backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 18 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Dec 18 at 1:47 PM
Porn and event coverage to lead the way for pay-per-view revenue

Viewers no longer satisfied with television programmers telling them what to watch will fuel the growth of video-on-demand (VOD) services. Media and communications firm SNL Kagan estimates that total video-on-demand, pay-per-view (PPV) and near-video-on-demand (NVOD) revenue generated by U.S. multichannel service providers will top $6 billion USD within five years.

According to SNL Kagan’s study, "Video-On-Demand: A Strategic and Economic Analysis," average revenue per user is expected to top $5 per month in 2010 and $6.56 per month (or nearly $79 annually), including cable, satellite and telco video offerings.

The firm also projected that by 2011, the combined install base of digital cable and telco video set-top boxes will top 110 million.

"We're starting to see factors align that can enable operators to translate the rise in on-demand traffic into more significant sales," said Ian Olgeirson, senior analyst for SNL Kagan.

Not surprisingly, the largest expected contributions to the new video services will come from adult and event pay-per-view sectors.

Given SNL Kagan’s calculation that 95 percent of all VOD content is free, advertising in VOD could be the solution in sustaining the technology for the mass market. Furthermore, SNL Kagan expects the market to evolve gradually into a cost per thousand viewers model – similar to advertising on the web.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
VOD and advertising
By Bluestealth on 12/18/2007 1:27:19 AM , Rating: 5
They really need to just move all TV to video on demand. Then offer the shows free with advertising, or just pay for view.

Its gotten to the point where I cannot stand to watch TV live, sure I will if I am watching sports with friends, but I still don't watch the ads. 90% of them are terrible, loud, and obnoxious. I will pause TV and go do something else for 20-40 minutes while the show plays out, just so I don't have to see ads. I often forget to even go back to watch the show which I was interested in right before the shitty ads came on. Whatever, there went your ad revenue.

There is nothing I dislike more than watching tv "LIVE", phew... what garbage.




RE: VOD and advertising
By ryedizzel on 12/18/2007 6:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree.


RE: VOD and advertising
By wordsworm on 12/18/2007 6:57:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There is nothing I dislike more than watching tv "LIVE", phew... what garbage.
You didn't like Janet Jackson's nipple slip?

btw, I agree with you 100%. Most of the time, the commentaries are too much. But, I like superbowl and halftime ads more than I do football... they're usually more entertaining.


RE: VOD and advertising
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 8:09:04 AM , Rating: 4
I don't mind commercials. What I don't like is that even though they claim it doesn't, the volume on commercials can sometimes explode. You'll be watching your show at a nice, comfortable volume. Then you'll have to turn it down by half as the commercials come on because they're at up to twice the volume.

What I REALLY fucking hate is now they're having commercials during the damn show with those video overlays. Usually it for another TV show. But still, it can sometimes block you from seeing whats happening during the show you're watching. We just sat through 3-4 minutes of commercials, LET US WATCH THE SHOW!


RE: VOD and advertising
By Bluestealth on 12/18/2007 9:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
I will agree that mostly it is the volume that gets to me, and I do on occasion actually watch ads that are fairly well done, as well as some movie ads. Often it is the cable companies own ads or their local injected ads that cause me to walk away. They are always WAY to loud, and usually obnoxious.


RE: VOD and advertising
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 10:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Car commercials still take the cake for loudest commercials around here.


RE: VOD and advertising
By inperfectdarkness on 12/18/2007 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
lawyer ads. the absolute worst.

what we need is an open source dvr. something that could be sourced much cheaper than tivo (for program info).

it disgusts me to think of how much time i've wasted in my life on stupid commercials--waiting for my show to continue. guess that's why i put my pc in my tv room; i can check email and blog while i'm ignoring commercials.

my wife pointed out that perhaps commercials are to blame for the rapidly deteriorated attention-spans of most americans. i'm inclined to agree.


RE: VOD and advertising
By Oregonian2 on 12/18/2007 1:14:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
my wife pointed out that perhaps commercials are to blame for the rapidly deteriorated attention-spans of most americans. i'm inclined to agree.


Having the world threatened and saved in 23 minutes of programming every day may contribute as well. Also may affect expectations of politicians. Okay, sometimes it takes 46 minutes of programming.


RE: VOD and advertising
By wrekd on 12/18/2007 8:25:56 AM , Rating: 3
I'd say take it one step further and just give us what we want for a low [free] price, with ads. I don't need Oxygen, Lifetime, BET, QVC, MTV, MTV2, MTV3.5*10^3...

Let me a la carte please. I want to watch Life, Battlestar and Heroes on demand. Just make it available after its initial air time.

I don't want to pay $60+ dollars a month for all that bandwidth I'm not going to use. The cable companies make us believe it is such a great feature having hundreds of channels. It's fluff.


RE: VOD and advertising
By inperfectdarkness on 12/18/2007 9:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
100% agree.

i get free cable with my apartment (otherwise, i wouldn't have any). i watch about 12-18 channels out of whoknowshowmany.

give me my local airwaves stations. i'll take g4, history, spike, tlc, comedy central, usa, speed, hbo, discovery, scifi, fx, showtime, and that's about it.

cable would do much better to offer your average viewer 1 channel $1 per 1 month.


RE: VOD and advertising
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 10:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hell even $2-3 a channel would be better. I don't even need HBO and Showtime. I just want local HD channels, ESPN and ESPN2 HD, DiscoveryHD, TBS, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Scifi, and Spike. Rarely do I ever watch any other channels. But to get that, I have to pay $90 a month.


RE: VOD and advertising
By Oregonian2 on 12/18/2007 1:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about your system, but I find it hard to believe HBO gets forced on anybody in large packages where it can't be split off. Now, it may be bound up with the different flavors of HBO (HBO2, HBOF, etc) but not bound to TBS and the others excepting perhaps for a super-deluxe everything package (which I also doubt to be the only package).

Who do you have for your "supplier"?

Now, TBS, Cartoon Network, etc may be bound into everything. But not HBO and other "premium" channels.


RE: VOD and advertising
By Hlafordlaes on 12/18/2007 9:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
I watch some of those programs with an In2Streams subsrciption, tho the quality is pretty low. As an expat, I am hoping for a lot more VOD, as its the only option for a lot of content I'd like to see. Joost is another source, tho right now for some very marginal content.


RE: VOD and advertising
By Oregonian2 on 12/18/2007 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
I do NOT want ala carte channel shopping other than on select premium channels (like HBO, Skinemax, etc). I'm not going to do the long dissertation as to why I feel this way, but I'll just present my conclusion that:

1) It won't save most people as much money as they think it might, distribution costs will be amortized over fewer viewer-channels. Satellite and cable companies aren't non-profits, or at least not intentionally. Their total revenue will likely need to be roughly the same if systems are changed. People of course tend to be happy with that idea so long as someone else pays more to compensate. But sometimes you're the "other" and it's not so good.

2) It will cause many channels to drop out

3) It will substantially reduce the likelihood of a new channel being launched and substantially reduces the chances of one succeeding if tried (which is why it won't be tried).

4) It will in the long run reduce channel count to the main runners, once a channels stumbles short-term, it'll be "out" and never replaced.

I like having a lot of channels, even if I don't think I want them. If they are there "anyway" I'll watch some of them for the heck of it when bored, and become surprised when finding one I actually like that I didn't think I would like. I would NOT have ever tried them if I had to make a special effort to go out and sign up for it (both hassle and $$), so they'd never be even tried (ones that I *like* now). Alternatively If I like none of the channels a lot, but like them all a little bit, I can still find something interesting at any given time, even if individually they aren't interesting enough to purchase ala-carte.

Having channels just be available to all and individual ones being canceled and replaced with others when ratings are excessively low long term is a MUCH better model. It allows for all channels to be filled with ones that a fair number watch rather than much fewer channels that a lot of people watch. For those who ONLY watch non-niche mainline high-runner channels (ESPN, CNN, FNN) ala-carte probably is a good thing. If one likes less mainstream channels, ala carte is bad. Those kind of channels will never get off the ground ala carte. IMO. That would basically make all channels "premium channels".

Our DirecTV is a bit over $100 per month currently, and we've an HD upgrade we need to do soon.


RE: VOD and advertising
By onwisconsin on 12/18/2007 10:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
I know I'm a minority here...but as long as I can have my OTA TV, I can flip the channel when ads come on.

(I completely understand why if you're paying $60+ for cable/satellite etc...)


Plenty for free...
By captchaos2 on 12/18/2007 12:44:02 AM , Rating: 3
Comcast has plenty of shows and movies for free, if you don't include your monthly bill.




Package Not For Everyone
By teckytech9 on 12/18/2007 4:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
The 500+ channel, Corporate TV/Infomercial, track your viewing habits systems are a thing of the past. Multi-Channel service providers, with their exclusive contracts with various venues, will only alienate their fanbase. Where can I "only" watch my favorite sports team today?

Today, I get more VOD than I can handle, thanks to a site called YouTube.




Fuzzy Forecasts
By Dfere on 12/18/2007 9:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
Without knowing the specifics of the base model underlying the projection, I hesitate to accept any numbers. I took a quick look to see if I could find the article on the site- it was not easily findable. Nor did any blogs have a direct link to the study that I did look up, even if it was only a few minutes trying to find. The entertainment/infotainment industry still blames piracy for declining sales of rap so I try to look further.

Not that this is new- if you look back into the end of the 1800's, industry forecast were used as a means to attract investors. Just that now (and possibly then) anything printed tends to get accepted as if the conclusion is true, and more so for forecasts that favor the industry which is reporting it.

Admittedly, this segment is so small right now, I think most people would agree it will grow. Some blogs take this further projecting that 75% of all future revenue from these services are going to come from this segment. As a genetically wired channel flipper, I think you need 600 channels of junk to find new things you didn't know you would like to see (Like how I found Naruto late one night). So how can your specialized revenue stream be bigger than your base? I don't think 600 channels are going to come for free one day, so the conclusion is this is "new " revenue, which makes me think I need a raise. I don't doubt execs like to hear this. Just show me what facts support your conclusion, and bloggers should be doing the same.

What good is a forecast, and blogs that use this forecast, without knowing how it was arrived at?




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Latest Headlines


Most Popular ArticlesSun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century
September 1, 2008, 8:11 AM
Russia Tests New Nuclear Missile
August 31, 2008, 10:30 AM
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
September 3, 2008, 2:44 PM
Sony to Launch PSP-3000 on October 16 in Japan
September 2, 2008, 8:38 AM
Google to Release New "Chrome" Internet Browser
September 1, 2008, 10:16 PM
botimage
Copyright 2008 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki