At this point, it seems we should move beyond the enabling regulations and technical obstacles surrounding premium VoD¹ and instead concern ourselves with market dynamics – who might be the big winners and losers.

Despite some changing dynamics in content licensing and security (see the new Verimatrix white paper on this topic), technology is not the long pole in the tent any more, but rather licensing terms and subscriber adoption – at least for early adopters. And we are clearly still in the experimental phase of verifying if a home theater movie experience in a similar release window as theatrical release provides a viable business upside.

There are still a significant number of unknowns, but continued experiments provide some interesting insights.

Consider, for example, that DirecTV, an early adopter of premium VOD, brought an Adam Sandler movie to their Home Premiere service in April as part of an agreement with Sony (This was part of a bigger deal with other major studios. See table below for details). The movie was released without much advertisement, eight weeks after theatrical release and with a price tag of $30. For a period of two weeks, subscribers could rent it and have 48 hours to watch it.  Apparently that VOD offer did not find a lot of takers, which many, including DirecTV CEO Michael White, attributed to the $30 price point.

Comcast planned to release the movie Tower Heist at the end of November but pulled it back due to theater owners’ protests. It’s tough to say why theater owners chose to protest this specific offering. It could have been the smaller release window of only three weeks, the holiday timing, or the fact that it was a bigger production. With a hefty proposed $60 price tag, though, VOD viewership would likely have been kept to relatively modest levels.

Time Warner Cable started offering smaller productions like Margin Call the same day of theatrical release for $6.99, and the VOD release did not seem to have limited the notable success in theaters. In the case of Melancholia, the movie was released even before the theatrical release to be consumed at home for $9.99.

The following chart summarizes some of the action so far:

So there has definitely been progress in the last few months, but additional experiments around this model are likely going to be visible before everyone places bets on the final outcome or the winning formula.  Strategies concerned with striking the right balance seem to vary between studios and that is expected when creating a completely new release window in a competitive marketplace. While the experiments come from different angles, it will be interesting to observe how the result will shake out.

In my opinion, here’s what needs to happen before we can move beyond “experimental” to “established” business models for ERW:

• Operators need to combine a compelling value proposition and a significant marketing campaign. This could involve increased advertising or bundling with physical media/digital copy strategies. The average consumer needs to be aware of the potential for a choice and to get accustomed to this option.
• Content owners should work towards identification of the scenarios where the ERW and theatrical window releases will complement each other, and drive an increase market penetration as a whole rather than being seen as competing with one another. Finding the sweet spot of the release timing, pricing and marketing effort will be part of that.
• It’s going to take a certain amount of patience for the studios, theater owners, content creators and certainly consumers to get comfortable with the new business model and equipment restrictions that support the delivery.

Would you pay for an early release movie to watch in your home (what Ben Schwarz calls “expensive VoD”)? What do you feel is the right formula for studios to make this successful?

I plan on continuing to follow the developments of premium VoD throughout 2012 – stay tuned!

¹ also called Home Theater or Home Premiere

Last week, we posted answers to several of the follow up questions that were generated during our recent Light Reading webinar on Multiplatform Content Protection: How to Secure Content Everywhere.

Below are even more answers to questions with themes that pervaded multiple questions and comments during the session.

Feel free to let us know you agree or disagree by leaving a comment below.

Are keys determined by the DEVICE identity or by the USER identity? Do security systems provide for different entitlements for different users of a single device?

The management of key distribution for encrypted video streams is one of the ways to regulate consumption to different subscribers. In order to do that most effectively, operators need to determine the entitlements of those keys both at the user level and the device level. Security systems could provide different entitlements for different devices going to the same user or to provide different entitlements for different users on a single device.

The consumer’s experience is adversely affected by making consumption rules too complicated.  If the value proposition of the service or transactional purchase is too complicated and not intuitive to the consumer, then whole experience is detrimentally affected.  In our experience, we have found that you really want to make the rules as simple as possible but keep entitlement management on a fine grain basis managed on user-by-user and device-by-device basis.

Can HLS support the needed adaptation of streaming rate for the larger screen in addition to smaller screens?

The ability of HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) to scale delivery systems from small form factor devices to large devices is part of what makes it so attractive.  So, yes, it is possible for the device to adapt to the right bit rate to match the resolution of its own screen display as well as to match the stream profile to the available network bandwidth.

Do you see a trend towards IP video home gateway/IP STB among pay TV operators?

We believe that the market is inexorably moving to IP-based video delivery across networks outside the home as well as inside the home. We are working with cable operators that are migrating to so called cable IPTV or DVB-C / IP hybrid networks to take full advantage of the cost and operational efficiencies that are possible.

But the transition necessarily involves stepping stones, and the gateway device is certainly an element of solutions that can help bridge the gap between traditional video network delivery technologies and the IP centric world.

Where do you see gaming consoles in the universe of ‘connected devices’ and video consumption, and DRM protection?

Gaming consoles are very sophisticated and powerful video machines that make great set-top box substitutes. We also think that they could enable viable second or third screens in the home. They are pretty good from a video processing and cost standpoint, so therefore they should be pretty good from a home video services standpoint.

The challenge has always been developing applications for game consoles as they have not been open development environments and it’s been harder for these devices to become rich targets for different kinds of video services.

Access the archived webinar from Light Reading here.

Post #2:  Can Traditional TV Operators Embrace OTT Video as a Service?

There is an assumption by many market pundits today that the service operators in the world of Internet TV services and that of traditional pay-TV are totally disjointed. We think this is rather too simplistic.

Just like the world of e-commerce in the early generations of Internet, the shift of consumption did not totally upend the value of existing brands and consumer loyalties. A few new players emerged for sure, but by and large, the brick and mortar brands have become just as prominent on the Internet as they are on Main Street – the power of branding transcends the medium.

When you apply this logic to video, the service operators that make the leap to multi-screen delivery can indeed be the same names that dominate the pay-TV market in cable, satellite and IPTV today. They have the content, the subscriber relationships and the scale to make service delivery compelling whatever the physical distribution network, and in many cases they also provide Internet connectivity.

The challenge for existing operators is that this requires a fundamental shift in the way they think. Progressive digital TV operators may have to embrace novel technologies that have been designed to effectively scale and solve IP video issues and apply them over their delivery networks. By integrating OTT and adaptive rate streaming technology with pay-TV services, operators can enhance ARPU, subscriber loyalty and lure incremental advertising dollars.

This convergence of technologies also must encompass a proactive revenue protection and enhancement approach that enables digital TV operators to cast a much wider net with their service offerings. This shifts the central value proposition for the digital video enterprise beyond that of content protection alone, towards the broader perspective of revenue security.

Download our white paper, Pay-TV at an Inflection Point, and let us know if you agree.

Our assessment is that the new platform is one facet of a seismic shift in the cable industry that has been long dominated by few technology choices and closed ecosystems. IP-based technologies have now taken center stage as cable MSOs are recognizing the cost and business model advantages of delivering video through a new class of flexible, efficient and highly adaptable service platform.

Cable operators – and their subscribers – are ultimately going to benefit from a new freedom to choose the latest technologies as they take their business forward. IP distribution in the core network will lead inexorably to IP distribution to the consumer, who will be able to take advantage of new advanced customer premise equipment for subscription services to the big screen – and have the opportunity to access parallel Internet TV or OTT services using open adaptive rate streaming technologies.

Comcast Media Center’s CEO Gary Traver put it this way, “Fiber delivery has the bandwidth and resiliency to deliver the large number of video services and encoding formats that can help MSOs compete in today’s environment. The HITS fiber-based solution offers a reliable and potentially cost-effective content delivery method that an MSO can leverage in their long-term business strategy to add future services and revenue streams. ”

What a change from the view of IPTV just a few years ago! IP is not just for telcos that need to defend their subscriber base from the triple play ambitions of cable MSOs. This is surely a confirmation of IP as a central technology in all modern digital TV delivery systems.

Several years back, we predicted that all video delivery systems will be simply be referred to as digital TV, and that IP will underpin almost every aspect regardless of whether it is a telco TV service or a hybrid satellite/broadband combination. 

With Comcast Media Center’s announcement, this is truer than ever.

We are very proud to be a part of this deployment and be able to work with our partner, Harmonic. This is not only an important development for us, but for the industry.

Do you feel we are overstating the significance of this industry shift? Let us know.

The conversations were far removed from the hype that has been elsewhere, but rather focused on how service providers can capitalize on advanced OTT technologies to enable new streams of business. 

Steve Christian recently answered questions posed by CSI Editor Goran Nastic on monetizing video on demand (VoD) content that portrays Verimatrix’s perspective on the opportunity of OTT. For the resulting article, click here. 

Q. Monetisation issues of VoD have been around for a while now and given that all evidence suggests that consumers love the service and value it, why has this proved to be such a challenge?

A. The challenge is that some operators have created the consumer expectation of free content and now they are having a hard time putting the “genie back in the bottle” when it comes to charging a fee for that content. It really puts into question the first mover advantage efforts by OTT providers to offer free content, as it appears they have potentially cannibalized their own long-term revenue streams. The question is if they can successfully extract money from existing and/or new viewers.

History confirms that consumers are willing to pay for something that satisfies their threshold of quality, convenience and cost. At this year’s OTTcon, where we presented, the reoccurring theme was how operators can balance the quality-convenience-cost equation. 

• Quality – quality of the overall experience – not just picture quality – including responsiveness and reliability.
• Convenience – how easy is it to browse content, how to conduct channel up & down, how many clicks are required to start a video, how many channels are aggregated in a single location, etc.
• Costs – what is the right price point and fee model, how to price content consumed on different devices, etc. 

People have a high tolerance for intermittent quality if something is free. However if you start charging for the same content, the balance of these dimensions needs to be maintained at a higher level. People will expect an Internet service to function like a cable service – or perhaps better!

Q. Given the widespread availability of free VoD, is there now a risk that the window of opportunity for making money is quite small? 

A. I think it is important to debunk the assumption that content owners are not making money on the content shown on VoD sites. The revenue streams from more traditional viewing forms, like DVDs, are still in operation. 

I feel the availability of free content will actually shrink when operators start finding the right quality-convenience-cost ratio. 

Q. How big is the opportunity given the right strategies? (Parks Associates, for example, expects 38% of free VoD streams could potentially be monetised by 2012)

A. What’s the alternative? Total industry collapse?  I feel it is inevitable that this content will be more effectively monetized as time goes on. So, the opportunity is huge. 

Another common theory – that I believe is still very much only a theory – is that consumers are willing to cancel their pay-TV subscriptions and rely on fee online entertainment options. 

Goldman Sachs released an interesting report on online video (titled “Broadband 100″) that found while the consumption of online video is increasing steadily, it is not cutting into traditional pay-TV viewing. To put it in perspective, the report cites that consumer usage of online video is surging, with time spent currently growing over 60% yoy and at a 40% CAGR since 2007. This is set against a backdrop of more than 75% growth in online video traffic as measured in bits. Yet consumer usage of online video still represents only about five minutes per day for an average consumer.  The report goes on to say that professional long-form content is the fastest growing and most easily monetized. 

Q. What are, in your opinion, the top  ways that broadcasters and/or payTV operators can monetise VoD? 

A. For streaming – yes, the existing methods are advertising-based, subscription or transactional. 

For a download service, there is also the possibility of electronic sell-through – digital delivery of a file. Consumers may pay more for this option because it is potentially higher quality, they can own it forever, and view it in different ways and on different devices. Plus once it is downloaded, you do not need to be connected to the Internet each time you want to view it.

 Q. Assuming VoD is monetised, would you expect advertising, subscription or PPV models to dominate and why?

A. We expect the subscription or transaction model would be more successful than advertising, which we are already seeing with Hulu and Joost talking about a fee-based service. 

Ad-based content has been quite successful for Hulu, but remember that they reach less than 1% of the total broadcast audience, and insert less than one-quarter of the ad time compared to a regular broadcast (in fact, they’ve promised to only show 4-5 ads for an hour show). Even though they can charge a respectable amount for each ad, the total amount of revenue is much lower than traditional broadcast. The overall pot is substantially smaller. This points the way to fee-based revenue models.

 Q. Are there any significant differences between cable, satellite and IPTV platforms that might favour one over another in monetising VoD? 

A. We strongly feel that all operators are headed towards a hybrid network of some description and IP-based technologies are the common thread, which creates an interactive, two-way environment. 

IPTV providers should therefore have an advantage because their networks are intrinsically based on IP-based networks. The case can also be made for the cable operators that own both the broadband and TV pipes into a subscriber’s home, which provide more control over quality of experience. Satellite operators on the other hand need to have a broadband partner to offer the connectivity to take full advantage of a rich VoD service. 

Q. Can on-demand content available on the Web be brought to the living-room TV set in such a way as to complement payTV operators’ VoD offerings rather than bypass them?

A. The Holy Grail seems to be the capability to offer OTT content into the living room – to take center stage for family entertainment. The Verimatrix view is that traditional operators are well positioned to achieve this goal. They clearly already have the premier position on the living room TV and are now experimenting with how to take their TV services beyond the living room and capture viewer’s attention on other devices – PC, mobile, etc. 

Other approaches we’ve seen are to truly blend the TV and Web experiences together. Operators can choose to make this happen on the main TV (such as calling up an actor’s Twitter feed while watching his program) or bring in other devices to provide interactivity (it is become more normal for viewers to watch TV while working on their connected laptop). The market is so wide open at this point that there’s no 100% right answer.

Without dwelling on the negative impression given by statistics, Mark underscored the promise of a more comprehensive transition to digital distribution where operators across the region can recapture a significant revenue base. The potential is even more dramatic when the new opportunity for Internet distribution makes content available to those subscribers who live away from their home country.

This hits a trend that we’ve been observing– Internet video is completely changing the way expats consume pay TV. Operators see an opportunity to broadcast local programming to expats all over the world. As you can imagine, this is both a huge revenue opportunity and potentially a devastating piracy challenge.

While some of these operators are rebroadcasting signals illegally, legitimate operators have the opportunity to enhance the subscriber experience with better quality and better selections of content. Asian operators have a special opportunity to service migrant populations and communities of temporary workers.

To reinforce another point in the article, Asia represents a lucrative market for content security providers. Cost is clearly an issue in this often low ARPU region; however technology and rising awareness of service theft are changing security dynamics. Operators upgrading to digital have a more compelling desire to protect their programming assets, and more advanced layered security approaches are making revenue protection way more cost effective.

Software-based content security is catching the attention of operators that are weary of the millions of cloned smart cards in the region. Software provides the flexibility to stay ahead of the hackers with renewable security and layered techniques like watermarking or fingerprinting. Even legacy smart card vendors are getting serious about software-based security.

We are certainly excited about the opportunities in Asia as hybrid networks, enabled by IP technologies, are on the agenda of most major operators.

Read Mark’s article where he breaks out some figures on piracy type and estimated costs per country.

Compare that with IPTV operators. In the early days, theft of service was never a forefront requirement when building their networks – for two main reasons. They felt they had more control with fixed networks where the end device was a set-top box, so the threat of theft of service was potentially lower. In addition, content owners saw the emerging Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) as a potential threat and imposed much higher security requirements in order to gain rights to premium programming. Despite claims to the contrary from smart card vendors, software-based security was deemed acceptable in a two-way network and content protection was key to a full channel lineup to attract subscribers.

With the appeal of hybrid networks and novel OTT (over-the-top) services, all types of pay-TV operators find themselves in new revenue security territory. Cable and satellite providers are making strategic decisions to add more interactive services, many of which are delivered over IP-based networks. They are finding that software-only security solutions offer a more economical alternative, which are far easier to deploy, compared with smart cards that simply do not translate in the two-way environment, in particular in the case of mobile devices. 

IPTV providers are now looking into OTT services that deliver content outside their controlled, managed network. They need layered security solutions to take advantage of different delivery mechanisms outside of the living room. Plus IPTV operators with rights to exclusive content have become an attractive target for hackers, so theft of service prevention is a higher priority.

You can now put revenue security on the list of how these pay-TV services are converging. Operators require a flexible protection solution that can handle different networks, delivery formats, multiple end devices and the addition of new services – the ultimate goal is help monetize content, increase ARPU and reduce churn.

Come see me at Digital Hollywood Fall where we will tackle the latest DRM standards and actual technology implementations – today at 12:30!