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.

What our work with ABS-CBN most profoundly represents is the nature of the transitions underway in the pay-TV world globally. Not everyone may know of the global diaspora and intense viewer loyalty that makes Filipino TV content a hot product.

Set against the background of a transition to digital TV standards even in developing markets, ABS-CBN has taken on the challenge of global multi-network content availability that optimizes revenue sources through a single security head-end.  And they have chosen VCAS cardless solutions to address this challenge – emphasizing that the choice is driven by a shared vision of how operators must address revenue security not only for IP delivery, but also in the traditional satellite and cable broadcast world as well.

Congratulations to everyone that made this landmark deployment a success!

Please come see us this week at the Philippines Cable Television Show (PCTA), where we will have VCAS for DVB and VCAS for IPTV security solutions on display.

Now, we’ve all complained about tradeshows – they are costly, require a large amount of company resources to make them successful and can be murder if you don’t have the right footwear.

But at the end of the day, it provides us with a great opportunity to meet with customers, partners and prospects and have meaningful conversations about their conditional access and content security plans. In speaking with service providers – cable, satellite, IPTV – we have picked up on a major theme. They are all contemplating landmark updates to their network to improve their competitive profile, capture additional revenue or simply better serve current subscribers.

More specifically, we are seeing four main trigger points for operators to transition their network and upgrade their content security platform.

• Analog-to-digital transition
• Digital cable-to-IPTV migration
• Cable switch-out to all IP
• Hybrid digital terrestrial/IPTV
• The adoption of IP for video delivery of satellite

Fortunately for us, these transition scenarios take advantage of proven IP-based standards and technologies. It also reinforces our position that eventually all pay-TV networks will be categorized as simply digital TV. Two-way interactivity of IP will underpin almost every aspect regardless if it is a telco TV network or a hybrid satellite/broadband combination. 

Based on strategy sessions with customers, we have identified a unique set of complex issues operators need to consider when upgrading their content security. Namely, they need to make decisions around their long-term “revenue security” strategy.

 Our team has developed a white paper that explores these issues and provides common migration approaches that can be downloaded from our site, “New Content Security Strategies Transform Pay-TV Service Migration: What Operators Should Consider when Upgrading their Networks.”

We have received positive feedback on the paper so far. Please let us know what you think.

And we’ll see you at our next tradeshows: Philippines Cable Television Show (Mar 16-19), IPTV World Forum in London (Mar 23-25) and Convergence India (Mar 23-25), with comfy shoes! 

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!