Next Generation Connected Media Panel

 March 20, 2012, Over-the-top TV Conference, Santa Clara, CA—a panel considered the implications for the next generation connected media experiences. Colin Dixon from the Diffusion Group moderated the panel. Panel members were Martez Moore from BET-Viacom, Sean Knapp from Ooyala, Trevor Doerksen from Mobovivo, Sandy Khaund from Turner Broadcasteing, and Guy Piekarz from Macha.TV.

Broadband users are changing, 38 percent have a router next to the TV, 40 percent use their iPad with their TV at least once a day, and 80 percent expect their next TV to be smart. As a result, companies have to change their strategies and consider OTT functions. five years ago, no game console had any media on the box. Now, the xBox is the center of the home video.

Turner is aggressive in this space?
Khaund responded that technology is moving into digital media and vice versa. They have to innovate on the experience to meet the changing demands. The experience takes the tablets and integrates the capabilities on any mobile platform. This integration takes some aspects from augmented reality and adds social media functions. The linear and second screen functions are complementary.

Technology just duplicates the TV, loss of potential?
Knapp opined that there are three dimensions to customize and personalize; devices, content, and consumer, and OTT is a one-to-one function. Facebook allows people to watch movies with virtual credits. The tablets can use Bluebird TV to watch live content and download clips from broadcasts. Each screen offers a different focus from tablet, to PC, to TV and the revenue models change with each screen. Pay walls and other technologies can vary the costs and number of ads, while users can personalize the watching experience. OTT allows the host to generate profiles and personalize the content, so the 1 B channels is almost one channel per person.

Experimenting with ads?
Knapp continued that Web technology allows any task to be an ad platform. The back information enables real-time data on consumers. These data are deep and rich, but there is still a need to test and experiment to explore the big, new opportunities.
Moore questioned that the changes apply to all ads and revenue. For example, the 106 in Park app had over 1.5 M downloads, but is not the same as a digital asset. Instead, it is part of a bundle, so the existing pricing model is no longer relevant.

All of the digital assets account for 75 M people, and the content goes to all platforms. They have to create, secure rights, and distribute these assets through an integrated model for revenue, with sponsors for the apps. The apps are plug and play, but are also long term drivers that integrate multiple technologies. They develop branding advantages and aggregate the platforms and sell bundles.

They sell to agencies and advertisers, not just to the mobile market but to all platforms; VoD, social, linear, etc. . The idea of shared eyeballs can address the cost per thousand model issues and integrate across all platforms. The broadcast team is the key to fixing the linear dollars versus the digital dimes.

Apps versus channels on TV?
Doerkson noted that apps have a life cycle that differs from TV production. TV producers are concerned with pre-, broadcast, and post-broadcast. They can feature trailers of shows while the apps can allow Facebook users to connect with the producers. They can build to engage users with content on the second screen. By controlling the second screen, they can control content delivery that is synced to the video.

Sports and reality shows can enhance the experience with gamification, while scripted shows can offer secondary-level information. Home entertainment is now a function of video to the tablet and big screen. The apps equate to the show plus a link to other episodes and other shows from the same producer.

Video is the same as video plus data about the video?
Doerkson confirmed that the TV is just a dumb screen. Tablets offer TV guide and remote control functions. if you can mirror the tablet to the TV, you can eliminate the STB. Does this make it screens versus local computers?

Video on demand ending linear?
Piekarz observed that streaming content has over 200,000 shows. This quantity offers users increased opportunities for viewing, but does not help address the discovery issues. Live programming will continue to be live, but scheduled shows can be at any time or place. It is possible for some special effects to be available only on the live shows. 200 channels are becoming 200,000, but we still need tools to help us decide what to watch.

Is programming dead for on-line viewing?
Moore opined that sports and other live events will continue to be programmed. All others can be any time. At the same time, digital is limited. Looking at the advantages and disadvantages of linear is the same as comparing tune-in versus-on-demand. The linear channels have incumbent status and are dead-ends where a viewer consumes the content, then has to find the next show. youTube has solved the dead-end experience through accumulation of similar content. Linear being dead is not the same as on-demand being better, because there is still a dead-end experience at the end of each show.
Knapp agreed that the usual viewer experience dead-ends, but it is possible to build a better experience. Instead of linear moving to on-demand, the linear plus personalization can automatically start the next piece in a sequence unless the user intervenes. This one-to-one experience makes the100 channels become a channel per person. Personalized content consumption allows an increase in dollars per person.
Piekarz demurred that the distinction between live and on-demand is really about reprogramming, but still needs a lot of work. Live implies at a certain time and date. Curators can help overcome the dead-end structures.

All TV on line?
Moore disagreed and noted that the current TV industry make over $1 B based on the existing models.
Knapp said about half right. There is a blurring of tehC3 window, but not all content is on IP and OTT. Only about half is available. The existing business models are still viable.
Doerkson objected that people are not cutting the cable. 90 percent of viewers in the US have cable and this number only dropped by about 4 percent last year, as much due to the recession as to any change in viewing habits.
Khaund the incumbencies have the infrastructure for the content delivery. Developing alternative infrastructures will be very challenging.
Piekarz suggested that more content will stream directly to the consumers. The industry just has to find business models that will work. Content will become pure streams.

Young people not interested in pay TV?
Moore objected only 20 percent are content creators.
Knapp considered this mostly true. Decoupling distribution and service providers is the key.
Doerkson offered if cable takes over broadband, then linear could merge with digital.
Khaund stated that more consolidation has to happen, because cable and Internet still delivered by cables.
Piekarz said it depends upon the bundle. Sport will become a separate tier.

Are bundles irrelevant?
Moore suggested that it depends upon the quality of content. Good content attracts audiences.
Knapp concurred that the inherent value of all the content delivery over time is what matters. Monetization doesn’t matter, but producers finding how to monetize and maximize the consumer experience will see increased revenue.