Over-The-Top video: HBO and CBS crack open the door

Yesterday, HBO announced that it plans to launch an over-the-top (OTT) Internet video service next year that will be available to anyone with a high-speed Internet connection, even if they don't subscribe to cable, satellite or IPTV services. HBO didn't announce any specifics about which shows will be available, if there will be live streaming or Video-on-Demand (VOD) only, and how much the service will cost. Then, today, CBS announced CBS All Access, which will provide nationwide VOD access to current CBS shows and classic shows from the libraries of CBS, Paramount and Desilu, for $5.99/month. Subscribers living in 14 major cities will also get live streaming from their local station 24 hours a day.

In the course of 24 hours, the competitive landscape for OTT video in the U.S. changed from Netflix and a bunch of smaller content companies to a field including the #1 pay television service and #1 broadcast network. Both HBO and CBS will be "canaries in the coal mine" for the other broadcast and cable networks. The right price points and assortments of live and VOD content are experiments in progress, and we're likely to see lots of different combinations as other companies enter the market. These announcements are also likely to impact existing OTT services--especially Hulu. Fox, Disney and Comcast own Hulu, but Comcast is not allowed to exercise any control due to restrictions that it agreed to in order to get regulatory permission to acquire NBC Universal. Fox in particular has put severe restrictions on when its shows are made available to Hulu and for how long. With CBS effectively opening the floodgates, Fox may either have to loosen the restrictions on Hulu, or as I suspect, launch its own Fox-branded OTT service that's much closer to CBS All Access. Disney, which already has an extensive web and mobile app presence, is likely to do the same, but with several services:

• Sports, which will offer ESPN's channels
• Family, which will offer Disney's family and children's channels, and possibly ABC Family
• ABC, which will offer ABC's channels

Other cable networks and groups that are candidates to offer their own OTT services include:

• Starz, which has already announced an OTT service for international markets
• Time Warner, which in addition to HBO could offer services based on CNN and its Turner cable networks (it already offers a large collection of classic movies and TV series through its Warner Archive service)
• Fox, which in addition to its television network, can offer services based on FX, Fox Sports, Fox News and the National Geographic channels
• Discovery, which in addition to its namesake networks could stream Animal Planet, OWN, Science Channel, TLC, Velocity and others
• A+E Networks, jointly owned by Disney and Hearst, which could stream such channels as A&E, History and Lifetime
• Viacom, which could stream movies and TV shows from Paramount Pictures and cable channels including BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon and TV Land
• AMC Networks, which owns AMC, IFC, Sundance TV and WE TV

Comcast may be forced to make NBC Universal's broadcast and cable networks available for OTT as a condition of its merger with Time Warner Cable, but I think that it's unlikely that the company will offer its channels for streaming to non-cable subscribers any time soon.

That brings up a possible "unintended consequence" of HBO's and CBS's announcements: They'll make it much more likely that the FCC will allow OTT services to be classified as Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs), the same as cable, satellite and IPTV operators. After all, if content providers can offer exactly the same programming over the Internet that they offer through MVPDs, why shouldn't an Internet-based program distributor be allowed to do the same thing?

Netflix jumps into the movie production business

Many people in the movie and television businesses have believed that given Netflix's success with original television series, it was only a matter of time before the company would begin producing movies. Those beliefs have been confirmed in a big way: Last week, Netflix announced that it has partnered with The Weinstein Company and IMAX to produce a sequel to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" called "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: The Green Legend," and today, Netflix announced a four-picture production deal with Adam Sandler and his Happy Madison production company.

The terms of the deals aren't public knowledge, but some of the plans have been revealed: In the "Green Legend" deal, IMAX was brought in to distribute the film to IMAX theaters. IMAX develops the cameras, projectors, screens and processing software for its various formats, but its theaters are actually owned and operated by other parties, and a number of those parties in the U.S. are very unhappy. The four largest theater circuits in the U.S., Regal, AMC, Carmike and Cinemark, have said that they won't show the sequel. Cineplex in Canada and Cineworld in Europe have also refused to show it. That doesn't completely eliminate IMAX as a viable outlet for the movie, because there are many IMAX theaters operated by museums and public institutions, and smaller theater chains with IMAX theaters may decide to show it.

It's not clear whether Netflix changed its strategy overnight or whether it had already expected the theater chains to react the way they did, but in today's announcement, Netflix said that none of the four movies to be produced by Adam Sandler will be shown in theaters. In addition, they also made clear that none of the movies that Adam Sandler or Happy Madison are already committed to for other producers or distributors are included in the four films.

No one should be surprised that big theater chains won't show Netflix's films--they've pushed back against major studio day-and-date Video-on-Demand (VOD) tests (the movie is released in theaters and on VOD on the same day,) starting with Universal's "Tower Heist" in 2011. By and large, the big studios have backed off of day-and-date VOD, but they're aggressively testing shorter windows between some movies' theatrical release and their availability on VOD. Smaller independent studios such as Magnolia Pictures have adopted day-and-date VOD releases. 2929, parent company of Magnolia, also owns Landmark Theaters, which has 50 theaters in 21 markets, so Magnolia is guaranteed of theatrical distribution in many major cities, no matter what other theater chains decide.

It's likely that Netflix is structuring its movie production deals with the expectation of no domestic theatrical revenues. Whatever theatrical distribution Netflix gets will be promotional, not a significant revenue generator. Over time, if Netflix's movies prove very popular, the big theater chains may be forced to start bidding for the right to show them in their markets. However, for now, the safest move for Netflix is to budget movie production in line with VOD revenues.

Earlier today, The Verge reported on Adam Sandler's deal with Netflix, and wrote:

Under the deal, Sandler removes the burden of risk. Netflix will solely fund the films, taking full responsibility for providing investment — and securing additional investment — off Sandler's Happy Madison Productions. Though Netflix will be the sole financier, the films will still have their $40 million to $80 million budgets. Sandler's payments are a large chunk of his films' budgets. He reportedly receives $15 million and over per film as an actor, and can make an additional $5 million as the producer, which explains how Grown Ups 2, a comedy with a handful of special effects, reportedly cost $80 million. On top of all that cash, it's likely Sandler and his production company will make an additional, undisclosed lump sum of money simply by signing the deal. Netflix decline to provide comment to The New York Times on the specifics of the agreement.

It's inconceivable to me that they would agree to pay production costs anywhere near $40 to $80 million or $15 million per picture for Sandler's acting, especially since Sandler's last several movies have bombed in the U.S. Netflix probably has a "back-end" deal with Sandler that pays him additional compensation if the movies reach or exceed performance targets, such as the number or percentage of subscribers who watch them. As the Verge article points out, Sandler laces his films with product placements, which can defray some production costs, or put money into his pocket. That might be enough to enable Sandler to, say, produce a film for $25 million, get $10 million in product placement funds, deliver the movie to Netflix for $20 million and put $5 million before tax into his pocket.

Netflix may be the first VOD company that will underwrite major motion pictures for its own distribution, but it almost certainly won't be the last. I expect Amazon to follow suit, and possibly Redbox. (Update, October 4, 2014: TechCrunch reported today that Redbox will shut down its streaming service on Tuesday, October 7.  That makes it much less likely that the company will get into original production.) SoftBank, the owner of Sprint in the U.S, SoftBank Mobile in Japan and the single largest shareholder of China's Alibaba, just invested $250 million for 10% of Legendary Entertainment, with options to invest a total of $750 million more between now and the end of 2018. Legendary, whose movies are co-financed, marketed and distributed by Universal, could produce movies for SoftBank and Alibaba should either company decide to distribute its own original titles.

Comcast-Time Warner Cable: Would it really be anti-competitive?

As you probably know, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have agreed to merge. Many consumer groups and some of the companies' content providers and competitors are opposing the merger, while it's hard to find proponents that aren't either getting funding from one of the two companies or are "Astroturf" organizations created to support the merger. However, is the Comcast-TWC merger really anticompetitive? A big part of the answer depends on whether you're looking at the multichannel video services market today, or a few years from now.

If you look at the situation today, whether or not the merger is anticompetitive depends on who you are. If you're another cable company, it's not anticompetitive at all. The reason is that cable operators all have local franchises to be the exclusive cable supplier in the areas they serve. So, Comcast doesn't compete with TWC, which doesn't compete with Cox, which doesn't compete with Charter, etc. The reason for exclusivity is that it was so expensive for a cable operator to lay the wires, put in the plant and equipment, and service customers, that it was uneconomical to do so unless they could serve all the customers in an area without competition.

If you look at Comcast's and TWC's non-cable competitors, the merger is likely to have a modest impact at most. Existing Comcast and TWC customers will still be customers of the merged company, and can switch to a competitor if they want to. It's likely that Comcast will improve TWC's plant and equipment, and improve its cable and Internet services, which would make the combined company a stronger competitor in TWC markets. If you're an existing Comcast or TWC customer, your competitive situation isn't likely to change much, either. The new company will still supply your cable service, most likely your wireline Internet service, and possibly your phone service as well. The same competitors you could switch to will still be there.

However, if you're a program supplier to Comcast and TWC, your situation is likely to change substantially. The reason is that the merged company will have around 30 million subscribers and will be by far the biggest cable and Internet provider in the U.S. (If the AT&T acquisition of DirecTV is approved, that company will have at least as many video subscribers as Comcast-TWC, but DirecTV, which has the lion's share of subscribers, doesn't provide its own Internet service--it resells services from local Internet Service Providers.) The merged company will be the only way for program suppliers (television and cable networks, and movie distributors offering titles for Video on Demand (VOD)) to reach about 1/3rd of all U.S. households. That will give the new company enormous power to negotiate preferential licensing and retransmission fees, and will also give it additional power to negotiate non-fee terms and conditions, such as limitations on content providers' ability to license their content to other service providers. In addition, given that Comcast owns NBC Universal, it can give preferential treatment to NBCs broadcast and cable networks and Universal's movies and television shows similar treatment in its VOD systems, which would put other content providers at a competitive disadvantage.

If you're an Internet content provider, such as Netflix, the merged company will be by far the biggest single provider of ISP services to your customers in the U.S. There's strong evidence that Comcast was throttling the bandwidth available to Netflix subscribers until Netflix agreed to pay for a peering agreement with Comcast. The combined company would have even more power to extract payments from Internet companies.

That's today's situation, but what about tomorrow? Netflix is a nationwide (now also international) service; it can reach everyone in the U.S. who has either wired or wireless high-speed Internet access. Roku, Apple, Sony and others sell set-top boxes and devices that offer similar access to video over the Internet. Verizon, which has long operated its FiOS IPTV service which offers a cable-like video service and high-speed Internet, recently acquired Intel's OnCue Over-The-Top (OTT) Internet video platform. Verizon is expected to use OnCue as the basis of a nationwide video service that will operate over its wireless network, and possibly over the Internet as well. That would give Verizon a nationwide footprint, and would enable it to offer video services in almost every U.S. market. Sony and Dish are also rumored to be in the planning stages for a similar Internet service. Intel's attempt to launch OnCue was stymied by pressure from the cable industry to prevent its program suppliers from licensing their content to Intel, and the same pressure is suspected as the reason why Apple has not yet launched its long-rumored HDTV and video service.

What happens if OTT service and program suppliers find a way to launch viable services that can compete with cable? The video services market could change radically. Instead of today's three or four competitors (the incumbent cable operator, DirecTV, Dish, and depending on where you live, either Verizon or AT&T,) there could be many more:

• T-Mobile and Sprint could use their networks to deliver video to households.
• I've written that there's evidence that Netflix is planning to offer live programming in addition to its VOD offerings; they could expand into a full cable competitor.
• Sony and Apple could offer their own services.
• The existing cable operators could directly compete with each other for subscribers using OTT.

With the exception of Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and (if it doesn't acquire DirecTV,) AT&T, all of the other new competitors will have to go through telco ISPs or cable operators in order to get to consumers' homes. If cable operators set prices and/or terms & conditions that make servicing their customers with OTT video unprofitable or too complex, these new competitors could be killed in the womb. That's why I suggest that regulators set and enforce two conditions on both the Comcast-TWC and AT&T-DirecTV deals:

1. Both combined companies must offer all OTT services access to their Internet networks and subscribers under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
2. Both combined companies must remove all clauses in their contracts with program suppliers that prohibit them from licensing their content to competitors, or that place significant restrictions on such licenses. In addition, they're prohibited from signing contracts with any such clauses in the future, and from using their influence and market power to informally persuade program suppliers not to deal with competitors.

Both conditions would last for five years from the day that each combined company finalizes its merger and begins operating as a single company. That would give competitors enough time to build their market presence and establish viable businesses, and also give the telecom industry five years to develop new ways for the OTT services to reach consumers without having to go through the incumbent cable operators.

My year-end waste of time: Predictions for 2012

I've decided to participate in one of the most potentially embarrassing annual blogging rituals: Predictions for the coming year. So, for what it's worth, here are my predictions for 2012, in no particular order:

eBooks and Publishing

• Both the European Commission's Directorate for Competition Law and the U.S. Justice Department will file suit against Apple and five of the "Big 6" trade publishers (Lagadere's Hachette publishing group, News Corporation's Harper Collins, Holtzbrinck's Macmillan, Pearson's Penguin Group and CBS' Simon & Schuster) for eBook price-fixing under the agency pricing model. Bertelsmann's Random House most likely won't be charged, because it joined in agency pricing long after the other five publishers. All the companies charged will strongly deny any conspiracy to fix prices, but they'll all eventually agree to a consent decree (and the European equivalent) before the cases go to court. The settlement will require Apple and the publishers to make cash payments for consumer damages, and the agency model will be discarded. eBook distribution will go back to the wholesale model.
• There's also a possibility that the U.S. government and European Union will use the antitrust litigation as a lever to force the Big 6 to make their eBooks available to libraries on commercially reasonable terms. Currently, only Harper Collins and Penguin make their titles available for library lending, and both companies impose significant restrictions.
• eBook sales in early 2012 will follow the same pattern as the last few years--there will be a huge burst of sales in January and February as millions of consumers who received eReaders and tablets as holiday gifts stock up on titles. However, the year-to-year growth rate in eBook sales will drop, due both to the increased share of eBooks as a percentage of all book sales and higher prices from the Big 6 publishers.
• Even though the growth of eBook sales will slow, print sales will continue to decline. Independent booksellers in the U.S. won't pick up the slack from the closure of Borders, nor will they make big strides in increasing their overall share of U.S. book sales.
• The Big 6 publishers' pricing policies will continue to encourage sales growth for smaller publishers and self-publishing authors, as consumers experiment with less-expensive titles and find that many of them are just as good as titles from the top publishers.
• While the number of titles from medium, small and self-publishers continues to grow, the Big 6 will continue to cut back on the number of titles that they release, focusing even more on pre-sold authors and titles, series and backlist titles that are reissued with a variety of value-adds.
• The "eSingle revolution" (short eBooks, no more than 50,000 words and typically 30,000 words or less) will grow, with more conventional book publishers offering titles. In addition, more media companies from other fields (magazines, broadcasting, cable and the web) will enter the eBook market with eSingles, either by themselves or in partnership with established book publishers.
• $99 will become the top-end price for dedicated eReaders sold in the U.S.; someone (probably Amazon) will go to $49-$59 for an entry-level model. The ad-supported/no-ads issue will become moot, as consumers show that they're perfectly happy with a cheaper, ad-supported eReader.
• The tablet market in 2012 will look very much the same as the market at the end of 2011: Apple will continue to dominate the high end of the market, with two lines of tablets: A new "iPad 3" (although I'm not sure that'll be its name) at the current iPad 2 prices, and the existing iPad 2, possibly with fewer storage and broadband options, at $100 or so below its current prices (for example, $399 for a 16GB model). At the low-end, a variety of tablets will compete in the $149 to $249 range, led (at least for the first few months) by Amazon. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Barnes & Noble drop prices of both the Nook Color and Tablet by $50, to $149 and $199 respectively.

Cameras & Camcorders

• We're almost certain to see new cinema camera models from Canon in 2012. The prototype cinema camera based on the EOS body will be launched, as well as at least one new model in the C3XX range, with improved electronics including auto-focus, auto-aperture and auto white balance and 10-bit log output. The new EOS model could be announced as early as NAB in April, and the new C3XX model is likely to be shown at IBC in September.
• Panasonic's AG-AF100/101 is getting a little "long in the tooth", so I expect a refresh of the model in time for NAB in April. I also expect the GH3 to be announced in the first half of the year.
• Given all of Sony's 2011 EVIL, DSLR and camcorder announcements, I don't expect any big announcements from Sony in 2012.
• AVCHD 2.0 (also called AVC Progressive) will become ubiquitous on all new cameras and camcorders supporting AVCHD.

Motion Pictures

• We'll see major consolidation at the U.S. movie studios, like what we've already seen at Paramount, with even deeper cuts. Studios will become even more conservative about which titles they greenlight for production, continuing to focus on remakes, series and pre-sold titles (very much like the big publishers). This risk minimization strategy will lead to even more boxoffice and home video revenue declines.
• Online movie rental services such as Netflix and Amazon will continue to increase their share of home video revenues, but what could have been a huge win for Netflix will be a much more competitive market, due to Netflix's self-inflicted wounds from 2011.
• Studios will rethink the value of 3D given audiences' rejection of the format, and will put more effort into using 3D well on a smaller number of "event" titles. That means that 2D-to-3D conversion, which has never worked well, will go away. Studios will have to come to grips with the fact that 3D, like Blu-Ray before it, will not be their financial savior. Even well-done 3D won't save movies that audiences don't want to see.
• UltraViolet, the "online digital locker" system supported by most of the major studios, will fail to get significant market share, although the studios won't give up on it in 2012. Consumers will find it too hard to use, not worth the effort and not a compelling reason to go back to buying DVDs and Blu-Ray discs.
• With an handful of exceptions, independent films will reach audiences through VOD and online streaming services, not through theatrical exhibition or sales of physical media.

VOD Gets Traction

Comcast,VOD,Apple TV,Vudu,Amazon,Unbox,TiVo,DirecTV

According to this article in CED Magazine, Comcast's VOD service has had more than seven billion views totalling more than one billion hours since the service was launched in 2003. Monthly, there are more than 275 million views totalling more than 130 million hours, and approximately 40 million movies are being watched on-demand.

Comcast's VOD library consists of more than 10,000 titles available each month, approximately 90 percent of which are free to view. By the end of the year, the company expects to have 6,000 movies in its VOD library, half of which will be in HD. (Given the statistics, they most likely have less than 1,000 movies available today, of which only a relative handful are in VOD.)

It's easy to forget, but cable VOD is most certainly a direct competitor for Apple TV, Vudu, Amazon Unbox on TiVo, and similar services. (DirecTV is readying its own Internet-based VOD service for later this year.) I think that it's far more likely that consumers will use the VOD service that comes from their incumbent video service providers than buy and install a separate set-top box that offers much the same content.