Fox Business News Foozles Again: How A New Video Strategy Could Salvage Their Online Reputation

November 29th, 2007 Davis

When I first heard that Fox was coming out with a new business channel, Rupert Murdoch had me at “more corporate friendly.” Since CNBC seems to only cover the hype and Bloomberg is painfully boring, I was hopeful that Fox could provide a fresh perspective on business events, while still entertaining me with their bombshell anchors and their sensationalism style of reporting.

Unfortunately, Fox Business News has turned out to be a big joke and continues to lose credibility on Wall St. Since launching the channel, I’ve seen three of their stories to go viral, but instead of giving me a reason why for why I should be tuning in, the stories have been about embarrassing gaffes by the channel.

The first story involved an anchor who incorrectly reported that Apple had purchased an 8% stake in AMD. Even after discovering the mistake, Fox compounded this error by misreporting that it was the “Arabs” who had purchased AMD instead.

A few days later, Fox followed up this viral hit with another blunder, after they rushed to report that HP had missed their earnings estimates, when in fact they had easily beaten them.

The latest story to hit the innerweb, involves a man on the street interview with a planted shill from the National Retail Federation

I don’t know why Fox is having so many problems getting their news right, but these types of stories are having a serious impact on their credibility. “Fair and balanced” may work for their political reporting, but when traders are betting millions of dollars on breaking information, they expect their news to be accurate.

While it’s easy to blame these PR errors on clumsy anchors, I think that Fox’s PR failings have more to do with their web video strategy. These may only be a few isolated events, but without positive buzz, it leaves people with the impression that Fox gets things wrong, more often then right. I don’t think that Fox can prevent future goof ups from going viral, but by making it easier for the web community to share their reporting, they could begin to repair their tattered reputation.

When it comes to premium content, it’s understandable that the studios would be reluctant to move it to the net, but when it comes to business news, it’s an entirely different animal. You don’t need to watch Heroes live, in order to extract value from the content, but breaking financial news isn’t the sort of thing that people time shift.

Because the information is time sensitive, it protects business channels from the DVR effect, but it also limits the monetary value of their archived content. Even though people won’t pay for a Squawk on the Street DVD box set, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t real marketing value locked up in the business news vaults.

The problem with Fox’s web video strategy, is that they are trying to control what goes viral, by only uploading certain highlights to their website. This might help to beef up the content on their site, but it doesn’t make the best use of their archived footage. I believe that the stock market is the ultimate example of the long tail in action. The large cap companies may get all the press, but there are an unbelievable number of companies out there and each one has an eager audience. By making it easier for the long tail community to easily share their reporting, I believe that Fox can strike a body blow against their CNBC rival.

Over the last year, Sling Media has been working on a clip and sling service, that would allow their customers to snip certain sections of a program and send them to people in their social network. Sling hasn’t released very many details on the software, but it’s already stirred up some controversy among some of the media companies.

Instead of fighting this technology, Fox should be using it as a weapon against CNBC. If Fox were to run a 20 minute delayed feed and let viewers clip and share the news within their social circles, they would soon have an army of volunteers creating a massive and valuable advertising platform for them. It may only be a 60 second clip talking about an obscure company, but that clip would get included in email groups, message boards and blogs, that are devoted to these subjects.

By running the news at a 20 minute delay, it would also encourage people to watch the channel live, so that they could then jump online to share the video. It would also help the home viewers have a better understanding of how breaking news impacts the markets. With most online quote services being 20 minutes delayed, sometimes its hard to tell why a stock is jumping or falling without the live data. If home viewers had a way of syncing the business news with their delayed quotes, it could help them to make better sense of the trading activity in the markets. A 20 minute delay would also give Fox enough time to at least spin/correct any mistakes, before the bloggers jumped all over them.

Giving up this type of control can be scary for big media companies, but Fox has already lost control of their live video. If they have a major screw up, someone out there will take the time to get that footage onto YouTube because scandal sells and people love to gossip, but if they have an interesting interview with an exec, someone needs to be really motivated before they can share that content with their audience.

Instead of fighting this trend, Fox should accept that they can’t suppress live video and instead make it easier for people to share the good reporting that is also going on. Instead of limiting their videos to mainstream content, Fox should be opening up their programming to the entire web, so that they can leverage the marketing power of the content. When you only hear about the negatives, it’s hard to put a lot of value on Fox’s live coverage, but if people started to see content that was relevant to them, it would make them think about how they would have seen it live, if they were only watching Fox business instead.

Posted in Marketing, Technology, Media, TV, Slingbox, VOD, DRM | 3 Comments »

Case Studies From The Groat Center For Sleep Disorders

November 27th, 2007 Davis

This video short reminds me of the Rozerem commercials with Abraham Lincoln and the beaver. Nothing really seems to make sense and yet everyone just accepts everything. There is almost a dream like state to its humor. The short was made by Mitchell Rose, along with the help of BodyVox, a ballet troupe in Portland. Rose has even more videos at his website.

Posted in VOD | 2 Comments »

IBM Files Patent For Putting Advertisements On DVDs

November 19th, 2007 Davis

It’s hard for me to believe that there isn’t prior art for this already, but while I was digging through the US patent website, I noticed that IBM had filed an application for putting non-skipable commercials onto DVDs. According to the application, the commercials could either be updated via the internet or they could be embedded directly on the disc.

“A method wherein contents of DVDs may be restricted based upon purchased certificates is provided. The certificates allow for secured information on playback. Specifically, whenever a DVD is to be played, a certificate is consulted to determine whether the content of the DVD should be played with or without commercial interruptions. If the certificates provide for commercial interruptions, then commercials can be obtained from an online service that renders commercials on demand, or from the DVD itself. In such a case, the content of the DVD may be interspersed with commercials.”

I’m usually a fan of new DVD technology, but I’ve got mixed feelings on this one. Every now and then, I’ll come across a DVD that won’t let me skip past the previews and it drives me absolutely nuts. If I’ve already paid for my content, then should I be forced to watch advertisements? It makes me feel like the studios are double dipping.

On the other hand, I could see plenty of advantages to having ad supported DVDs. There are a lot of people who aren’t willing to pay money, in order to watch a DVD. If they can catch up on a series by dealing with the ads, then this technology could introduce time shifting to an entirely new audience. It could also open up new distribution channels for content providers. For example, if McDonalds included ad supported Disney flicks in their Happy Meals, I’d wager that they would reach more viewers, then Friday nights on ABC.

With advertisers already scared to death of the ad skipping powers of the DVR, I could see studios adopting this as a way of shoring up advertising revenue. I’m certain that the TV producers would prefer live viewers, but if a consumer ends up watching the ads eventually, then why should it matter, when they see the program?

One of the more interesting components to the IBM application, was it’s focus on internet delivered advertising. Whenever I’ve been forced to watch previews on DVDs, it’s typically been for movies that were released a long time ago. While the previews may have been relevant seven years ago, they seem a little outdated today. I don’t think that the free DVD consumer market is going to have the latest internet connected DVD players, but I still found it interesting to learn, that IBM is working on a solution to this problem.

I don’t see this patent making it all the way through the application process, but I do expect that we’ll see more of these types of advertisements in the future. The optimist in me, would love to see this technology used to reach new consumers, but my inner cynic knows that the studios would rather unleash ads on paying viewers, then risk cannibalizing their precious DVD. I don’t fully understand IBM’s motives for filing the patent, but thought that it was an interesting solution for bringing entertainment to the masses.

Posted in Marketing, Technology, Movies, Media, DVDs, TV, DRM | 3 Comments »

I’m Batman

November 14th, 2007 Davis

Posted in Music | 1 Comment »

From Rental To Retail - Blockbuster Begins Evoloution Towards New Rental Paradigm

November 14th, 2007 Davis

Over the last few years, I’ve followed the DVD rental industry pretty closely. During that time, I’ve been one of Blockbuster’s biggest critics and have frequently blasted the company for failing to adapt to the digital age. With their core rental business experiencing massive deterioration, I’ve had very few positive things to say about the company.

Their hyper-focus on competing with Netflix, has cost the company dearly and was a huge blunder by Blockbuster’s previous management. In order to try and counteract Netflix’s momentum, Blockbuster ended late fees, started a price war against a well funded innovator with little debt, and they massively cannibalized their higher margin in-store business. All in a desperate attempt, to differentiate their online service. Meanwhile, their executives took home pay packages that were unconscionable, especially when you consider Blockbuster’s dwindling resources and their dismal financial performance.

At the end of the day, their fight against Netflix has cost them at least a half a billion dollars and they still only have 3,000,000 subscribers.

Six months ago, I would have told you that there was nothing that Blockbuster could do to save itself. I had seen Antioco and Co. make too many poor decisions, to believe that they could figure out how to turn the company around. Instead of increasing prices, they were lowering them by offering unlimited total access rentals. While the program proved to be popular with consumers and the Mad Money crowd, it wasn’t an acceptable long term solution for the challenges that Blockbuster faces.

Of all the decisions that I’ve seen the company make, squeezing out Antioco may have been their best one. Ironically, the one move that I think was good for shareholders, turned Mad Money against them and started the spiral towards a new 52 week low today.

With so much going wrong for the company, I had low expectations when they brought in Jim Keyes to takeover at the helm. With the future of rentals being digital, I didn’t immediately appreciate the importance of bringing in a retail specialist.

Over the past few months, I’ve watched as Keyes has taken over and while it will take him time to steer Blockbuster back on course, his immediate move to cut advertising and unlimited rentals was one that made economic sense.

What a lot of people interpreted as Blockbuster refusing to face reality, I saw as an admission that they had lost their focus on their most profitable customers. In the short term, this is a good thing because it helps to stem the losses from the Total Access program, but it’s not a long term solution.

Following Blockbuster’s 3rd quarter earning’s call, I could understand why their shareholders might be nervous, but after listening to Keyes unveil his turnaround strategy at their analyst event, I was shocked to see such a negative market reaction to his ideas. Analysts slammed the event as being big on dreams and light on details and since the event, Blockbuster’s market cap has taken a 20% haircut.

What other’s may have interpreted as bad news, I saw as a stroke of genius. Keyes’ prescription for saving Blockbuster is the exact remedy that they need, in order to remain relevant in a digital age. There is little doubt that there will come a time where we see the end of the DVD rental, but for the first time, Blockbuster is willing to admit this and they laid out a compelling plan for how they will adjust to this transition.

Keyes discussed several initiatives, but at the heart of the strategy was a plan to evolve from a rentailer to a retailer. While the differences may be subtle, the details have tremendous implications on the viability of Blockbuster’s business model.

Dedicate More Square Footage To Retail

While Blockbuster has seen their brutal selloff, shares of Gamestop have caught on fire. The market clearly has no faith in the future of DVD rentals, yet they are still willing to invest in profitable retailers. The rental industry is a tough business and as that stream dries up, Blockbuster needs to be able to replace this with higher profit opportunities.

In order to accomplish this goal, Keyes has worked out an agreement with Sony to provide 2000 PS3 kiosks, in their stores during the holidays. I view this as an an early test for the viability of Blockbuster’s retail approach. I believe that the consoles will sell well among Blockbuster’s customer base and will lead towards more high end consumer electronics.

By focusing on selling higher ticket items, Blockbuster stands a better chance of covering their fixed costs. People are already going to Blockbuster to rent their movies, but if they can start to buy things like computers, cellular phones, HDTV’s and Blu-Ray players, it will give Blockbuster an opportunity to capture some of the money that retailers like Best Buy are able to take in.

If Blockbuster is successful with this transition, they could even get to a point where they could use rentals as a loss leader to drive higher revenue transactions. If you can sell enough HDTV’s, the decline in rental revenues becomes less of an issue. What some might see as the abandonment of the rental market is really Blockbuster pursuing better market opportunities.

Invest In Kiosk Technology

It’s no secret that I believe that burn on demand could save the DVD rental industry. As a tech savvy consumer, I have lots of options for streaming digital content to my television, but most people still prefer the good old fashioned DVD. Even after the digital revolution gains critical mass, there will still be a need for movie rentals. While it’s easy to believe that everyone has a computer and internet access, there is still a large part of the market that VOD and Netflix, can’t get at.

The problem with Blockbuster’s retail initiatives, is that this will eat into the selection and inventory. If half the store is dedicated to selling consumer electronics, it becomes challenging to offer as many choices. Burn on demand can solve this issue for Blockbuster. By taking care of the heavy lifting, Blockbuster can make it easy for consumers to watch an even wider range of content.

Keyes plan to invest in burn on demand technology shows that he understands the savings and impact, that this technology can have. My only reservation about his approach, is his intention to introduce the kiosks at the store level. Kiosks can provide a lot of efficiencies, but they don’t do well with volume. I can see the potential in letting franchisees use the technology in non-video store locations, but believe that Blockbuster needs a different solution at the store level.

Everybody knows how to work a printer at the supermarket, but there is a reason why people still go to Kinkos. They can handle volume like nobody’s business.

Burn on demand kiosks will be good for expanding into supermarkets, coffee shops and fast food restaurants, but Blockbuster will need dedicated servers and lots of burners at the store level, if they want to provide a superior experience at their retail locations. By handling the heavy lifting for consumers, they could bypass a significant technological hurdle in the adoption of burn on demand DVD.

Shifting To More Revenue Sharing Arrangements

One of the biggest weaknesses in Blockbuster’s business model are the high fixed costs that they have to deal with. Blockbuster can’t get rid of the lease payments or all of the employee costs, but they can reduce their leverage by approaching their stuido partners. Whether rental will eventually die or not, the studios want to protect the DVD stream and have an incentive to work with Blockbuster towards ensuring their survival. In order to get less up front costs, Blockbuster will be forced to give up their gross margins, but it will allow them to keep top movies in stock and to offer a burn on demand experience.

Raising Prices and Reinstating Late Fees

Over the past few years, we’ve seen the price of a lot of products go up. Whether it’s higher gas prices or postal rate increases, the cost of living has been increasing. When it comes to rental though, we’ve seen price deteriorate. The DVD price war has taken it’s toll and there is more than enough justification for Netflix and Blockbuster to increase prices. This strategy is probably the most risky, because if Netflix didn’t follow through with their own price increase, there could be a severe reaction against Blockbuster.

One of the things that has always impressed me about Netflix, has been their commitment to testing ideas before implementation. When Blockbuster ended late fees, they took a shotgun approach and hoped that it would pay off. It obviously didn’t.

When Netflix lowered prices it was after they understood the elasticity of the demand curve. By taking their time to react to competitive threats, Netflix was able to make more intelligent decisions in combating Blockbuster. While I’m sure that Blockbuster shareholders would welcome an imediate price increase, I have to admire the fact that Keyes isn’t willing to dive in head first on this one.

As far as the late fees goes, this is clearly a problem. By allowing customers to keep rentals, it’s prevented other people from having access to the inventory. I think it’s fair for Blockbuster to consider this move, but after such a massive no late fee campaign, there could be a strong backlash. One of the problems that I think most people had with Blockbuster’s late charges was the punitive nature of the fees. Instead of having to pay for one more day, you often had to pay for another three day rental.

During the analyst presentation, Keyes expressed admiration for Redbox’s pricing model and pointed out that a $1 a day wasn’t really cheaper then Blockbuster. If Blockbuster had $3 rentals for three days and then a $1 per day afterwards, consumers might accept the return of late fees. Still, after such a massive promotion (and lawsuit settlements), it would be gutsy to try and re-introduce them.

There is no way to know for sure, if any of these initiatives can save Blockbuster, but I do believe that Keyes is making the right moves towards securing the long term future of the company. While I may have written off the video store, I’m not ready to call the end of retail and I’m impressed by Keyes focus on improving revenue per square footage, instead of being distracted by the internet. It’s the right move for Blockbuster to make and one that marks the divergence of the Netflix vs. Blockbuster paradigm. With rental revenues set to eventually expire, Blockbuster is smart in positioning themselves to take on other retailers, where they have an advantage. By making these changes, it shifts the battle to Blockbuster vs. Circuit City, Best Buy and Game Stop and this is a business model that should make more sense to Blockbuster’s investors.

Posted in Movies, DVDs, Kiosks, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, Netflix | 4 Comments »

DivX On The PS3: Is Sony Selling Consoles or Sabotaging HD-DVD?

November 13th, 2007 Davis

When I found out that DivX was going to be supported on the PS3, I was pretty much floored by the announcement. I can see lots of reasons why Microsoft would want to add DivX to the Xbox, but with Sony’s studio assets, I never expected them to embrace the format.

While there is no way for me to know what really motivated Sony, I do have my suspicions.

On a basic level, Sony obviously adopted DivX as a competitive strategy for the console market. Announcing support for a popular codec among hardcore gamers, makes a lot of sense, especially going into the holiday season. Whether or not Microsoft ends up adding DivX to the Xbox 360, Sony’s support for DivX will certainly provide a boost for the console.

On the surface, this explanation seems to make a lot of sense, but the tin-foil hat part of me, can’t help but wonder, if this really had more to do with Blu-Ray.

The current state of the HDTV DVD market is a mess. The Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps seem to have settled for a stalemate and consumers are getting shafted in the process. By choosing a side in this battle, consumers risk ending up with obsolete technology, but that isn’t the greatest obstacle to adoption. The real reason why consumers are sticking with the standard DVD, is because they can’t get all of their content on either format.

It might be great that you can watch James Bond on Blu-Ray, but it’s a serious weakness when consumers can’t watch Universal, Paramount or Dreamworks content. If Sony was only certifying the PS3, I would dismiss these thoughts as paranoid delusions, but at DivX’s most recent investor presentation, they did say that they hoped to announce the first Blu-Ray/DivX chip before the end of the year.

Now I would never expect Sony to come out and openly endorse piracy, but if you think through the implications of PS3/DivX support, you might understand why I think that they are really engaging in a form of HD-DVD sabotage. By supporting DivX, consumers won’t get the same HD experience, but they will get access to all of the forbidden HD-DVD content and that has huge value to the consumer.

DivX support won’t be enough to end this silly war, but it could prove to be an important band-aid for the Blu-Ray camp. By partnering with DivX, Blu-Ray is now able to offer all content, even if some of that happens to be illegal. I don’t believe that DivX support will change the format war, but it will certainly put pressure on the HD-DVD format. Their advantage so far, has been based on the exclusivity of content and if Blu-Ray consumers are denied the programs that they want, I have no doubt that they’ll turn to DivX as a solution.

Whether Sony adopted DivX to help jump start PS3 sales or to gain a guerrilla advantage in the HD wars will remain a mystery, but either way the move is so shrewd, that I’m surprised to Sony make it. After seeing so many failed attempts at trying to maintain a proprietary system, it is a welcome relief to finally see cracks appearing in the Blu-Ray defenses.

While DivX support on the PS3 isn’t an admission that Blu-Ray has failed, I do think it’s a sign of how far Sony is willing to go, in order to win this battle. If both camps would just agree to cross-license their content, we could end this stupid war, but in the meantime, at least consumers will soon have illegitimate options, to get at the content that the studios don’t seem to want to sell them.

Posted in Technology, DivX, Media, TV, VOD, HDTV DVDs, DVDs | No Comments »

Comcast Raises Fees On Non-Comcast DVR Owners

November 12th, 2007 Davis

Over the years, I’ve had a love/hate relationship with Comcast. On one hand, I love having access to high speed internet and high definition cable television, but I also resent their monopolization over my entertainment choices. Because they’ve worked out sweetheart deals with cities in the Bay Area, I have little choice, but to use their services. If I owned my own home, I could consider satellite, but as a renter, I’ve found very few landlords, who are willing to approve a dish.

I probably should have been upset about their latest fee increase, when the Toeman warned me about it, but it didn’t hit home until I got my latest Comcast bill and saw a 6.5% increase on the price of my television. This follows a 6% increase last year and a 10% increase the year before. What makes this fee increase even more frustrating, is that I wouldn’t have to pay it, if I would just break down and become a Comcast DVR subscriber.

It’s been no secret that Comcast has objected to the cable card mandate, but what most people don’t understand, is how big of a threat, the stand alone DVR is to Comcast. What the public thinks is a $5 surcharge, is really a difference of $56 per month for my own situation. Over the years, Comcast has fueled their corporate profits by upgrading a massive analog cable base to their digital platform and they’ve done that by bundling these digital services with DVR and HDTV features.

If you actually compare the basic analog tv lineup to the basic digital tier, there are few differences between them. When I asked a Comcast rep which new channels I would get as a digital subscriber, he cited the Hallmark channel, CSPAN2 and ATV as reasons to upgrade. Not exactly a very compelling lineup.

Because Comcast knows that people won’t upgrade for CSPAN2 alone, they force their customers to upgrade, if they want any advanced services. This means that the real cost of HDTV and DVR services, has been buried in the forced digital upcharge that subscribers pay.

In the Bay Area, Comcast currently requires you to subscribe to their Digital Preferred Plus package, before they’ll rent you a DVR. The problem with this package is that it has an ongoing rate of $98.45, plus an additional $11.95 for the DVR. This comes to $110.40 per month or over $1,300 per year. Now in all fairness, this package also includes HBO and Starz, but if you don’t care about these channels, Comcast still won’t rent you the DVR unless you pay for them.

Now compare this to the $54.29 that I was paying as an analog sub. As a lifetime TiVo owner, my only additional monthly cost is the $1.95 for both cablecards, which means that I’m saving $650 per year, by not being suckered into Comcast’s digital packages. Even when you consider that I paid $800 for a series 3 TiVo, plus $300 for the lifetime transfer and another $300 to upgrade to a massive hard drive, I still come out ahead, after a little more than two years of service.

If you are a stand alone user, chances are, you are already taking advantage of the analog loophole. Because Comcast has to provide cablecards, it lets you bypass the bogus $9.99 HDTV “converter” charge. If you are a non HD standalone user, then you probably prefer the basic package anyway, because it means that you don’t have to mess around with the annoying IR blasters.

By raising prices on their analog subs, Comcast is effectively adding a non-DVR tax for people who have chosen to go outside of their system. By increasing the price on the basic television, but not digital subs, they are effectively penalizing their competition.

If Comcast wants to raise rates, they should have to do so evenly. Instead of forcing consumers to buy channels they don’t want, they should instead, be offering a la carte DVR services, that don’t require the digital subscription. I can understand why they would want to encourage people to upgrade, but they shouldn’t be allowed be allowed to abuse their monopoly, in order to appear cheaper then their competition.

Posted in Media, TV, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, TiVo | 2 Comments »

Naturally It’s From Sony

November 6th, 2007 Davis

Posted in HDTV DVDs, VOD | No Comments »

Is DivX and the Xbox 360 About To Become A Reality?

November 6th, 2007 Davis

DivX followed up last night’s earnings report, with a presentation at the JP Morgan SmMid cap conference. After having just undergone their quarterly confessional, I didn’t expect to hear any new information, but wanted to tune in anyway.

Luckily, I was rewarded when midway through the Q&A session, JP Morgan analyst Paul Coster, coyly probed Kevin Hell about whether or not we were about to see DivX support on the Xbox 360. The question seemed to catch Hell off guard and while his initial reaction was enthusiasm, there was something about his tone, that suggested that Coster might be onto something.

Here is the exchange verbatim, but in order to appreciate the awkwardness of the exchange, you should really listen to the quote at the 24 minute mark of the presentation and make your own decision as to whether or not you hear a sense of urgency in Hell’s response.

Coster - “Just a minor point here, but there was a recent Microsoft conference where I believe their media extender now incorporates the DivX codec on it, is that correct? Can you confirm that and does that mean we’re soon going to see Xboxes with DivX on them?

Hell - “Yes! that, uh, we’re in discussions with Microsoft on that at this point in time, so I can’t go into any great detail on that. Um that is not a certified, that is not a certified or licensed product at this time.”

At that point DivX CFO Dan Halvorson jumped in and quickly changed the subject.

It was only a brief exchange, but after pretty much giving up all hope of seeing DivX on the Xbox, I found the news to be very encouraging. When I originally saw that Microsoft was going to support DivX on their media extenders, but not on the 360, I took this as a sign that negotiations were over and that Microsoft didn’t want to pay for their entire Xbox360 population. In retrospect, Microsoft may have really been engaging in the subtle art of negotiation.

In thinking about some of the leaked XviD/360 rumors over the past summer, I can’t help but wonder if Microsoft could have intended to leak this information, in order to gain leverage in their discussions. An Xbox that supports XviD, but not DivX, is a less then optimal experience for consumers, but the downside would be far worse for DivX then Microsoft. Could Microsoft have been flexing their muscles in an attempt to get a better licensing deal with DivX? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I do have advice for both companies.

DivX - I know that you have responsibilities to your shareholders, but as a fan, I urge you to engage in some fiscal irresponsibility and give in to whatever Microsoft is demanding. DivX support on the Xbox is one of the top requests from your community and would make a killer extension for your codec. Don’t make us hack into our Xbox to get at the DivX love. The platform would give you instant access to millions of television sets and would energize your entire community.

Microsoft - Have you looked at how much cash you have in your bank account? Why are you even playing this game of chicken? We should have had DivX support years ago. Offering XviD, but not DivX would be a huge hassle for your customers and isn’t worth the money you would save on royalties. The publicity from adopting an open strategy would more then pay for your investment. Your strategy to treat media extenders differently from the 360 is an obstacle to mainstream adoption and one that should be abandoned. You should listen to consumers, even if it means overpaying DivX for their certification. With a consistent extender strategy and DivX support on the Xbox 360, you could crush the PS3 and create a more compelling reason for people to adopt your Media Center technology.

It’s hard to say how negotiations will turn out, but I have a feeling that it won’t take long to find out. The “fall” update is rumored to be taking place sometime in December and if it doesn’t include DivX support, it will likely mean that these discussions broke down. If it does include DivX support, it will be a huge win for DivX, for Microsoft and most important, for their customers.

Posted in Technology, DivX, Video Games, TV, VOD, Microsoft | 2 Comments »

DivX Thrives As The DVD Continues To Die

November 6th, 2007 Davis

The market for DVD players may be in decline, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at DivX’s latest quarterly results. On a day where the press was reporting a 15% drop in the number of DVD players sold, DivX surprised investors by announcing better then expected revenues, driven largely by gains in the DVD player category.

During the quarter, DivX took in $20.9 million in revenue, of which $17.1 was related to their core licensing business. This jump in revenue represents an increase of 44%, over the same period a year ago.

During a conference call discussing the results, DivX estimated that as of June 30th, they had captured 37% of the global DVD player market. This compares to a 25% penetration rate, from a year ago. During the more recent 3rd quarter, they saw their market share for US based DVD players, climb from 20% to 31%, over the past year.

Kevin Hell, DivX’s newly appointed CEO, attributed the growth to top OEMs, reacting favorably to greater consumer demand for DivX products.

“These penetration gains are a direct result of our growing relationships with the key OEM partners, as they react to increasing consumer demand for DivX devices. In Q3, our top 5 OEM partners, taken as a group, increased unit shipments of DivX Certified products by 55% relative to the same period last year. What’s more, we are especially pleased that we have been able to achieve this growth while maintaining our historically strong average royalty rates.”

What I find so fascinating about this aspect of DivX growth, is that they are seeing it come from their existing partners. If new partners were coming on board, it would be easy to dismiss their gains as being driven by OEM competition, but to see 55% growth from your existing customers, would suggest that DivX’s market share is either being driven by consumers directly choosing DivX devices over non-certified products, or from OEMs recognizing the value that DivX adds in a more competitive environment. Whether it’s the chicken or the egg that has been driving demand, these gains represent a strengthening of DivX’s core business and offers further proof, that DivX certification can drive the adoption of consumer electronic devices.

In addition to seeing progress in their core DVD licensing business, DivX also saw key developments in their emerging products category. During the quarter, they successfully launched their DivX Connected platform, they formed a strategic relationship with Qualcomm to help drive DivX mobile, and they signed an important advertising agreement with Yahoo!

On their conference call, DivX didn’t unveil any new customers for their Connected platform, but they did announce that Connected would begin shipping on November 12th. Initially, it will only be available in the UK, Germany and France, but DivX expressed hope that we could see a North American launch sometime in 2008.

One area where DivX continued to struggle, was in securing the rights to premium content. When asked about their progress, Hell said that DivX remained committed to the idea, but that negotiations with studios tend to take a lot of time.

“we continue to aggressively pursue Hollywood content and believe that there is a strong rationale for a deal. Of course, these sort of deals take time, particularly with our open approach, where we’re working across a number of different device types and a number of different brands, but we think that the rationale for the studios and other premium content owners is compelling. We have over 100 million devices out there that are certified. All of those devices have our DRM inside and so ultimately we believe, it’s just a matter of time. Once we do get these folks on board, the studios and other premium content owners, we’ll then be working with other folks like Amazon or Netflix to enable services for distribution in the powered by DivX model.”

There may be strong rationale for a deal, but it appears that DivX is finding out the hard way, that studios don’t always behave rationally. DivX may still be committed to trying to secure the digital rights to content, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at their their legal department. During the quarter, DivX sued Universal music group, in order to help establish the legality of their Stage6 video sharing site. On October 22nd, UMG fired back by filing a copyright complaint against DivX, as well as ten John Does who are accused of uploading infringing content to the Stage6 website.

When asked about whether or not the lack of premium content would impact the popularity of DivX Connected, Hell didn’t seem to feel that it would be an issue.

“I think Connected in its current form and the sense that it has access to all of your music, your photos and, of course, your video, as well as access to Stage6 and other services is a compelling offering and I believe that its something that solves the problem out there, unlike any other platform that’s out there today. That said, of course, I do see Hollywood content as being an accelerator to Connected.”

For most digital media companies, being denied access to premium content would make or break your business, but because DivX’s core customers already have access to premium content, this really isn’t all that significant of an issue. Customers may have to steal their movies off the P2P networks, but DivX consumers have already demonstrated a willingness to take content, especially when legal downloading isn’t an option. Premium content will be an important part of Connected, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be legal content, in order for the platform to succeed.

During the quarter, DivX saw three major developments for their mobile strategy. As part of a new multi-year agreement with LG Electronics, they introduced another DivX certified cell phone, they expanded the global availability of the Samsung F500, and they formed a strategic partnership with Qualcomm.

Of these events, the Qualcomm deal was the most important, because it lays the infrastructure for mass deployment further down the road. Qualcomm is a major player in the cell phone chip market and if DivX can achieve interoperability with their technology, it will accelerate the mass adoption of DivX mobile, once the phone companies finally warm to the technology.

Of all the questions that the analysts raised, I was most surprised by the confusion surrounding their Yahoo! agreement. Over the quarter, DivX reported that they had replaced Google with Yahoo!, as their advertising partner on DivX software downloads. While I can understand why people might be concerned by the end of the Google agreement, I also believe that the move makes perfect sense for Yahoo! and DivX.

Over the last several years, DivX has bundled the Google toolbar as an option, when you download or update their software. Even before, DivX went public, there were concerns that Google’s toolbar would be less effective, as market saturation set in. As more and more people download the Google toolbar, it becomes increasingly harder to find new customers to cross sell to.

From DivX’s perspective, I have to believe that they’ve been experiencing diminishing returns on this revenue stream. By partnering with Yahoo!, they are not only able to cross sell a less saturated product, but Yahoo! will also get a chance to directly steal current Google toolbar customers, every time, someone updates their DivX software. By swapping out advertisers, DivX is able to help keep this revenue stream fresh and relevant, despite their success with the Google software.

When it comes to Stage6, DivX was understandably tight lipped about their progress towards spinning off the asset. For negotiation reasons, they didn’t want to discuss the valuation or the format of the spinoff, but did give some background metrics on the development of the video sharing service.

During the quarter, DivX spent $4.0 million on Stage6. Of this amount, $2.6 million was directly related to bandwidth costs. While this expense was considerably higher then a year ago, it was still less then the $4.5 million that DivX had previously predicted it would spend. DivX CFO Dan Halvorson pointed to infrastructure constraints as a reason for the reduction in spending.

“As we mentioned in the past, the site experienced huge trajectory in 2007, moving from 4 million “uniques” in April to 10 million by July. At the end of October, Stage6 reached 11.7 million unique visitors. Our view is the number of uniques could have been higher, but were limited by infrastructure capacity. To accommodate the increased traffic we have continued to enhance the Stage6 infrastructure.”

Halvorson didn’t elaborate on how they were enhancing the infrastructure, but during the 3rd quarter, DivX did take a $2.2 million charge on their Veatros acquisition from the prior quarter.

While it’s understandable that DivX investors would be worried about the death of the DVD player, DivX’s current results suggest that they will handle this transformation just fine. Unlike the movie studios or print newspapers, DivX should see greater growth from the transition to a digital environment and can still take DVD player market share, even with the industry in decline. As the DVD format begins to disappear, DivX will eventually lose this business, but if they can transfer this licensing revenue into new product categories, they should see a dramatic increase in the demand for DivX devices.

When he was asked to rank the importance of these emerging technologies, Halvorson pointed out that the potential market for DivX devices is 10 times larger then the current DVD opportunity.

“In terms of the ranking of those opportunities, I would say, mobile, given its size obviously, is probably the largest. We are also thus seeing DTVs, HDTVs, set top boxes and gaming consoles all being interested to us over time as well. Cameras, of course, are important not just because it’s a large market, but because it is also a generic content in the DivX format, and as I mentioned, I think the addition of H.264 to our overall media language will allow us to penetrate that more quickly as well.”

The death of the DVD business will happen eventually, but whether it takes five years or twenty, DivX is in a good position to take advantage of this shift. In the near term, OEMs are recognizing the value that DivX brings to a more competitive environment and over the long run, DivX will only need to capture 10% of their market opportunity, in order to replicate their current level of success. As consumers turn away from the DVD, they will need to embrace a digital format and DivX has positioned themselves to directly benefit from this evolution in the digital market.

Disclosure - I am a shareholder of Netflix

Posted in Media, Technology, DivX, TV, VOD, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, DRM, DVDs, Netflix | No Comments »