revenue grew approximately 90 percent over the first quarter of 2010. (Hulu did $263 million in revenue for all of 2010).

The content community will earn approximately $300 million through Hulu over the course of 2011. Hulu served approximately 50 percent more advertisers in the first quarter of 2011 than in the first quarter of 2010. Hulu revenue growth

Any new buyer would have to commit additional funds to get continued access to the content underlying that growth, though. 

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

Netflix Separates DVD, Streaming Businesses

It is hard to know for sure, but it is possible the recent bankruptcy of Borders bookstore might have played some role in convincing Netflix CEO Reed Hastings to move up the speed of the Netflix transition from DVD rental to streaming.

Netflix long has planned for such a move, but it is conceivable that the Borders bankruptcy, and clear sluggishness at Best Buy, could have convinced Netflix to move faster.

 Add new fourth generation wireless networks, tablet demand and faster uptake of smart phones and one can argue the business background for streaming is changing.

One also might note that creating a separate Qwikster business makes it easier to sell the whole DVD business, if desired.

Netflix steps up streaming effort

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. 

Netflix Streaming-Only Customers Are 33% of All New Subscribers

Netflix now finds 33 percent of its new customers are choosing the $7.99 a month, "streaming only" plan, a rather powerful testament to demand for the Netflix offer. Netflix introduced the offer in November 2010, at the same time slightly increasing the price of existing plans that support both DVD and streaming delivery.

Netflix also says it expects the percentage of "streaming only" customers to grow over time. About 66 percent of new customers elect to buy the  $9.99 1-DVD combination plan, which allows users to rent one DVD at a time, and also allows unlimited viewing using streaming.  "Very few of our existing subscribers are downgrading to the pure streaming plan," Netflix also notes.

read more here

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:

37% of Broadband Users Want Streaming Video to TVs

Nearly 37 percent of broadband households in North America are "extremely" or "very" interested in viewing over-the-top video content on the home TV, according to In-Stat.

Streaming should be easier in the future as more TVs, Blu-ray Players, digital media players and set top boxes support Internet connections.

By 2013, In-Stat predicts that nearly 40 percent of all digital TV shipments will be Web-enabled devices. Across all categories, there will be over half a billion Web-enabled consumer electronics devices in operation worldwide by 2013.

Shipments of such Web-enabled devices will see a compound annual grow rate of nearly 64 percent between 2008 and 2013, In-Stat predicts.

It always is hard to tell how well consumer input of this sort will translate into actual behavior, especially when spending on one category of purchases has to be shifted from some other existing category of expenses.

Doubtless the stated intentions are closer to reality when there is no incremental cost to view such content, and drops fairly predictably as the price of doing so raises above "zero."

Wal-Mart to Become an Online Video Service Provider

What do you do when you are one of the top retailers of DVDs in the United States, and the product starts to face serious substitution from a newer product?

You start selling the newer product. Or so Wal-Mart thinks.

The retail giant, according to the New York Times, has agreed to buy Vudu, a three-year-old  online movie service built into an increasing number of high-definition televisions and Blu-ray players.

Wal-Mart’s move is likely to give a lift to sales of Internet-ready televisions and disc players, which generally cost a few hundred dollars more than devices without such connections.  Nor is the move the first attempt by Wal-Mart to figure out a way to make a transition from sales of packaged media to online forms of video consumption.

Wal-Mart dabbled in aq Netflix-style online DVD rental several years ago, but sold the operation to Netflix after getting 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers. Wal-Mart also attempted to get into video rentals with HP in 2007, but it gave up on that project after a year.

The Vudu acquistion would instantly make Wal-Mart a significant force in the video streaming business, and would make the company a direct competitor to Netflix once again.

Vudu initially entered the market with a set-top box that offered access to its video streaming service, but gave up on building its own hardware, and started offering its service as a software offering that could be integrated into other consumer electronic devices.

That might make more sense, as Wal-Mart also now is one of the leading retailers of consumer electronics.

Of course, Wal-Mart also has to position its electronics sales against Best Buy, a major competitor that likewise  is working with CinemaNow to enable streaming video services on its own consumer devices.

Streaming Causing ISPs to Upgrade

Consumer use of streaming video over the web has more than doubled in the past year, and Internet service providers and networking companies--at least their personnel--believe lots more is coming, according to the results of a recent ChangeWave Alliance poll.

Nearly two-in-three industry respondents (26 percent) think the delivery of streaming video has significantly increased the demand for networking technology and products, while 38 percent say it's caused a moderate demand increase, says Paul Carton, ChangeWave analyst.

Count Cisco and other infrastructure suppliers, as well as bandwidth barons, as winners.

HDTV Slingbox: More Stress on Upstream Bandwidth

Sling Media has announced a new version of its Slingbox Pro set-top box that has its own HD TV tuner and can send out a 1080i HD picture over the network. The Slingbox Pro-HD will be initially aimed at the U.S. market.

So forget about what P2P is doing to the backbone and access networks. Now users will be streaming HDTV from their homes, stressing the entire network at its biggest chokepoint: the upstream. Ouch!

Level 3 Attacks CDN Pricing

Level 3 Communications has been gearing up for a major assault on the content delivery networks business and appears ready to price such services at a rate that basically offers caching and downloading services for no more than the cost of buying IP transport. If, as expected, Level 3 prices content delivery at the same price as Ip transit, it could disrupt much of the market.

It isn't so much the disruption of profit margins: that already is happening as several dozen contestants now are slugging it out for some share of the growing market.

The bigger issue is how participants in the media, hosted applications and enterprise end user markets are able to change the way they do things if enhanced quality becomes an integral part of the IP transport they buy.

Level 3 hopes to have its streaming services ready by mid-November. At that point it will have a wider shot at disrupting the market for transport of real time services. Right now much of the market is focused on video content. But there are other real time applications and services that really would benefit from lower-priced and more capable delivery over networks that eliminate jitter and latency over the global wide area network.

Access networks on each end still are issues, but tail circuits also keep improving. As more applications move to "cloud-based" processing and storage, they will have to start having the "feel" of local desktop apps. CDNs will be part of that experience. And that's where the major impact will lie.