Reuters is reporting that cable operators are working on a plan to allow customers to purchase channels on an individual basis, also known as à la carte. This represents a 180 degree change in strategy and position, from an industry that has long held that established advertising models preclude any departure from the 'tiered' channel system. 

Glad to see you're finally coming around, Cable.

Not that you had much choice. And not to be uncharitable, but golly, it feels good.

You see, our camp (those who have been citing the need for à la carte bundling for the past 4+ years) has been rather sparsely populated of late. In countless reports, presentations and one-on-one meetings with Cable executives over the years, we have pointed out that à la carte is not just a consumer preference, it is a Pay TV imperative. Meanwhile, through industry blowhards and paid quote-models, we have been told that it can't work, that it won't work.

Our response has always been that it has to work, if Pay TV is to survive.

And after years of dismissing it out of hand, of categorically rejecting any survey data or consumer insights contradicting their established talking points, Cable is finally listening, the wires and airwaves are filling up with the sounds of pundits finally changing their tunes.

"There is a growing recognition that the current model is broken," one epically overexposed talking head quipped yesterday.

How's that for groundbreaking insight?

US Pay Cable operators posted net subscriber losses for the 15^th consecutive quarter in Q2'11. For fourteen of those fifteen quarters, the industry has regularly pivoted on its explanation.

First, they said net losses were just a 'blip', an anomaly. When losses persisted in sequential quarters, the stagnant economy and high unemployment were to blame. When that no longer held water, the talking point morphed into a we didn't want you anyway argument, that those churning or dropping were low value customers. A report we just published completely discredits that explanation as well.

Fresh out explanations, and having bled 400,000 subscribers in Q2'11, Pay TV really has no choice.

For as long as I've been covering this space, I've cited survey after survey confirming a strong consumer preference for à la carte and indeed, a willingness to pay MORE for à la carte. Consumers feel ripped off, they want to feel that they are in the drivers' seat. They need choice or the illusion of choice.

And contrary to what some suggest, money is not the primary motivator for consumer churn, it's about perceived value. It's about control of content.

Indeed, our latest report, which draws on a recent survey of of 2,000 US households, further confirms this notion. It shows that 21% of American Pay TV subscribers would be willing to pay more than they currently do if it means they have some say in what channels they get.

Glad you've seen the light, Cable. What took you so long?

At this year's CES, we said that 2011 would the year of the Smart Home Applications. To be sure, tablets took the forefront at the show, but the "smart home" could not be ignored. We estimated the US market value alone to be on the order of $5.6 billion by 2015. While the term "Smart Home Applications" could conceivably a variety of services, in our analysis, we included Remote Energy Management, Broadband-enabled home security, and Telepresence

Up until now, despite what seems like years of trade show mockups, demos, and media hype, Smart Home Applications have failed to garner the attention of Service Providers on any measurable scale. In 2011, market conditions and consumer interest appear to be finally aligning.

Two recent Service Provider announcements suggest momentum:

AT&T and Xanboo

AT&T's acquisition of its longtime home monitoring and smart home application partner, Xanboo late last year garnered some brief media attention, then quickly receded below the radar. AT&T was and continues to be reluctant to disclose their plans with regards to the acquisition. A March 31^st letter sent by AT&T's counsel terminating dealer relationships effective July 2011 suggests that the company may be preparing to rebrand and relaunch in the near future.

Verizon's Moves in MDU

Verizon last week announced a partnership with Healthsense to provide remote health monitoring to senior communities another indicator that years of industry talk is finally being converted into action. Penetrating the target-rich MDU (multi-dwelling unit) market is one way to reach CEO Ivan Seidenberg's stated goal of 40% takeup of the FiOS service. Adding Cisco's umi Telepresence to the mix could make virtual doctor consultations a reality though, as always, pricing is an issue.

 

Recent talks with clients confirm this renewed interest in the Smart Home area Service Providers are clearly eager to uncover new revenue streams, and view Smart Home Apps (SHAs) as a new and uncluttered adjacent market.   They are likewise keen to mitigate churn, and our research has consistently shown that bundling provides some "insulation" against churn. Manufacturers see SHAs as a potential "hook" into the home, and are just as interested in how this plays out.

 

The past two years have been tough on Pay Cable TV. In 2010 alone, the industry saw over two million video subscribers drop their subscriptions. While certainly not great news, there was a silver lining. In the same seven quarters, Cable High Speed Internet (HSI) gains more than compensated for Pay TV losses.

Has Cable been in the wrong business all these years?

Following that same trend, Time Warner Cable today announced that it had lost another 66,000 Pay TV subscribers in the first quarter. The good news? It added 177,000 broadband subscribers.

We've heard (and indeed, have been saying) for so long that traditional Service Providers were threatened with "disintermediation" and risked being relegated to the role of a "dumb pipe." I, along with many analysts, have advised Service Providers to avoid this trap at all costs.

But in retrospect, is being a "dumb pipe" such a bad idea?

High Growth, High Margin

As Pay TV subscribers (and margins) continue to dwindle, Cable Broadband profitability is growing. Our analysis shows that HSI margins are anywhere from 70% to 110% higher than Pay TV (depending on whether or not advertising is included in the calculation). Broadband is likewise changing the face of the "traditional" Cable bundle. In 2008, Video contributed 59% to Cable's Revenues. In 2010, the number was 53%.

TWC's CEO Glen Britt told analysts on the company's Q1'11 earnings call that the company is rethinking the role of broadband in the company's portfolio. "High-speed data is quickly becoming the anchor product in the eyes of our customers," he said.

Don't reprint those business cards quite yet

While on the surface it may seem like a no-brainer, doubling down on broadband may not be the best long-term strategy for Cable.

As a highly commoditized consumer offering, it is extraordinarily challenging to differentiate, and is one easily duplicated by competitors. Furthermore, prospects for increased ARPUs in fixed broadband are decidedly limited, as few have been able to successfully monetize incremental bandwidth offerings.

To be sure, it's doubtful that any MSO would abandon its core TV offering. But as Cable ponders its next move on the OTT front, it should be of some comfort that broadband continues to take up the slack.

-Ben Piper

Followers of the industry will no doubt recall the unstoppable buzz at the 2010 CES Show in Las Vegas, where the story was 3DTV, and how it was poised to overtake the American living room. In the ensuing 12 months, though, it seems that much of the excitement around the technology has subsided?if not evaporated.

Indeed, we shared our views on the 3DTV opportunity at this year?s IBC in Amsterdam: essentially saying that consumer excitement around the technology was quite high, but that translating that enthusiasm into a viable business model would be a challenge. Our feelings in that regard haven?t changed substantively.

Content and the Indelicate Topic of Money

What we have seen in the past five months, however, has been a swift roll out of 3DTV programming worldwide. Two notable examples are 3net, the joint venture of Sony Corporation, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corporation, as well as ESPN?s announcement of its dedicated 3DTV channel.

Now Cable and Media behemoth Comcast has announced the launch of its 24/7 3DTV Xfinity 3D channel for next week, focusing, it says, on ?music, sports, movies and original programming.?

A crucial, and often over-looked, question is: who will actually pay for this? There are significant premiums associated with producing content in 3D compared to 2D. Our estimates based on industry interview set the premium in the range of 80% to 100%. In the theaters, it is the moviegoer who pays the premium to see the latest 3DTV release?indeed it is evident in the ticket price.

The question is, who pays at home?

Market for 3DTV: It?s The Cube Tubers

As we have pointed out in the past, our US consumer survey research and forecast modeling suggest only a relatively modest opportunity for 3DTV in the home. Overall, fewer than half of respondents showed a willingness or expectation to pay any premium for 3DTV.

We have, however, identified and isolated a group of consumers we believe to be most likely to actively view (and more importantly, pay for) 3DTV services.

This group of individuals, whom we dub ?Cube Tubers,? represents between 8%-10% of the overall population. Cube Tubers are unique in their intentions to purchase a 3DTV in the upcoming year, and to be active premium/HD customers.

 

 

Compared to overall survey respondents, Cube Tubers exhibit a much higher interest in receiving 3DTV programming at home, with 74% saying they are ?somewhat? or ?very? interested, compared to 36% in the overall sample. Likewise, they were significantly more likely to expect to pay some sort of monthly or one-off premium than the general sample.

Content aside, 3DTV still faces an uphill battle in other respects. Perceived health risks (true or not) will stifle widespread takeup, as will the need for specialized glasses.

Despite impressive demonstrations of ?Auto-stereoscopic? 3DTVs by vendors at recent trade shows, we don?t expect to see a commercially viable ?glassless? solution any time soon.

The FCC’s recent approval, by a 4-1 margin, of the merger between Comcast and NBC Universal effectively transforms the nation’s biggest cable company into its largest media company as well. The $30 billion joint venture which was first announced in 2009 has many—including News Corporation, Time Warner and Disney—calling foul. To nobody’s surprise, the affirmative ruling (all 279 pages of it) came with some significant strings attached, including provisions around Net Neutrality, Over the Top (OTT) distribution and transparency, broadband affordability, as well as the new company’s role with Hulu.

Net Neutrality: Special Rules Unit 

The FCC’s Net Neutrality ruling last December was a compromise of sorts, leaving none of the interested parties particularly happy. In essence, the decision created “rules of road” for the Internet, though different rules for fixed and mobile services. As stated previously, we believe that the final disposition of this issue will take place in the Supreme Court.

It is interesting, then, that one of the “voluntary commitments” (as opposed to “conditions”) of the deal concerns net neutrality.  The order states that “neither Comcast nor Comcast-NBCU shall prioritize affiliated Internet content over unaffiliated Internet content,”   Furthermore, the order protects the commitment against any future (and probable) modification.  It states, “in the event of any judicial challenge affecting the latter, Comcast-NBCU’s voluntary commitments concerning adherence to those rules will be in effect.”

What this commitment essentially does is to lock NBCU into Net Neutrality, irrespective of the potential disposition in the courts.  The implications could be significant if NBCU-Comcast eventually finds itself subject to rules that its competitors aren’t.

OTT, OVD, FCC? OMG!

One condition that could potentially open the floodgates to new Online Video Distributors (OVDs) is the provision stating that “Comcast offer its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and conditions that would be available to an MVPD,” and that it make “comparable programming available on economically comparable prices, terms, and conditions to an OVD that has entered into an arrangement to distribute programming from one or more of Comcast-NBCU’s peers.

 From an OTT video service perspective, the conditions that FCC attaches to the merger approval do not harm—and could actually benefit—the value proposition of OTT services. The FCC requires that Comcast make available certain comparable content to an online distributor if one of its competitors does so. Although it does not imply a dramatic change to the current media distribution environment, it shows the FCC’s gesture to ensure OTT video services to have an equal opportunity of acquiring content and competing with MVPDs. Given emerging OTT services’ efficiency of formulating and executing strategies, an equal competitive environment gives them the upper hand to out-innovate those larger and slower MVPDs.

The single OTT video service that will benefit most from this merger approval is Netflix. As Comcast is spending its time integrating NBCU and probably will have to restructure or realign the company and redesign its online distribution strategy, Netflix is running far ahead in terms of expanding its content catalog, releasing more apps on different platforms and CE devices and improving user experience.

The Matter of Hulu

            Another provision of the ruling requires Comcast/NBCU to relinquish managerial control. uncertainty has mounted around Netflix’s main competitor in the online video space, Hulu, as Comcast/NBCU will have to relinquish managerial control in the online video distribution site. It makes possible for NBC to pull back its investment from a venture it would have little control, making Hulu less attractive to consumers and financially weaker than it is now.

For Hulu, the provision requiring Comcast to relinquish the managerial control of the OTT service could be beneficial as long as Comcast continues its investment in Hulu both in terms of financial backing and content availability. But different from NBCU, the new Comcast has had its own online strategy, which might be at odds with Hulu’s proposition. So Comcast may not want to invest in the Hulu business as much as NBC did before. On top of that, Comcast might eventually prefer to reduce or sell off its stake in Hulu due to the relinquishment requirement of managerial control on Hulu’s board.

Nobody wants to buy something that they don’t know much about and cannot control. If that were to happen, Hulu could still get NBC content as the approval requires, but it would lose its favorable position in the OTT space as the son of NBC--especially important when it comes to content deal negotiation.

Overall, the merger approval makes the prospect of Hulu fuzzier, if not gloomier.

 

‘Naked’ Broadband, Soviet Style

One of the most under-reported and potentially worrisome provisions of the order requires that Comcast provide standalone broadband access at “reasonable” prices. In theory, of course, this makes sense.  Consumers should not be required to take on a cable package in order to receive broadband, nor should it be constructed in such way that a bundled offering is, as the report notes, “the consumer’s only reasonable economic choice.”

               Where it gets hairy, though, is in the details.  The order goes so far as to mandate the minimum acceptable package and pricing (“At a minimum, Comcast shall offer a service of at least 6 Mbps down at a price no greater of $49.95 for three years”).  Seeing the FCC set pricing and package specifications should send a chill down the spines of free market enthusiasts.

Critics of the merger—and there are many— fall into two camps: those who feel the conditions go too far, and those who fear that they don’t go far enough. Dissenting FCC Commissioner Michael Copps pointed out that the ruling has implications on every corner of the media landscape, and that it “confers too much power in one company’s hands.”  Others call it a regulatory shakedown, setting a potentially worrisome precedent of the FCC inserting itself in the workings of an industry over which it has no mandate or authority.  

 

-Ben Piper and Jia Wu

 

The only thing in the middle of the road are dead skunks and yellow lines

Or so goes the Texas adage. Today’s 3-2 FCC vote on rules pertaining to so-called “Net Neutrality” may once again prove that compromise guarantees only one thing.  That nobody’s happy. The debate, which has been a five year long rollercoaster ride, came to a head in what is being described as “rules of the road” for the Internet. The inherent fuzziness of the provisions, which include such vague concepts such as “transparency,” “network management,” and “unreasonable discrimination” all but guarantee that the matter will ultimately be decided in the courts. Furthermore, the same rules don’t apply to fixed and mobile networks.

Fair to Middling

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made a point of characterizing the rules as “middle of the road” approach—though likely one where no side even feels a little bit ok about it. “On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all, on the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.” The Chairman said he rejects “both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework - one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."

A Little Hyperbole Goes a Long Way

Indeed, critics are vocal on both sides, with opponents comparing it to the “government takeover of the Internet,” and Net Neutrality supporters calling it “worse than nothing.” Outspoken Senator Al Franken calls it the “most important free speech issue of our time,” and surmised that “ If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.” Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, in a Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece said that the new rules will squelch innovation and investment, and reflect more “coercion than consensus or compromise.” He goes on to say: “On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.”

Netting Out Net Neutrality

It’s still not over

It’s not over—not even by a long shot. April’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged the very role of the FCC in regulating broadband. Certainly, this is yet to be scrutinized and debated in Congress, and ultimately in the courts.

Please Have Exact Change

While the rules voted on today preclude service providers from blocking “lawful content,” they apparently do little to discourage the practice of “paid prioritization. ” The rules, set to go into effect in 2011, create a “toll road” of sorts on the metaphorical information superhighway—a road that companies such Google and Netflix may be forced to take.

FUD Factor 2.0

Markets don’t like fear, uncertainty and doubt. We all know that. And while Chairman Genachowski suggest that the rules “increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks”, the result may be just the opposite. Well, that’s what it smells like anyway.  -Ben Piper

Already heated tempers reached a boiling point last week in the current mêlée between Fox's parent company, News Corporation and New York-based Cablevision. At issue is the question of "retransmission," the fees cable companies must pay networks to carry their programming in the line-up. In the latest salvo, News Corp elected to deploy a "nuclear option" of sorts--blacking out not just Fox channels, but also Cablevision subscriber access to sites such as fox.com and hulu.com. The access blocking, while short-lived, sent a clear message-Fox holds the cards. Was this move a shot across the bow of `traditional' cable, as some have suggested, or rather a shot in the foot for News Corp?

This Whole ‘Cord Cutting’ Thing?  Yeah, it’s Here to Stay

Dismissing or minimizing the severity of cord cutting has been de rigeur of late in the analyst community.  Many service providers and industry pundits alike have effectively buried their heads in the sand for the past 18 months over the issue, writing it off as “over hyped phenomenon.” Survey research we just fielded suggests that doubters might want to rethink their position.  According to the survey of 2,000 Americans in late Q3’10, 13% intend to drop their pay TV subscription in the upcoming year—and not replace it with another one.  We have long held that cord cutting is a very real problem, and what we’re seeing now is likely just the tip of iceberg.  What happens when today’s teenagers start controlling the pocket strings in five or ten years?

120 Channels and Nothing On

The average US household receives nearly 120 channels, though many would argue that they watch only a handful of those. Our survey found that, when asked to rank their five "must have" channels, Pay TV consumers chose the four "free networks" (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX) as the top slots. ESPN rounded out the top 5. This is rather astonishing, and adds further credence to the notion of cord cutting.  After all, if  four of the top five channels an individual watches are available for free (either online or over the air), why on earth would one pay upwards of $70/month for a subscription?  Force of habit?  Because the cable company told you to?  To avoid having to switch an “input” button on the remote control?

Not the End for Pay TV—But Maybe Pay TV As We Know It

To be clear, we are in no way predicting the imminent demise of pay TV.  There will always be a market for premium content, and that customers will continue to be receptive to paying for content relevant to them. Rather, we believe that service providers must rethink business models. Some have already begun to do this, through initiatives like TV Everywhere.  That, however, solves only the where part of the problem.  Next to tackle is the what. A la carte?

Cisco today unveiled its long-awaited consumer Telepresence product. A smaller and scaled-down version of the company’s enterprise-grade TelePresence system, “ūmi” (‘you-me’) comes with an HD camera, a console and a remote. The idea of the videophone is far from new. Children of the 60s and 70s may recall George Jetson getting chewed out by his boss, Mr. Spacely, over videochat. In fact, the technology, is older than that, and was conceptualized as early as the late 1800s. The German Bundespost offered (albeit short-lived) commercially-available service the1930’s. AT&T announced its Picturephone product at the 1964 World’s Fair, though the service never quite took off, reportedly maxing out at 500 subscribers nationwide.

This time it’s different…

What makes this time different? According to Cisco’s VP of Consumer Marketing, Ken Wirt, three things are different this time. The quality and ubiquity of HD displays, the increased average household bandwidth, and exponentially increasing processing power have converged to create a ‘perfect storm’ for telepresence.

With apologies to Elvis Costello

Writing about telepresence is like dancing about architecture

Or was that Frank Zappa? In any case, as with HD or 3D, trying to explain telepresence to someone who hasn’t seen it is akin to trying to explain the color blue to a blindfolded person. You kind of have to see it to understand it. I had a chance to test drive the product last week before the official product announcement, and must say that—even as a professional skeptic--I left the demo thoroughly impressed. The so-called “immersive” effect (allowing you to ‘see what others are feeling’ ) is quite noticeable, and is what distinguishes it from a garden-variety Skype video or web-based video chat program. There is near perfect synchronization between audio/video, and people appear life sized on the screen. Ken Wirt cited a study showing that 55% of all conversation is non-verbal. It’s no surprise that it is our body language, the nods and raised eyebrows, shaking heads, smiles and smirks, that distinguish a phone call from a ‘carbon-based’ face-to-face meeting.

The Uncomfortable Topic of Money

The price tag is steep, at $599 for the unit, plus a monthly fee of $24.99 for unlimited ūmi calls, video messaging and video storage. The system will be sold through Best Buy/Magnolia Home Theater stores, bestbuy.com and on the cisco website. The service requires a minimum of 3.5 Mbps to work in 1080p, though it can be optimized for use at lower speeds, as low as 1.5Mbps for 720p. This means that the service will largely be limited to those with cable broadband or FTTx. Cisco believes that 34% of US households have this type of upstream capability—which is in line with Strategy Analytics’ own estimates.

The Network Effect

Back in the early days, the phone company sold “telephone pairs,” with the understanding that the value of the network lies in the number of nodes. A telephone network with one phone is not terribly valuable. Nor is a telepresence unit if there’s nobody on the other end. Cisco has partially circumvented this problem by providing interoperability with Google video chat, though if you’re spending $600 on a unit, you probably want the “real thing.” The real value of telepresence will be realized when there is a robust network of equipped households. While family video-calling seems the most obvious use-case, its utility seems rather limited. How many times do we really want to videochat with Grandma each month? Unless and until the network reaches critical mass, the appeal and draw of video calling will be very limited. Rather than a consumer mass market play, the real opportunity might very well be in the Business to Consumer (B2C) space. If private industry can help subsidize and drive the technology more mainstream, it could hit the critical mass it needs. Cisco talked about a number of other potential applications, three sound like potential winners in driving telepresence forward. These include

Financial Services: A $600 upfront investment and $25/month is a drop in the bucket for a company trying to prove its value to high net worth clients. For the cost of a few steak dinners, a Financial Services company could equip a client’s living room and increase the frequency of “touch points.”

Health Care: While the chatter around Telemedicine never seems to cease, this is one application where it actually could make sense. An insurance company might find it financially beneficial to subsidize a unit for a patient requiring regular and routine examinations, or for medical compliance monitoring (“Did you take your pills Mrs. Smith?”)

Distance Learning: How about tapping into the multi-billion dollar distance learning market in the US.  Equip every “Phoenix” with a system? That’s what I call scale.

I want one… but not for $599 plus $24.99/month

Many who experience the technology firsthand will want one for their own living room. It’s cool. It works well, and the potential applications are only limited by the imagination. It’s light years ahead of pc-based chat. On the flipside, the price is high. Too high. And when you add on the 24.99/month fee, it starts to feel like another cable bill. Survey research conducted by Strategy Analytics in Q3’10 shows that 30% of Americans showed some interest in a service of this type. Importantly, though, 46% of those interested said they are often concerned about their ability to afford regular household bills, 45% said they worried about signing up to new fixed term contracts when buying new products and services.

Adoption Will be Slow But Steady

Cisco would certainly admit that the $599 price point is untenable for the long run, and as volumes slowly ramp up, we should expect to see price points come down. If Cisco is successful in getting private industry into the game, and a subsidy model takes hold, we could see adoption speed up. The other barrier standing in the way of rapid adoption is broadband. While today only one-third of households have the minimum required bandwidth to support the system, this will certainly increase going forward. We estimate that by 2015, over 60% of all US households will have at least 1.5 Mbps upstream capabilities. Stay tuned…we’ll be putting out a Telepresence report in the upcoming

Some say that OTT is the “most over-hyped and over-anticipated phenomenon in tech history,” others would have you believe the end is nigh for traditional pay television as we know it. The truth?  As usual, it’s somewhere in between. A report we’ve just published, “Over-The-Top vs. TV Everywhere: How Disruptive is OTT to the Pay TV Business?” concludes that while the reaction to OTT has been perhaps overhyped, online distribution does pose a potential threat to the traditional pay television model. The numbers to-date, however, don’t necessarily portend an imminent  collapse of pay television as we know it. . In fact, US pay TV service providers added nearly 2 million additional subscribers in the first quarter of 2010, despite an increasing threat services such as Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube. That’s not to OTT should be ignored, however.  Survey research we published in early 2010 showed that US consumers perceive a relatively low “value for money” for pay television services.   OTT services can potentially capitalize on pay TV’s biggest shortcomings, namely a lack of flexibility in selecting channel packages, and a low perceived value for money. -Ben Piper

Google last week unveiled GoogleTV, heralded by Intel CEO Paul Otellini as "the biggest improvement to television since color."  And hey, what fun is a huge announcement without unrestrained hype, hyperbole, and flashy demos?  Right? Whooops!

Never Work with Children, Animals, or Bluetooth

Demos often seem predestined to fail.  Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a trade show demo can attest to that.  Well, this isn’t working as planned, but you get the idea moments are hardly rare. So it was not a big surprise to see the Google TV demo hampered and delayed by technical glitches.  For a  technology meant to harness the power of Internet, and bring the experience to the television seamlessly, this was not particularly confidence-inspiring.  But we still get the idea…

Introducing WebTV 2.0?

Some of us are old enough to remember painful previous attempts at bringing the experience of the Web to the television screen.  Was WebTV simply misunderstood?  Or was it ahead of its time? Perhaps both.   What WebTV fundamentally missed was the singular and individual nature of Internet experience  One could argue that it did little more than render the tv screen a monitor viewable by the whole family.  The result was an experience similar to having someone read over your shoulder.  Creepy and annoying. To be sure, the technology has been there for years—it’s the business case that has been lacking.

Why it just might work this time

GoogleTV has a fighting chance this time, for several reasons…

Cord cutting is fast becoming a reality

Today things are markedly different.  With a growing abundance of online video, “Cord cutting,” the notion of Cable and Satellite customers moving to unmanaged free or almost free Internet-based platforms, is fast becoming a reality. Strategy Analytics sees the number of so-called "cord cutters" exceeding 10% of US television households by the end of the year. Video will continue to dominate, accounting for over half of all of all consumer Internet traffic in the next five years.

Source: Strategy Analytics

Although the GoogleTV talking points bill the platform as “complementary” to cable, satellite and Telco TV, make no mistake—GoogleTV is a competitor to traditional “managed” pay tv.

It satisfies a demonstrated need

While it has been possible to emulate a pay tv environment with a game console, a tv and a PC, the level of sophistication required to knit these together into a seamless and enjoyable viewing experience went far beyond the aptitude or interest of the average consumer. GoogleTV may just bridge that gap. Observational research of Connected Media Users in the US and Europe, performed under the auspices of Strategy Analytics’ Digital Home Observatory, uncovered some common missing elements consumers identified in today’s Over the Top (OTT) ecosystem In addition to the desire for an integrated experience across devices, respondents brought up the wish for a more personalized viewing experience, and the ability to discover new relevant content based upon their existing likes and interests, and more relevant advertising and payment options. These are all places where GoogleTV can deliver.

The Power of the Value Chain

As strange as it may seem to see Sony chief Howard Stringer sharing the stage with Google and talking about “openness,” a critical success factor for GoogleTV is the power of its value chain, and the A-list partners it has teamed up with. Along with Sony, the presence of Intel and Logitech, as well as BestBuy and Dish bring some credibility to the table.

TBD?

Pricing

Rumors are floating around about likely price points, but nothing firm as of yet. This could be critical, as a $399 Logitech “companion box” sounds like it may collect dust on the BestBuy shelves.

Content

Somewhat surprisingly absent from last week’s announcement was any real mention of the content side. Sure, there was lip service paid to “You Tube Lean Back,” but nothing of any great consequence. YouTube, which turns five this year, is starting to offer full-length movies, though it still lacks enough professional content to make it a viable alternative, and UGC (User Generated Content) is, by nature, ephemeral. How many times can you watch “David After Dentist?” And what about Sony’s extensive library of television series and movies?

Net Neutrality

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the goings on with the FCC are doing very little to inject any sort of confidence or certainty into the minds of investors. And even though Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” strategy appears to be the current path, the fight has not even started with the MSOs and Telcos. Expect this to be tied up in court for the next few years. And that, we get. -Ben Piper