Indeed, the entry of Telco companies into the television arena has been disruptive to the industry, putting satellite and cable companies on the defensive, while at the same time opening new points of entry into the subscriber’s household.

In short, all bets are off.

Increasingly complex  product offerings have catapulted many consumers into a state of perpetual confusion. While Cable as an industry has burnished its image in many Western European markets, in others it does not have the same history or credibility. And research suggests that it would be unwise for any operator to take its customer’s loyalty for granted.

A survey fielded by Strategy Analytics in Q2’09 shows that stated satisfaction among Western European Digital Television customers is quite high, with 63% reporting to be either “somewhat” or “very satisfied” with their current service. However, when presented a competing offer, 20% cheaper, a full 45% said they would make the switch.

Cable’s competitive positioning varies by country, though historically it has been portrayed as a “value offer,” competing largely on price. While there is much talk of evolving cable into a premium offering, Strategy Analytics’ research confirms that consumers are still relatively price-sensitive.

The same survey showed that, irrespective of platform, Western European digital television consumers have a low perceived “value for money” from their provider, with only 21% saying it “exceeded” or “greatly exceeded” expectations.

Even lower-rated was customer and technical support—with only 12% finding their provider to exceed expectations.

The challenge facing operators, then, is to simultaneously and consistently demonstrate value for money and service excellence.

Nobody said it was going to be easy.

But the signs are that the Wii has peaked in terms of console sales, and its installed base will begin to decline after 2011. Meanwhile, Sony’s PS3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360 will continue to grow, so that the PS3 will become the largest platform globally by 2013. In terms of cumulative lifetime sales we expect the PS3 to hit 127 million units, compared to 103 million Wiis.

These estimates are derived from our core forecast scenario, but we have developed various scenarios for each platform. Uncertainties clearly surround each of the major platforms, particularly relating to the new services and upgrades planned by Sony and Microsoft. Natal on the Xbox could be more beneficial to 360 sales than expected, and Sony’s own motion controller, together with its plans to upgrade all PS3s to 3D capabilitiy, also represent potential for upside to our core forecasts.

This year’s global market for consoles is likely to fall again, after a 6% decline last year. For 2010 we are predicting global console sales of 47.5 million, a 9% decline.The Wii will account for most of that decline: sales of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are predicted to increase.

David Mercer

Client Reading: Global Video Game Market Forecast

This is clearly bad for consumers, who want to have their content access all at one place rather than going to different sites. As Internet is playing a more important role in TV and video content distribution, consumers benefit from the openness of Internet, where they can search for specific content they want. Meanwhile, they also have to live with the pain that content distribution is so fragmented online that they have to jump around a bunch of video websites to watch different content.

Some media executives say that media industry is a convenience industry. What it means is that one of media companies’ major value propositions is to provide convenience to consumers to purchase and to enjoy media content. It is apparently true. If a media company creates great content, but makes it hard or unaffordable for consumers to access, it would end up for consumers either pirating the content or looking for something else to entertain themselves. This might not be the case for the two Viacom’s show, as consumers can still watch the show at TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation.com, but it at least suggests that Viacom hasn’t found its ideal content distribution practice online.

Hulu, founded by NBC and FOX in 2007, provides consumers an single gateway to access content from NBC and FOX as well ABC now. Its owners like Hulu, as it is their own distribution channel online that is fully controlled by them. 100% of the revenues generated by Hulu goes to the shareholders proportionally, after subtracting the costs. However, for an outsider like Viacom who does not have a stake in Hulu, the video aggregator is merely like another YouTube with more targeted audience, as Hulu will take a cut of the revenues generated by Viacom content.

We at Strategy Analytics have been long positive at Hulu’s business model than at YouTube’s, given that Hulu is not required to pay upfront minimum guarantee to its owners, while for YouTube, the upfront payment is usually needed. But in Viacom’s case, Hulu has no difference from YouTube for them.

I believe it is a loss for both parties to remove the show from Hulu, as Hulu loses great content whereas Viacom loses audience, despite Viacom believes that its own loss is not as big as Hulu’s. So is there a solution for the issue? Probably. Viacom could join ABC, NBC and FOX’s club to own a stake in Hulu, which could let them enjoy Hulu’s long-term growth in stead of caring about short-term money. Hulu would also benefit from Viacom’s high quality programs enhancing its current competitiveness. Consumers will love it since they don’t need to jump to different websites to watch the videos they like.

Certainly, there are several barriers that need to be tackled in order for this to happen. First, it is unclear if ABC, NBC and FOX are willing to let their competitor to own a part of Hulu. Even they are, conflicts on the control of the site among these large media companies could be an issue in the future. Second, Hulu would be declared as a monoply if they gain investment from most of the big media firms. A similar online video service proposed by BBC, ITV and Channel 4, Project Kangaroo, has already been blocked by the UK Competition Commission. 

Stay in the status quo or go to buy a stake of Hulu? Now it’s up to Viacom to decide.

Jia Wu

Client Reading: Online Video: YouTube vs. Hulu - Let the Battle Commence!

That taste was sweetened this morning by an unexpected call from Sky customer services offering me a new HD DVR, together with 12 months’ subscription to HD channels, all at no additional cost. No set-top box charge, no “set-up fee”, no installation charge, no further commitment. The normal fee for an existing Sky customer to upgrade to this package, as still described today on the company’s website, is £180 - £60 set-up cost plus 12 months of HD channels at £10/month. From £180 to zero – that’s what I call a discount.

I couldn’t let the fact that I don’t yet have an HDTV, or my general rule to reject all cold calls, prevent me from accepting this offer. Sky’s latest HD DVR should represent a vast improvement over my 9-year-old Sky+ model, in speed and ease of use, interface and EPG, and storage capacity. I won’t get the benefit of the HD channels, but maybe, just maybe, those free channels will be enough of an incentive for me finally to replace my CRT TV.

Sky’s initial financial loss on this, and presumably many other HD upgrades, results from their determination to remain competitive in the years to come. The resistance of many of their customers to subscription fees is high, as shown by our own user research. We found that, while Sky’s overall satisfaction ratings are high, more than a quarter of Sky’s customers would switch to another provider offering the same service for 10% lower monthly fees. We also found that more than a third of Sky’s customers do not rate the company as meeting expectations on value for money.

With this new offer, although it is limited to selected existing customers, is aimed at the right spot: to make sure its subscribers are not lured away by competitors such as Freeview HD, Freesat HD, Virgin Media and BT Vision. While none of these alternative providers offer the exact same package as Sky, they are each, in their own way, becoming more competitive in certain aspects. Slowly but surely it seems as though the UK pay and multichannel TV sector is finally opening up to greater levels of competition. Whether Sky’s financials can withstand the impact of these customer retention strategies remains to be seen.

David Mercer

Client Reading: BSkyB Results Shine But Warning Signs Evident In Customer Value Ratings

An FCC report released February 23 announced the findings of its National Broadband Plan Consumer Survey, “Broadband Adoption and Use in America.” The findings reaffirm what Strategy Analytics has been saying for years about the state of Broadband in the United States. Namely, that in the “metrics that matter,” including speed, availability, penetration and price, the US falls woefully behind.

The FCC study finds that 67% of US households “contain a broadband user who accesses the service at home,” in line with the Strategy Analytics estimate of 63.4% household broadband penetration in 2009. According to the study, 93 million Americans (representing roughly 43 million households) are so-called ‘non-adopters.’

The reasons cited for “non adoption” of broadband include affordability, digital literacy, and relevance. These barriers to adoption will be—and must be—overcome in the near future.

Affordability Remains an Issue in US

Thirty-six percent of the “non adopter” respondents in the FCC study cited affordability as a key barrier to broadband adoption. Indeed, Americans do pay more on per Mbps than most of our peers. When it comes to faster speeds (i.e., above 50Mbps offerings), the “rip off factor” is even more evident.

We estimate that, on average, Americans pay almost $16 per Megabit received to the home. In Korea, the amount is $2.00. Central to the relatively high cost of broadband in the US is the lack of meaningful competition. With essentially zero intra-platform competition, service providers have little incentive to innovate offerings beyond par.

Digital Comfort Factor and Relevance

Another notable finding from the study was the importance of digital literacy and ‘relevance’ as barriers to adoption. Twenty-two percent of non-adopters indicated a lack of comfort with the technology, while 19% saw little if any personal relevance. Of the one-third of American households falling under the “non-adopter” category, the largest sub-group doesn’t use the Internet at all. This particular category was older, lower-income, and less educated than occasional non-home users and/or dialup users.

Growth Opportunities Remain

Despite the 93 million unconnected Americans estimated in the report, Strategy Analytics continues to be bullish on the future of broadband in the US. We expect household penetration to breach the 80% mark by 2013.  Why?

It’s Generational

It’s not surprising that older Americans are more intimidated by (and see less need for) broadband. This group, however, is being replaced by a generation who will have known no world without broadband. They won’t be able to imagine a world without ubiquitous connectivity.

People Come Around

As was the case with non-adopters of microwave ovens, VCRs, cable tv and cell phones, people eventually do come around. Interestingly, 78% of the “Digitally Distant” (non-Internet using) respondents had cable or satellite tv at home, and over half had a cell phone.

It’s Inevitable

Broadband is so tightly woven into the fabric of our culture and society that it is almost impossible to imagine a future devoid of the technology. We truly do live our daily lives online, and the pipe dreams of five years ago are fast becoming reality. Telepresence, a technology until recently dismissed as a niche enterprise application, will be launched to consumer households this year. Telemedicine and distance learning are inching their way into the mainstream of American life.

Despite the recession and the changing industry landscape, News Corp still generated $30.9 billion sales in 2009, which is 1.3 times Google’s revenue for the same period. News Corp is once again on the sustainable growth trajectory since the fourth quarter of 2009. Google, returning to decent growth in Q4 as well, generated $23.7 billion in 2009. But here, the interesting thing about their financials is that Google has a market capitalization of $172 billion in February 2010, while News Corp’s market value only hit $35 billion, which suggests a 7.26 price-to-sales ratio for Google and 1.13 for News Corp.

So why does a company, which earns less money than the other, end up having 5 times more market value? Of course, it’s the future growth or expected growth. (Although factors such as profit margin play a role, it is the future growth that has the most impact on Market Cap.) Google clearly grows its revenue by 8.5% in 2009 over the previous year, whereas News Corp’s sales dropped by 5.5% in 2009. But given News Corp’s decent post-recession rebound in Q4 and Google’s growth deceleration for the past years, is the two companies’ difference of current growth trends big enough to make up the entire $137 billion Market Cap gap? I doubt it.

The investors definitely expect way more revenues from Google in the future than it’s generating now in order to substantiate its high market value. And given Google’s heavy investment in different areas such as mobile, computer OS and social networks, there is a fairly high possibility for Google to achieve it. But here the question becomes where Google’s next Multi-billion dollar business is? Google has publicly stated that display advertising, which includes banner ads on its online properties and video ads on YouTube, will be the next billion dollar business. I have no doubt about it. But I doubt that the growth potential in display advertising is sufficient to support people’s expectations on Google. Strategy Analytics believes online video ads will be nice business in the coming years, but it is more of a traditional business model other than that of Google search ads. Search is all about aggregating users’ intention and monetizing on that, while display ads are just old-fashioned magazine types of impression selling. There is nothing wrong with the old ways of selling impression, but that is not what Google eventually aims for. Google needs a new multi-billion dollar business to go for, as the groundbreaking AdWords it has invented many years ago.

Since most of Google’s new inventions are or will be free, like Android and Chrome OS, I believe that Google’s next multi-billion dollar business will remain in search, and all that Google is doing now aims to increase the world’s Internet users and usage, which will in turn make the pie of search advertising larger and larger. It remains unclear that if there will be enough advertising dollars in the market to reward Google for its research and development, but at least Google makes the world better.

Jia Wu

At launch, SeeSaw is offering 3,000 hours of television content and will be the first major Web TV portal in the UK that offers content from UK broadcasters BBC World, Channel 4 and Five in one place. Content from ITV, however, is notable for its absence.  

ITV is believed to be contemplating an exclusive deal with HULU, the American Web TV joint venture between Disney, News Corp and NBC Universal, which is yet to launch in the UK but most likely will instantly become SeeSaw’s biggest rival once it does.

Until now, many broadcasters in the UK and elsewhere have done reasonably well from offering their own individual Web TV services but what HULU has made devastatingly clear in the US market is that – given the choice – most consumers will choose a Web TV portal over individual channels’ Web TV services.

In the long term, there is likely only going to be room for a couple of large mainstream Web TV portals in each market. This is just the nature of the Internet and we’ve seen it over and over again with Google in search, Facebook in social networking and Amazon in ecommerce. The Web TV space is no different in this respect and at the moment it’s very much a race for land-grab and positioning in a nascent but rapidly growing new market.

The fact that SeeSaw managed to launch before HULU in the UK market will undeniably give it a head start in attracting users but the real test will come when the American Web TV portal finally launch later this year.

Client Reading: European Web TV: Era of Anywhere, Anytime TV Approaches

Personally I have seen enough 3D demos to last a lifetime, so this disappointment represented no great loss. But Sony will clearly have to avoid such problems for US-based customers interested in 3D Blu-ray players and TVs once they are offered for sale. Effective in-store technology demonstrations have always been one of the major obstacles to commercial success, and 3D will be no different. Minor issues such as these will be overcome as the technology matures, but they will be replaced by other practical questions such as how 3D glasses are stored, demonstrated and secured.

Retailers will have other headaches too, as an excellent article in specialist trade publication, CE Daily, revealed last week. The incompatibility of passive (side-by-side) and active (eg Blu-ray) 3D systems is one of the major faultlines in the realm of 3D standards. The Blu-ray 3D standard specifies only the active approach, which is generally accepted to offer the best quality available today, and will be compatible with TVs with active displays and the transmitter necessary to communicate with active shutter 3D glasses.

Panasonic recently became one of the first major companies to announce sales of new, active 3D TVs. It will sell 50” and 54” plasma sets in Japan, starting at around $4800. One pair of glasses will be included in the bundle; additional pairs will retail at around $112 each.

But, as CE Daily’s Barry Fox reports, it seems, as long suspected, that some TVs will be launched which will only support passive 3D technologies, from vendors such as Hyundai and JVC. These TVs, which are likely to cost considerably less than the first active 3D sets, will be suitable for broadcast 3D services from Sky, which are only using the passive approach. But they will apparently not be compatible with 3D Blu-ray players (including the PS3), at least not without some modification or add-on transmitter device. They will also apparently not incorporate the latest HDMI 1.4 ports required for 3D Blu-ray and other potential active 3D systems.

We wrote nearly a year ago that BSkyB, which had just announced its intention to launch a 3D service, was unconcerned by 3D standards issues. But that narrow perspective ignored the dilemma which now apparently faces retailers anxious to push sales of new 3D devices and software. Sky’s 3D customers will need new TV sets; but will retailers tell them (will they even know) that some of those TVs may not play 3D from Blu-ray discs? Buyer, as always, beware.

Client Reading: Consumer Imperatives for Digital TV Media Browsers

Digital Television Satisfaction is High Overall, but Cable is Still Vulnerable

Seventy-one percent of respondents in the survey reported to be “somewhat” or “very” satisfied with their current service. While this may seem like positive news for the digital television industry, the story changes somewhat when viewed at the individual platform level.

The differences among Cable, Satellite, and IPTV were impressive, with  Telco/IPTV customers reporting 95% overall satisfaction, compared to 67% for Cable. Cable underperformed in virtually every satisfaction metric.

Low Perceived “Value for Money” among all Digital Pay TV customers

Virtually across the board—and irrespective of platform—respondents reported low satisfaction in the metric of `Value for Money.’ There was very little measurable difference by platform among respondents, and in all cases, fewer than 22% of respondents felt the service “exceeded” or “greatly exceeded” expectations of value for money.

This is among the most important findings of study, as it underlines the vulnerability of pay television in its current state. Indeed, in a report published in 2008, we found that over 50% of US digital pay television customers would be willing to scale back or completely drop their television service if household budgetary circumstances dictated.

Cable Customers Most Willing to Jump Ship

Despite a high stated satisfaction rate, digital television respondents displayed relatively high price elasticity. A somewhat surprisingly high percentage of respondents indicated a willingness to switch providers when offered a competitive deal 10% or 20% cheaper than their current spend.

Cable customers displayed the highest propensity to churn, with 47% saying they would switch for a 10% price discount. When the price discount was raised to twenty percent, over two-thirds (68%) said they were willing to jump ship.

Malaise?  Angst?  Ennui?

Whatever it is,  it doesn’t feel good.

Despite a rather high stated satisfaction level, pay television customers in our survey indicated a substantial willingness to churn, and a general feeling that they were not getting high value for money from their television service provider.  Both of these factors further underline the threat that Over-the-Top (OTT) distribution poses to traditional service providers.

Among platforms, IPTV appears to being doing best in terms of satisfaction and anticipated growth.  Its success, however, is not a foregone conclusion.

But the general global outlook for the current generation of home consoles appears to be clear. In terms of annual sales volumes Nintendo’s Wii is entering a period of decline, although its global performance in 2009 held up well. The Xbox 360 has peaked in terms of annual sales, while sales of the PS3 are still on an upward trajectory. So while the PS3 still ranks third globally in terms of installed base, this situation may not last much longer.

Much depends on assumptions about the longevity of these platforms. As we have always argued, the PS3 was designed with longest term vision in mind, and that is now being demonstrated by global sales patterns. However the uncertainty surrounds the impact of system upgrades such as Natal and Sony’s motion controller. These are likely to give renewed impetus to both platforms.

We’ll release our conclusions together with market data projections in the next week or so.

Client Reading: Consumer Imperatives for Digital TV Media Browsers