Bad COPP No Netflix

January 3rd, 2008 Davis

When In Doubt Blame Microsoft

Even though I’m an HDTV fanatic, it wasn’t until this past weekend, that I finally made the jump to an HD monitor. While I don’t have HDTV tuners on my Media Center, I do have an HD camcorder and it was important for me to be able to edit my high resolution videos.

After doing a little bit of research, I decided to pick up a SyncMasterTM 226BW from Samsung. Between the new monitor and my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT video card, the resolution looks absolutely stunning. Even my home movies look fantastic in HDTV. I really couldn’t have been happier with the upgrade.

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn’t quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they’ve decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix.

I first found out about the problem on New Year’s Eve, when I went to log into my account. When I tried to launch a streaming movie, I was greeted with an error message asking me to “reset” my DRM. Luckily, Netflix’s help page on the topic included a link to a DRM reset utility, but when I went to install the program, I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw this warning.

Netflix DRM

The minute I saw“this will potentially remove playback licenses from your computer, including those from companies other than Netflix or Microsoft” I knew better than to hit continue. Before nuking my entire digital library, I decided to call Netflix’s technical support, to see if I could get to the bottom of my C00D11B1 error message.

When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft’s DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I’ve purchased from Amazon’s Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue.

Technically, there is a way to back up the licenses before doing a DRM reset, but it’s a pretty complex process, even by my standards. When I asked Netflix for more details, they referred me to Amazon for assistance.

Perhaps even worse than having to choose between having access to Netflix or giving up my Unbox movies was the realization that my real problems were actually tied to the shiny new monitor that I’ve already grown fond of.

Netflix’s software allows them to look at the video card, cables and the monitor that you are using and when they checked mine out, it was apparently a little too high def to pass their DRM filters.

Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup.

As part of their agreement with Hollywood, Netflix uses a program called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocal). COPP is made by Microsoft and the protocol restricts how you are able to transfer digital files off of your PC. When I ran COPP to identify the error on my machine, it gave me an ominous warning that “the exclusive semaphere is owned by another process.”

My Netflix technician told me that he had never heard of this particular error and thought that it was unique to my setup. When I consulted Microsoft, they suggested that I consult the creator of the program. Since Microsoft wrote the COPP software, I wasn’t sure who to turn to after that.

The irony in all of this, is that the DRM that Hollywood is so much in love with, is really only harming their paying customers. When you do a DRM reset, it’s not your pirated files that get revoked, it’s the ones that you already paid for that are at risk. I’m not allowed to watch low res Netflix files, even though I have the capability to download high def torrents? How does this even make sense? It’s as if the studios want their digital strategies to fail.

While I understand the need for the studios to protect their content, I believe that these measures go too far. It makes little sense to block my ability to copy low res internet movies, when I can always rip the DVD straight from my Netflix discs instead. By blocking access to my Netflix membership, Hollywood is once again punishing their customers by pushing defective DRM.

Posted in Technology, Microchips, VOD, DVDs, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, DRM, Netflix | 83 Comments »

DVDPost Clones Netflix’s Website

December 17th, 2007 Davis

When Copywrite.org stumbled onto the Belgian DVD company, DVDPost, he noticed something eerily familiar about their website. Over the years, Netflix has inspired their fair share of copycats, but DVDPost had cloned more than just their business model, they completely ripped off Netflix’s website as well.

The similarities between the two sites made Copywrite wonder if Netflix was running a secret European division or if this was just a cheap international counterfeit. While the conspiracy theorist in me desperately wanted to believe that Netflix was using Belgian subsidiaries to expand internationally, deep down inside I knew that this was just another internet knock off. It wasn’t the first time that Netflix’s website had been copied and it probably wouldn’t be the last.

My gut reaction was to start blasting DVDPost as a fake, but luckily I decided to do a little research first. Instead of finding another internet scam, I found a renegade DVD company that has been trying to make a name for themselves, by stirring up controversy in the media.

DVDPost first struck publicity paydirt, when they ran a commercial for a spoof company named Rent-A-Wife. The ad featured a man tying up his wife and trading her for a new one :) DVDPost claimed that the ads were meant to be light hearted, but critics felt that the company had gone too far with the shock tactics. After local media pressure, DVDPost yanked the Rent-A-Wife website, but followed it up with an equally tasteful ad, featuring Osama Bin Laden as one of their customers.

While it’s possible that DVDPost is trying to fool consumers into thinking that they are somehow related to Netflix, I think its more likely that their recent web redesign is part of a PR campaign. Normally, I try not to fall for this kind of PR bait, but I found their marketing techniques too entertaining, to resist commenting on this latest guerrilla ad campaign.

Posted in Marketing, DVDs, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, Netflix | No Comments »

SnapStream Unleashes Godzilla DVR For Big Business

December 6th, 2007 Davis

With access to four tuners and 1.5 terrabytes of storage, I thought that I had the ultimate DVR setup, but after seeing Snapstream’s Enterprise DVR in action, my home entertainment system suddenly seems wimpy. This DVR isn’t meant for the home market, but I can’t help being envious of its capabilities. I don’t know how much Snapstream is charging, but if money grew on trees, I would be all over this in a heartbeat.

With 10 tuners, you won’t need to worry about programming conflicts and with 2 terrabytes of storage, it would mean that you could record 10 different channels, 24 hours a day for at least 8 days before you would have to worry about archiving. Even, if you did need to save old content, the software allows you to back up your videos onto DVD.

While the specs started me drooling, the search capabilities were what I found most impressive. By taking advantage of the closed captioning system, SnapStream is able to search the transcripts of any program you record. This allows you to record a lot of junk and filter it for the information that you care about. Unlike the DVR in your living room, this isn’t limited to one monitor. SnapStream has designed the DVR to act as a server, which allows multiple users to search and stream videos from anywhere connected to the network.

In the video demoing the product, Snapsteam CEO Rakesh Agrawal mentions that they have PR firms, political organizations, schools and pro sport teams as customers. While I could see how all of these organizations could benefit from access to this type of technology, I was surprised to see Wall St. missing from this list. Being able to keep track of when an investment is mentioned in the media, would be a powerful tool for money managers. When you consider that Thomson is booking a billion a year in profits, by selling market data to businesses, you have to imagine that there is a market for searchable video intelligence. SnapStream may be tapping into a niche market, but it can be a lucrative one, if they attract motivated buyers. By helping businesses make better use of DVR technology, they are filling a market void and creating demand for an entirely new DVR product category.

SnapStream’s professional DVR may be well outside of my tax bracket, but it’s still exciting to see the company innovate. Considering the stiff competition in the consumer DVR market, it makes sense for them to diversify into the professional segment. You can read more about SnapStream’s enterprise ambitions in Brent Evans’ recent interview with Agrawal.

Posted in Technology, Media, TV, Search, DVDs | No Comments »

IBM Files Patent For Putting Advertisements On DVDs

November 19th, 2007 Davis

Coming Soon To DVDIt’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 »

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

November 14th, 2007 Davis

New Paradigm

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

Loving the Playstation 3When 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 »

DivX Thrives As The DVD Continues To Die

November 6th, 2007 Davis

DivX VideoThe 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 »

Stage6 Traffic Explodes: Every Dream Has A Price

August 10th, 2007 Davis

Every Dream Has A PriceDivX reported their second quarter earnings yesterday and from a financial perspective, there really weren’t too many surprises. The core business remains strong, but Stage6’s growth is certainly starting to impact earnings. The company ended up beating Non-GAAP expectations by a penny, while revenue came in slightly above the $18 million, that the analysts had anticipated. The company guided toward higher revenue expectations for the 3rd quarter, but reined in analyst expectations for the fourth.

From a strategy perspective, things were much more interesting. Lots of exciting news to digest. On the call, DivX addressed their opportunity to gain market share in their core licensing business, the future of DivX connected and how other emerging technologies could fit into that, and perhaps most importantly, the reasoning behind their plans to separate Stage6 from the larger company.

Of all the strategies discussed, there was one that surprised me the most though, DivX has made the decision to try and bury their hatchet with Hollywood, in an attempt to get DivX DRM blessed by the studios. I’m less than optimistic on management’s chances, but if they could pull it off, it would make DivX Connected a pretty compelling solution.

Trapped Between DVD and VOD

The DVD player market continues to account for the majority of DivX’s core licensing revenue. At the end of March, DivX had 32% global penetration of the DVD player market. This was up from 21% from a year earlier. During this quarter, $14.2 million of their revenue represented royalties from their OEM partners. Sony actually accounted for over 10% of their licensing revenue and I still can’t find Sony DivX DVD players in the US.

At this point, DivX has achieved 90% penetration levels in France, Spain and Russia. In the US, the percentage of DVD players that included DivX doubled over a year ago and is now at 28%. In Japan, they still only have an 11% penetration level, but this is up from 5% a year ago. Over the last year, they’ve been able to successfully renew their contracts with their top OEMs and have been able to maintain pricing levels.

By growing their market share for the DVD player market, it has allowed DivX to continue to post impressive year over year growth, even though it’s clear that the DVD has peaked. Right now is an awkward time for DivX because there are so many uncertainties as to how the VOD market will end up shaking out. There are many pundits who are worried that DivX won’t be able to replace their DVD revenue as it tapers off.

To me, this seems a little foolish and is a bit like being afraid of the boogie man. The DVD market will not disappear overnight, it will live longer than the VCR survived. As people migrate to digital TV, DivX is in an excellent position to benefit from that. If their OEM partners see that there is no more demand for DVD players, it will make DivX certification an even greater necessity for them.

The transition to VOD will eventually happen on a mass scale, but it will still take years before the next generation of TV gadgets hits the mainstream.

When Greenhall was asked about how long he thought it would be, before the public started to move from DVD players to connected devices, he told analysts that because DivX’s ecosystem was so dependent on their OEM partners, that it was hard to forecast the transition, but that when it happens, the revenue will come quickly because their partners produce goods for the mass markets.

Emerging Technologies Will Open New Doors

Part of what makes DivX such a question mark, is the sheer size of their addressable market. They’ve established a nice business in the DVD market, but now want to expand DivX to a whole host of devices. During the earnings presentation, Hell listed the following technologies as a few of the markets that are on their hit list; Mobile devices, set top boxes, digital still cameras, game consoles, portable media players and digital televisions.

Of these potential markets, the cell phones have the most potential. Over this quarter, Samsung announced their second DivX enabled phone and will be selling the phone in the Chinese market. Since their first Samsung phone announcement, DivX has seen a lot of interest in working with other cell phone manufacturers.

Their OEM partners are excited about the technology and are coming to them for access. There will be more models announced in the future and while they didn’t give a time line, management seemed optimistic that the announcements would come soon.

On the set top front, during the quarter Divx announed that both St Microelectronics and NXP were both developing chips for a DivX set top box solution.

The box will allow you to plug in an external hard and play DivX files directly on your TV. This helps to solve the problem of getting DivX content to the living room, but still doesn’t help to add to the DivX content eco-sphere. You can’t take the TV off the box, but at least you can bring DivX to it. Hell also said that there was one more set top chip deal that hasn’t been announced.

Hell also included DivX HD as part of the emerging category. HDTV has been one of the hottest growth areas in consumer electronics. Users are starting to revolt. People love the DivX HD teasers on the stage6 website and from (cough) “others sources” on the innerwebs, but they can’t get it to the TV without some kind of a media center.

DivX wants to license their HD technology on top of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players, but I think that they’d have a much better shot at convincing their OEM partners to sell a low priced DVD player with “DivX HD.” included. With as much as the studios are charging for the next gen players, a box with DivX HD certification and a dirt cheap price point, would appeal to consumers who know better than to try and pick a side in a Hollywood format war.

DivX Connected: Bringing Partners Into The DivX Community

DivX has talked quite a bit about their Connected initiative, but they’ve always left things a little sketchy on the details. Is it a box, is it not a box? Who could really tell, but after launching a prototype of their connected solution for beta testing, the company is now starting to open up on the details. DivX Connected can be a lot of things, but they see it being a similar experience to Apple TV, except minus the high cost and the restrictions on content.

The whole concept is really a lot larger than the prototype box. It’s about bringing a diverse set of partners together, in order to create a seamless experience for consumers. Hell describe their efforts on the program during the call. “We are engaged in a large cross section of partners to implement DivX connected on existing devices. From connected DVD players and digital televisions, essentially any devices that has connectivity and DivX playback ability.”

This philosophy of openness extends even beyond the hardware devices and includes the companies that are trying to sell internet video, as well as the content producers themselves.

“going forward we will focus on a broad range of content solutions through a powered by DivX model, working with a variety of partners to deliver content. In this model Stage6 becomes one of many partners using our technology. To make this happen we are doing two things, First we are increasing our focus on premium content and re-engaging in discussions with major content providers who want to take advantage of our significant footprint. Secondly, we’re building out our existing video on demand product platform so that we can offer out of the box scalable solutions to any distributor of digital content from online retailers to network operators.”

This is a big shift for DivX and one that could have important ramifications. From early on, DivX has bumped heads with the studio fat cats. In the past, DivX has relied on their users to distribute their codec through the P2P networks, but now that the studios are beginning to warm to internet delivery, DivX is seizing on this opportunity, in an attempt to beef up the content that they can offer their own consumers.

Right now, businesses don’t pick their codecs based on quality, they use the ones that the studios tell them they are allowed to use. People like to complain about internet video services not supporting Apple, but that is because Apple refuses to license their codec to anyone. DivX wants to go the other route to try and work with everyone, but until DivX DRM can get Hollywood’s blessing, they’ll be frozen out of the mainstream market.

I’m skeptical that the studios will be particularly eager to work with DivX, but if they could pull it off, it would open plenty of doors for them and would certainly be a game changer for the company. On the call, Hell said that they are trying to go after this opportunity in two ways.

“First we’re going to be focusing on the studios themselves and other providers of premium content to get adoption and format approval from them. In addition, we’ll also be working with other content distributors, folks like Amazon, Netflix, Movielink, etc. so that we can enable their platforms and again we’re moving into a role here where we don’t want to be a storefront, in terms of the DivX Corp business. We’re looking to power other people’s platform.”

It’d be easy for DivX to try and sell content themselves (in fact that’s part of what Stage6 is about), but this is a low margin business and DivX is better off letting others fight over the content. By charging for access, it leaves room for much healthier profit margins. It also gives them a greater exposure to consumers, than anything that they could accomplish independently.

Right now, Apple wants to lock everyone else out of the market, but this is why AppleTV is such a weak platform. Not only do you pay for it, but then you have to buy only their content. DivX wants to see a world where they can bring Blockbuster and Netflix together and let consumers decide which service they want to use. By maintaining their commitment to keeping their platform open, it improves their competitive position over Apple and Microsoft, but none of that matters, until Hollywood agrees to let companies distribute video content in DivX’s format.

A Start-Up Trapped Beneath The Microscope Of Public Scrutiny

Since the launch of Stage6, it’s been an unbelievable hit. The growth has shown no signs of slowing. Since it’s launch, it’s help to push 35 million DivX web player downloads, but hasn’t generated much in the way of direct revenues. For now Greenhall wants to build up the community, before trying to figure out how to make money off of it.

“Like many sites in a similar stage of their life cycle, we’re not actively trying to monetize this user base, yet. We believe that building a community first will enable us to explore a number of different revenue models in the future, but building the community absolutely comes first.”

Since the the site’s launch, the community has responded enthusiastically to the video sharing portal and what started out as a reasonable $1 million marketing expense during the 1st quarter, has now swelled to a $2.4 million bill for this quarter (of which 70% is bandwidth.) Next quarter DivX estimates that they’ll need to spend $4.5 million and another $5.4 million in the fourth quarter. Stage 6 has about 20 -30 DivX employees that work on the site.

With the traffic and the costs starting to add up, it’s no wonder that the company wants to raise outside funds and operate Stage6 as a separate entity. During the call, their CFO, Dan Halvorson gave the reasoning behind the plan,

“Most businesses, at the same point in their life cycle as Stage6, simply wouldn’t be public or part of a public entity. They need to make investments that don’t have immediate tangible ROI or have too strong an impact on a company’s balance sheet to justify. We believe strongly that Stage6 has built a foundation that not merely be sustained, but rather amplified. As such, our board and management, thought it would be best to value our alternatives and one viable option is that Stage6 would be separated out and run as a private company.”

DivX said tat they’d like to finish the break up as close to the end of the year as possible. I’m not sure if this is for tax reasons or strategic purposes, but in the meantime, they are estimating that they’ll need to put another $10 million into the site. Greenhall wasn’t sure, on how they’d end up valuing Stage6, but was open to possibilities and wanted to do what’s best for DivX shareholders.

They may look for a private equity deal or an institutional investment, but they want to keep their options open. After announcing their intent to separate the the two companies, they’ve already received inquiries from financial and “strategic partners” on making an investment.

Overall, DivX didn’t blow anyone’s socks off this quarter, but they did continue to show that their business is healthy and that their business model is valid. They also continued to demonstrate their commitment toward investing in their growth. The extra R&D may end up bothering some shareholders in the short run, but once they break the two companies apart, they’ll have two businesses exposed to the white hot internet video sector, instead of a house divided.

Disclosure: I own stock in Netflix

Posted in Media, TV, Movies, Technology, DivX, HDTV DVDs, VOD, Microsoft, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, DRM, Web 2.0, DVDs, Netflix | 2 Comments »

Blockbuster <3 Blu-Ray or Shotgun Wedding?

June 27th, 2007 Davis

A Nice Day For A White Wedding

Last week, Blockbuster made a pretty big splash after they announced that they were going to support Blu-Ray exclusively at their retail stores. The move prompted a lot of people to ask if this was a sign that HD-DVD was dead in the water. After all, Blockbuster has a significant retail presence and their support for one format could be interpreted as a sign that consumers are demanding Blu-Ray over HD-DVD.

On the surface, this explanation seems to make sense. Blockbuster even went so far as to tell people that 70% of their test stores were choosing Blu-ray content. Sooner or later Blockbuster was going to have to choose a format and by doing it publicly, they were able to control how that information got out. Irrespective of their motivation, the move was smart on many levels and helped Sony to shift momentum back to Blu-ray, in the never ending format wars.

It could be that this is all there is to this story, that Blockbuster choose their customer’s preferences over corporate interests, but as a conspiracy theorist, I can’t help, but feel that there is more going on, back at Blockbuster HQ.

It’s entirely possible that Blockbuster’s love affair with Blu-Ray was an isolated business decision, but I suspect that Uncle Sony may have brought a shotgun to the wedding, in order to make sure that Blu-ray stayed relevant.

Over the last year, the DVD kiosk market has started to get hot. Consumers may have been skeptical at first, but once they get a taste, they have to come back. By the end of the year, there very well could be close to 10,000 kiosks in North America.

Even though the current kiosks have proven to be popular, Blockbuster and Movie Gallery have largely sat out of the DVD kiosk expansion. It could be that they don’t have the capital to pursue the technology or it may be that they really don’t see a future in kiosk rentals, but I believe, that they’ve been holding out for something even better, burn on demand DVD.

As the DVD kiosk market develops, I think we’ll see two different business models unfold. There will still be the current kiosk that offers a couple dozen choices and an inventory of 500 - 1000 discs and there will be the burn on demand machines that will carry 2,000 - 3,000 different movies that you can burn at the retail level. The current kiosks will be popular because they take a relatively low investment and the owners can control the costs of the content because of the fair use doctrine. If you play your cards right, you can make the kiosk pay for itself in the first year you own it. These are especially well suited for adding DVD rentals to a high traffic locations that normally couldn’t support a video store.

Unfortunately though, for a lot of retailers, the limited capacity of today’s kiosks prevents them from using the technology in more powerful ways. If you can’t replace your entire inventory with a limited number of discs, than it’s hard to convince the video stores and big box retailers to adopt the technology. While today’s technology will play a vital role in the future of the DVD rental market, it will be burn on demand that has the potential to save the video stores from extinction.

To a certain extent, Blockbuster will be interested in using the burn on demand kiosks in order to minimize real estate and cut down on employee costs, but the real benefit of the kiosks will be the new franchising opportunities that will open up to them. As the video store industry has gone into consolidation mode, Blockbuster’s franchisees have had a very difficult time adjusting to the new rental environment. Disagreements over the online program and the end of late fees, has even caused one of their first franchise owners to sue Blockbuster for breach of contract. As the market has collapsed, attracting new capital has been difficult and Blockbuster has struggled in replacing this lost revenue.

One of the problems with the stand alone burn on demand kiosks, is that these will not be cheap. It will take a healthy chunk of capital in order for Blockbuster or Movie Gallery to take advantage of this expanding market. With the introduction of the technology though, Blockbuster can leverage their brand by offering franchisee investors an opportunity to help create a new automated video store network.

This would help to raise outside capital that isn’t dilutive to Blockbuster shareholders, doesn’t increase debt, and would give smaller investors, a direct opportunity to invest in the growth of this emerging market.

When it comes to Blockbuster’s retail stores, I believe that they’ll look less like a kiosk and more like a Kinko’s. Blockbuster would be well served in studying the success that Paul Orfalea has had in building his company. The same concepts that he applied, will be key components for maximizing the success in using the technology. Burn on demand at the store level will need to work like a machine, in order for Blockbuster to provide the optimal retail experience, while minimizing their costs at the same time.

Little things like allowing customers to select a film online and have it available for pick up will matter a lot. They may even be able to charge higher prices by guaranteeing that you can always get the movie that you want. With a server and a couple of fast burners, Blockbuster could reduce the size of their real estate and improve customer selection at the same time.

For Blockbuster the stakes are huge.

Unfortunately though, the stakes for Sony are even bigger and while the technology to deploy burn on demand has been here for a very long time, like anything involving Hollywood, it’s been tied down over disagreements tied to the licensing of formats. Last December, things looked promising, that we might be witnessing the birth of this technology.

Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons said that 2007 would see the introduction of burn on demand technology for their retail partners, the DVD forum even “approved” a standard for the DRM, and in anticipation of the launch, Sonic solutions went as far as to announce that they were launching a commercial and retail solution using the technology. Despite all of these signs of this technological evolution, somehow the licensing discussions got hijacked by the DVD-CCA, and everything started to break down.

While Blockbuster hasn’t publicly discussed their burn on demand ambitions, there have been hints that they’ve had their eyes set on this target. Earlier this month, Lionsgate’s CEO Jon Feltheimer said that the company had digital distribution agreements in place with Best Buy and Blockbuster. Many in the press, assumed that he was referring to a movie download service, but no one stopped to consider whether or not “digital distribution” could occur at the retail level. Later, Feltheimer backed away from the comments, which could be interpreted as a sign of on going discussions.

Many retail and technology companies had hoped that Hollywood could come to a decision, but over the last six months, it’s been nothing but a series of delays. When the group met last April, they still couldn’t resolve their impasse and the decision was put off for another two months, while the studios considered their alternatives.

While there is no way for me to know what goes on behind the closed door DVD-CCA sessions, what I do know from my sources in the kiosk industry, is that the disagreement over the licensing has largely been between the studios, not the consumer electronic companies involved. At one point, Sony was even looking into building their own DVD kiosks, that would burn Sony films exclusively.

This would obviously be a less than ideal solution for consumers and retailers, but it suggests that whatever the core issues are, Sony is concerned enough about them, that they are willing to ostracize their customers, in order to maintain their hold on the DVD market.

What makes me suspect that Sony may have brought a shotgun to Blockbuster’s wedding, is the timing of the announcement of their engagement. It was a week and a half before today’s meeting, where the DVD-CCA, (cough: Sony) will decide whether or not consumers should be able to buy a burn on demand DVD or whether it poses too much of a piracy problem :roll:

Coincidently enough, two days before the meeting, Rimage, also issued a press release where they mentioned their love of “Blu-ray” six different times. Rimage also recently announced a $6.5 million order from an unnamed “national retailer”. Rimage helps to make DVD publishing systems, Sonic makes the DRM.

Now, this is just speculation on my part, but considering that Sony owns half of the patents in the DVD-CCA licensing pool, I’m going to assume that they’ve got some control over what happens with the DVD-CCA. If the DVD-CCA can’t agree on a decision, than it might delay Sony’s digital plans, but it would certainly mean a lot more to a company like say ohhhh I don’t know, Blockbuster? It’s easy to dismiss, Blockbuster’s acceptance of Blu-ray as a day to day business decision, but in the larger context of their digital strategy, I think the move very likely could have been made, to shore up Sony’s support for the burn on demand technology.

While the DVD-CCA did meet today, I haven’t been able to find out the decision. They don’t like a lot of public attention and haven’t posted anything publicly. They did post their support for a law making all DVD copying illegal though. It’s hard to argue with them, I can only imagine how terrible it would be if consumers were allowed to make fair use copies of their content.

It could be that I’m reading entirely too much into this, but after watching Sony destroy their own PS3 with a forced Blu-ray “upgrade”, I wouldn’t put it past the company to try and use their muscle on the DVD-CCA board, in order to squeeze a retail partner like Blockbuster. You can call it payola or you can call it smart business, but it’s hard for me to blame Blockbuster, even if their “support” for Blu-ray may have involved a little tit for tat.

If it unlocks the key to burn on demand, then Blu-ray is a small price to pay, for a real shot at long term survival. Until, the studios can figure out a different economic equation, the video stores won’t survive the commoditization of media.

Update - It looks like it’s official, or at least sort of. I’m not sure if Blockbuster’s support was what it took, but the DVD-CCA finally authorized burn on demand for consumers and retailers. The paperwork won’t be signed until next week, but the move opens the door for a brand new market to unfold. It will take time for the rollout of actual products, but I expect that it won’t take long before we start seeing plenty of retailers adopting the technology. It’s way to early to tell how this market will shake out, but I expect to see lots of competition.

Posted in Media, Movies, Technology, TV, HDTV DVDs, DRM, DVDs, VOD, Kiosks | 5 Comments »

Movie Gallery Negotiates Sequel - Will Restructure Debt

February 6th, 2007 Davis

I never thought that Movie Gallery would actually pull it off, but the company may have just saved themselves from bankruptcy for another five years by agreeing to restructure their senior credit facility in a deal with Goldman Sachs. The exact terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but the transaction is expected to close sometime in the first quater. Like their existing debt, there will be covenants that the company must meet to maintain the debt, but the restrictions on the new debt are likely to be much less restrictive then their current arrangement.

The restructuring comes at a desperate time for Movie Gallery. After borrowing heavily to make an ill advised acquisition of Hollywood Video in 2005, the company soon found themselves in serious trouble as the bottom of the video store market began to fallout. With bondholders getting nervous and the fundamentals of their industry rapidly deteriorating, in early 2006, Movie Gallery was forced to convince debt owners to renegotiate the covenant terms on their debt. The move bought Movie Gallery an extra year to help figure out how to turn their firm around, but as 2006 dragged on, liquidity concerns continued to intensify for the company.

In November of last year, things got even worse. Movie Gallery was forced to delay their quarterly earnings filing for almost three months over questions on how to value their store leases. When they did release their quarterly results in late January of this year, the numbers weren’t pretty. Losses continued to accumulate, cash was dwindling down and come April 1st, Movie Gallery was going to have to either file chapter 11 or pay off $780 million to bond holders.

In the filing, Movie Gallery told investors that between cash and access to their line of credit, they were only left with $50 million in liquidity as of Oct 1st, 2006. Because of the increasing likelihood that they would miss their covenant tests in 2007, Movie Gallery was also forced to reclassify their senior credit debt from long term debt to current debt in the same filing. This move prompted analysts to warn that Movie Gallery was facing a cash crunch and could slip into bankruptcy if they couldn’t figure out a way to get a refinancing done. At the time of the filing, Movie Gallery had said that they were researching a sale/lease back transaction with bondholders or possibly a massive equity underwriting to pay off the debt.

Without knowing the terms of the restructured debt, it’s too early to say if this financial engineering will actually turn out to be a home run for Movie Gallery, but undoubtably it will be welcome relief for shareholders who had been faced with the prospect of losing their equity through a bankruptcy filing or losing most of their equity in a massive dillutive underwriting. Even after the restructuring, Movie Gallery will still have many challenges to overcome, but with the new credit facility in place, it will give Movie Gallery five more years to focus on cutting costs and closing unprofitable stores, as the company fights to get back on track.

While shareholders are celebrating the move by Movie Gallery to restructure their debt, not everyone will be quite as pleased with this development. Over the last few years, Netflix has been cleaning house with their DVD by mail program and the success of the program has put a lot of pressure on Movie Gallery to close more stores. Each store that closes only drives more people online. If this move by Movie Gallery is able to slow down the decline of the video store, it won’t necessarily have a negative impact on Netflix’s business, but it could impact their growth rate if video stores hang around longer then people expect.

Perhaps even more importantly though, is the effect that this restructuring will have on Blockbuster’s core business. Because of the economics of the video store business, Blockbuster and Movie Gallery operate with heavy fixed costs, but relatively low variable costs. This means that if a store is profitable and you can increase revenue at all, the increase contributes almost entirely to the bottom line. It also means though, that if you see revenue move away from your store, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep stores profitable and to meet those high fixed costs. Over the last few years, Blockbuster has faced an incredibly tough market for video stores and with Movie Gallery’s business on the ropes, many investors had jumped into Blockbuster’s stock, in anticipation of the profit increases that they would see, if Movie Gallery had to move aggressively to close stores.

With Blockbuster and Movie Gallery competing head to head in many of the same markets, the strengthening of Movie Gallery’s business will likely mean that Blockbuster will be forced to continue their operations on razor thin margins, as they struggle to adjust to this rapidly changing industry. In the past, Blockbuster management has indicated that if a Movie Gallery store near them closes, they could see an increase in revenue in excess of 25% at nearby competing stores. Because of the high amount of leverage used for video stores, this 25% can be almost pure profit for those stores and with Movie Gallery’s financial situation having gotten pretty bleak, many investors made aggressive bets on Blockbuster Video, in the belief that the lionshare Movie Gallery’s revenue would go straight to Blockbuster’s brick and mortar stores instead. With Movie Gallery having reinvigorated their balance sheet with their Goldman Sachs deal, Blockbuster now faces a much stronger opponent in these markets where they are forced to compete head to head.

While many investors have been focused on the recent success of Blockbuster’s total access program in their war with Netflix, this is really the wrong battle for Blockbuster investors to focus on. Blockbuster may have had no choice but to get rid of late fees and to offer their own online program, but they made this move as a defensive step to help save customers from leaving their stores, not as revenue or profit driver. For every customer that Blockbuster signs up for the program, they move a high gross margin transaction oriented customer into a lower gross margin monthly renter. While the move was important for Blockbuster to make to protect their business, ironically, the more successful the program is, the greater pressure it puts on Blockbuster’s highly leveraged fixed costs.

Blockbuster’s battle with Movie Gallery however could have had a much more direct effect on the profitability of their business. If Movie Gallery would have been forced into chapter 11, it would have put Blockbuster in a position to directly capitalize on aggressive store closings or by buying out Movie Gallery stores in a fire sale. Because Movie Gallery is a direct competitor to Blockbuster, any store closing would transfer high gross transaction customers straight back to Blockbuster. Now that Movie Gallery won’t be forced to liquidate the business though, Blockbuster will continue to have to compete not just for lower gross margin online renters with Netflix, but will also continue to face a very tough market for transactional customers as well.

It’s too early to say how Blockbuster or Netflix will react to this renewed competitive threat, but it is clear that Movie Gallery has gotten a new lease on life from their deal with Goldman Sachs. While the fundamentals of the video store market continue to be challenging, with this deal in place, it buys the company at least five more years, before we’ll know how this movie ends.

Posted in DVDs, Disclosure - I own stock in co. mentioned, Netflix | 2 Comments »