See larger view of chart here

While old school media types like to insist that content is king, when it comes to viewing said content, the format and media player can make a big difference in the quality of the user experience. With new options seeming to crop up everyday, I wanted to take a look at a few of the most popular media players (and video destinations) to determine which one is the best for consumers. While individual results may vary, here is the criteria I used to evaluate each one.

Format Support
With so many different formats out there, it’s important that your top media player has robust support. Since consumers shouldn’t have to scour the web to add additional functionality, I did not include any plugins that consumers could use to add greater support. Of all the players listed, the VLC clearly won this category. Whether you’re trying to watch Quicktime movies or play a VOB file, if VLC can’t handle the codec, you probably shouldn’t be trying to play it to begin with. The clear loser in this category was the Netflix Media player. While I have no complaints about the quality of their stream, the DRM restrictions and the requirement for downloading the Silverlight plugin, makes their web player pretty limited.

Ability to Stream Online
When digital movies first came out, you used to have to wait a couple hours for your file to download. With the introduction of streaming support, consumers no longer have to wait more than a few seconds in order to get access to that content. While most video players are able to support this functionality, I felt that Netflix was the clear winner for this category. Not only do their video streams take into account your bandwidth to reduce buffering issues, but they also seem to have the highest video quality when streaming content. The clear loser in this category was the VLC player. While technically, there are ways to use it to stream torrent files while downloading, for the most part the VLC player is designed strictly for offline media.

Ability to Play Offline
A lot of people don’t think that this feature is very important, but as someone who commutes an hour per day by train, being able to view my videos offline is just as important as being able to stream them. Once again, the VLC Player takes top honors due to their ability to handle high definition files and the robustness of their offline support. While Amazon, Netflix and YouTube don’t allow you to easily save files on your laptop, because they offer hardware support, they get a free pass on this one. Hulu on the other hand, ranks at the bottom of this list because they don’t allow consumers to watch a movie unless it’s on an internet connected computer screen.

Auto-Dimmer
In order to create a more cinematic experience, a few media companies have started to incorporate dimmer technology into their players. While Hulu does allow users to black out distractions manually, they don’t do it automatically. DivX on the other hand, will slowly darken the screen outside of your video, to help better focus on what your watching. This really is neat technology and something that I hope will catch on. Since none of the other media players include this functionality, it’s a tie for last place on this one.

Disable Screen Saver
Few things are more annoying than being totally immersed in a film and then BAM, all of a sudden your viewing experience is interrupted by your screensaver popping up. While users can always disable this themselves, it’s easy to forget to do this and cumbersome for media companies to expect them to. DivX, Windows Media Player, Amazon and VLC all take top honors for ensuring a seamless experience. Netflix finishes in a close second place, in part because I’ve noticed that their software will sometimes cause the media toolbar to pop-up when the screensaver tries to activate. At the bottom of this list is Hulu, who actually has the gall to request that their users disable their screensavers themselves, instead of helping to automate this experience.

High Definition Support
While a lot of people advertise high definition support, not all HD is created equally. As broadband pipes continue to get fatter, the ability to support larger and/or more advance compression algorithms is becoming a critical differentiator between various media players. The top honors in this category goes to VLC and DivX for supporting the MKV/H.264 format. The worst player is Real Media who may have pioneered video on the web during dial-up days, but hasn’t aged very well.

One Click Full Screen
While all of the media players reviewed allow for full screen support, some players make it easier for consumers to jump in and out of this experience. Making someone hunt around for a tiny button to maximize their video, just isn’t as friendly as letting them double click on their screen and instantly be able to see the full picture. Amazon, CinemaNow, DivX and Windows Media all make it easy for you to do this. Quicktime on the other hand, actually makes consumers pay money in order to get this functionality . . .

Hardware Support
Consumers used to have to burn their movies to DVD if they wanted to play it on the big screen, but over the last few years, we’ve seen a number of connected devices that will allow you to easily transfer content to your television. The winner in this category is clearly Netflix. Not only have their pioneered this particular field, but they’ve been able to strike agreements with a wide range of consumer electronic companies. Whether you own a DVR or a video game console, they’ve set the gold standard for watching internet video beyond the monitor. The worst offender is Hulu. Not only are they limited to the web, but they’ve actually fought attempts by innovators like Boxee, to bring their content to the TV set. While their studio owners may have good reasons for trying to keep consumers from cutting the cord, such an anti-consumer stance will only hurt them in the long run.

Subscription, Pay-Per-View or Free Content
With so many different services offering different forms of content, it’s made life pretty difficult for the modern digital consumer. If you want to view new releases, you have to visit Apple, CinemaNow or Amazon. If you want content that doesn’t charge you to experiment, then a subscription to Netflix is the best way to go. If you’re looking for free content, then you should consider Hulu or VLC. While no one seems to have figured out a perfect way to consolidate all three features at once, CinemaNow has done the best job of offering consumers flexibility when it comes to how you want to pay for content. While they don’t offer much in the way of free or ad supported content, they do allow you to rent, purchase or subscribe to various digital packages.

While it’s hard to say that any one media player is THE best, my recommendation for consumers would be a combination of Netflix and the VLC player. Both provide an excellent user experience, as well as high definition support and while your options may be limited on Netflix, they’ve done a good job of integrating their video streams beyond the computer and into a larger hardware eco-system.

I’m a big fan of internet video, but nothing can replace the big screen high definition experience and while I knew it would happen sooner or later, I still wasn’t fully prepared when my big screen Sony Wega gave a loud pop and ceased to display the magic flickering lights that I’ve fallen in love with.

My first response was one of panic. I knew that it was possible that I might have a burned out bulb, but given some of the issues that other Wega owners have had, I also knew that it might be more serious. After the panic subsided, I started making a few calls to see what it would cost me to bring in a pro. After getting a few quotes, I was shocked at how expensive it can be, just to have a repairman troubleshoot your big screen. While I’ll admit to being tempted to use this as an excuse to make the jump from a rear projector to a flat screen, I also wasn’t ready to give up on my TV just yet.

So with gritty determination, I started wading through the murky waters of the internet, in search of a potential diagnosis. The more research I did, the more apparent it was, that I had in fact exhausted the lovelight inside my television. Luckily, it turns out that this sort of repair is pretty easy for the home gamer to fix, so after finding a generic replacement lamp online, I eagerly waited the opportunity to try my hand at television repair.

Once my lamp arrived there were a few complications, but as long as you know how to use a screwdriver, most people should be able to fix their own Sony Wega, if your lamp goes dark. One complication that I did run into was the difference between replacing a lamp on a Sony Wega compared to other big screen TVs. Most rear projectors require you to replace the lamp from the back of the set, but Sony has flipped it around and requires you to go in from the front.

To help extend the life of your own big screen experience, I present this step by step guide to replacing a burned out lamp in a Sony Wega TV.

The first step is to unplug your TV to make sure that you don’t electrocute yourself. I’m not sure if the Wega retains an electrical charge after your unplug it, but since a lot of home electronics can still give you a shock, I waited 15 minutes before proceeding. The next step is to start taking apart your TV, so you can get into the guts. If you look at the front of the TV, you’ll notice that there is a grey plastic strip right below the screen.

The strip looks like it’s part of the screen, but it actually comes off and if you look at the back of your TV, you’ll see a black knob on both ends of the TV holding this strip attached. While the knobs are big enough that you can unscrew them with just your fingers, a large flat head screwdriver may come in handy when doing this step.

Click here for large photo

Once you’ve unscrewed these knobs, you can go ahead and pop off the front panel. When you try to pry it off, it may feel like it’s still screwed in, but it’s actually being held in place with two magnets. You don’t want to use so much force that you’ll break the bezel, but you will want to get it a good pull to get it to snap off.

Behind the bezel, right dab smack in middle of the TV, you’ll see two panels that protect the lamp and the guts that power the on/off switch. You’ll need to unscrew the panel protecting the on/off switch first, because the panel protecting the lamp is buried beneath. Once you take out all five screws, you’ll be able to swing both panels open and should see a black box that contains your lamp. This is located directly behind the flimsy plastic shell that is somehow designed to protect you from radiation.

When I opened mine, I needed a Torx 10 screwdriver to take the lamp out. Since my replacement lamp included regular screws, I decided to put those in to make future replacements easier. Once you’ve unscrewed the lamp, all you’ll need to do is slide it out and slide the replacement lamp back in.

After you’ve replaced the plastic covers, pop the front panel back into place, tighten the knobs on the back of the TV, and you should be ready to watch some high definition big screen TV again.

While the entire experience was a little intimidating at first, I was really surprise at how easy of a repair this really was. While there was some risk that the replacement lamp wouldn’t have solved my problem, I figured that it wouldn’t kill me to have a spare on hand anyway. Since the cheapest repair technician was asking three times the cost of the lamp, just to diagnose my problem, I felt that this was a cost effective way to deal with the problem.

If you tend to get frustrated by electronic gizmos and gadgets, it may worth calling in a pro, but if you can figure out how to hook up a DVD player to your TV, you should have the skill set to make this kind of repair.

As a small business owner, I’m not just concerned about protecting my own privacy, but I also care about the vendors and customers who do business with me. Because of this, I’m willing to pay a premium in order to have the best anti-virus protection on my computer, so two years ago I purchased several subscriptions to one of McAfee’s anti-virus solutions. Given their reputation, I felt that they were the best at what they do and had complete trust in their service. Unfortunately, after learning first hand how they treat their customers, their “total protection” turned out to be little more than a protection racket and I can promise you that I’ll never spend another dime on the company again.

My problem occurred late last year, ironically just 2 weeks before my anti-virus package was up for renewal. Since hackers tend to do a pretty good job of staying ahead of the curve, it’s always been important to me to update my software as promptly as possible. Whenever McAfee would release new virus definitions, it was a no brainer to install them. Because McAfee had earned my complete trust, I never thought twice about the possibility of them sneaking malware into one of these updates.

Yet, after approving one such “recommended update”, I was dismayed to find an obnoxious button with the McAfee logo sitting at the top of my internet browser. Without every clearly explaining what they were doing, McAfee had installed a Siteadvisor toolbar directly on my internet explorer browser. Since I’m particular about how my browser is customized and since I was already aware of the Siteadvisor service, I wasn’t very happy about giving up valuable real estate on my screen to someone who I had paid money to. Worse yet, one of the proprietary programs that I use for my work had a conflict with their program making the situation completely unacceptable.

Being a little bit computer savvy, I figured it would be easy enough to disable or uninstall the update, but no matter what I tried, I simply could not get this button off of my browser. Over the years, I’ve had to deal with my fair share of malware and unwanted viruses and while there have been times where it took a bit of effort and research to get rid of these obnoxious predators, I’ve never had this much difficulty zapping an unwanted visitor before. If you search the web, you’ll find a ton of other people asking about how to remove it and a lot of answers telling them just to give up.

Here’s a good example of what other people’s experience with the program has been like.

” one good reason to remove it, is because the damn thing is a nightmare to remove and anything that evasive when it comes to uninstalling usually means it a bad thing. I’ve had less trouble getting rid of nasty virus’, therefor i consider it just as bad as a virus, because a user should have the right to remove their software, (and if its near impossible to remove, i’ve gotta wonder what else it upto that it shouldn’t be). I originally wanted to just remove stie adviser and keep the rest of my McAfee package, I’ve now uninstalled all of it in an atempt to get rid of it, and will never trush McAfee again, after relying on their antvirus for years. Its so bad i’m now resorting to formatting my shiny new laptop, which is less than ideal as I have to now try and hunt down all my drives. I’ve tried repeatedly to uninstall it in various ways I have Vista with IE7, I originally tried using the McAfee uninstaller, I have since removed it no less the 15 times using add or remove programs, even filled in their sodding questionair to why I removed it over and over again, but every time I open internet explorer it re-installs itself without my permission and leaves it it in a domant state, poping up a window saying it has been updated and wanting me to re-activate it every single time I open a new internet explorer window or tab, which as you can imagin is unbelievably annoyng. any surgestions about getting rid of it for good would be welcome?”

It would be one thing, if McAffee’s software was freeware and they choose to migrate to an ad supported model, but since I had paid for multiple copies of their software, having an ad forced on me was tacky at best. After conditioning me to always trust their updates, they took advantage of that trust by sneaking in a payload on an unsuspecting customer.

What really made this situation so infuriating though, wasn’t the mix-up with their unwanted malware or even the nefarious way that they choose to distribute this piece of software, it was what happened when I called the company for customer support.

After taking a look at the account, I was informed that since it had been more than 90 days after my purchase of a 2 year product, that McAfee wanted me to pay them a “service fee” before they’d be willing to help with my issue

Even when I asked to speak with a manager to discuss this policy, the rep flat out refused to transfer the call and told me that he wasn’t going to continue the conversation until I paid them the fee.

Over the years, many computer users have been tricked into a scam where they unwittingly download a piece of software that then tells them their machine is infected or at risk of a virus. While many viruses want to stay hidden, these programs want you to know about them because they then aggressively offer to sell you the antidote for getting rid of them. Not only is this behavior unethical, but it’s even considered illegal. In fact, just last month the FBI warned consumers about this very type of scareware and said that they think these scams have cost internet users over $150 million in bogus charges.

Now I can understand why McAfee is reluctant to help people troubleshoot their computers, especially when you may have installed a tricky virus or trojan file, but when their very own software uses sneaky and underhanded methods to place an ad on every web page you visit, I feel they owe it to their CUSTOMERS to help them get rid of this unwanted behavior. While they may have a good reputation within the anti-virus community, by requiring customers to pay an extra fee to get rid of THEIR unwanted software, they are essentially trying to extort money from the very people who are buttering their bread already.

McAfee may try to argue that they are only trying to protect their customers with a security enhancement, but I believe that their behavior is no different than what these scareware companies are trying to pull off.

Ultimately, the only way that I was able to get rid of this annoyance was to do a complete reinstall on my computer and to wipe out a lot of data in the process. Spending 3 – 4 hours to reformat my system and reinstalling my programs may sound like a lot of fun , but as a small business owner it cost me valuable time and money, that could have been spent more efficiently.

Since McAffee has built their business around a program where updating the software is a crucial part of the service, I don’t believe that it’s unreasonable for consumers to expect to have a hassle free experience when they are getting the most recent data files. Nor do I think that it’s unreasonable to expect a minimal level of technical support when it’s their own program that is causing the issue.

If you search the internet, it’s clear that these problems have been going on for a long time, but instead of dealing with them, McAfee continues to abuse customers who would prefer not to see an ad at the top of their browser. While this scheme may net their shareholders a little bit more in profits and a lot more in extra traffic to their Siteadvisor website, it’s also cost them at least one small, but irritated customer.

While there are some great public schools out there, my particular school district was infamous for being the worst of the worst in the Los Angeles school district. Last year, the graduation rate at the local high school was just a hair over 50%. While this kind of public education would have done a good job of helping me to succeed if I ever ended up in prison, it wasn’t going to provide me with the life skills necessary to succeed in the real world.

The other option that my parents had was to enrol their kids in a private school, but faced with the prospect of making 5 concurrent tuition payments each year (plus mandatory school taxes), it just wasn’t financially feasible for them to do it. Because my parents felt trapped between a rock and a hard place, they ultimately made a tough decision to forgo the traditional route and to homeschool their kids instead.

At the time, this was a controversial choice. In fact, I was one of the very first students in California to “officially” attend home school. In 2008, the co-op that was my Alma mater was actually declared illegal (and than legal again) by the California Supreme court. If my alma mater was ground zero for the California home school movement, it’s fair to say that I was part of the epicenter.

While my parent’s decision was driven in part by financial considerations, it was also driven by their desire to have more control over what their kids were exposed to. Our society tends to bombard kids at an early age with messages that aren’t always very healthy and they wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to share their faith and ideals with their children. Some may view this as controversial, but I think that every parent should have a right to teach their kids right from wrong. Because my education was considered quasi-legal though, there was always a little bit of paranoia surrounding what we did. Personally, I never lost sleep over it, but my parents certainly worried that the neighbors might report us or that we could be accosted by truancy officers when out and about during school hours. At one point, they actually purchased legal insurance to help protect themselves, in case they were ever forced to defend their decision.

In addition to some of the legal questions, there was also a social stigma that I was forced to deal with. When I eventually re-entered the traditional school system, extensive testing was required before they would accept me. At the time, most colleges were shunning those who hadn’t received a formal education. When I did enroll in school, many of my peers viewed me as a bit of a social misfit. It’s fair to say that over the course of my life, I’ve heard my fair share of homeskooling jokes.

Fortunately, this trend has almost completely reversed itself and as more and more homeschoolers have worked their way through the system, it’s become increasing clear that those who’ve had this unique experience, aren’t necessarily the backwards country bumpkins that society would lead you to believe. Often times, they are gifted artists and creative thinkers who can bring a lot to an organization.

If you would have asked me at the time, I probably would have told you to never home school your kids, but when you fast forward 25 years, I have mixed emotions about whether or not I plan on making the same decision with my kids (assuming that I end up having kids of course.)

While my relationship with my parents went through it’s fair share of ups and downs, undoubtedly I feel closer to them today, than I would have otherwise. My Mom was never a rocket scientist (or even college educated for that matter), but the one on one attention made a big difference compared to the massive classrooms that ended up being my high school experience. When I did test to enter school, they wanted to place me two grades higher than my age group.

When other kids were studying California history, I was seeing it first hand by visiting historic missions and seeing how the government worked in action. When I expressed an interest in one day becoming a fireman, my parents were able to arrange visits to the local fire station. When I expressed an interest in being a veterinarian, I was given backstage access to the LA Zoo. While you can question the educational value of some of these experiences, I feel that they gave me a perspective that most people miss out on and made learning an enjoyable process. Even at a very young age, it wasn’t unusual for me to read over 100 pages a day simply because I loved the topic.

From the negative side of the equation though, being home schooled was a very lonely experience. My parents made sure that we belonged to a lot of social groups, but you really can’t replace the day to day stimulation that kids get from interacting with each other. The parents that I know, who’ve chosen to homeschool their kids, almost never understand how pervasive this loneliness really is. Having spent a lot of time with other home schooled kids, I think it’s a fair generalization to say that socially we were all a bit behind. Even to this day, I still have social phobias that most people don’t have to wrestle with.

While these phobias have placed me at a disadvantage when it comes to office politics and competing in the rat race, my upbringing has also given me many advantages. Being forced to constantly seek out information has taught me how to think critically, instead of accepting everything as a truth. Instead of learning to memorize facts for tests, I was taught to think for myself. More than anything, spending my life living outside the box has helped develop crucial skills that one needs to be a successful entrepreneur. In this ever changing technologically driven world that we live in, these skills have already proved invaluable. While I still have many goals left for my career, I am very proud of where I am today and that I own my own business.

Even though, I still have mixed feelings about the entire experience, I’m thankful that I was given the opportunity to learn in this way. For parents who are thinking about homeschooling your own kids, I’d encourage you to think long and hard about the pros and cons and to take your time reaching a decision. If you don’t have the patience, time or resources to properly socialize your kids, I would discourage you from going this route. For those who do take the path less traveled though, it can be one of the most rewarding experiences for both you and your children.

Many investors tend to focus on large well established companies, but I’ve always had a penchant for small cap stocks. It could be my masochistic tendencies, but I prefer the risk/reward of a long shot, over companies who already dominate their market. Typically, my investment style has been to seek out strong brands that have fallen out of favor with the market and then wait for their fortunes to improve. Sometimes this involves waiting for years, sometimes it involves taking a complete loss and sometimes I get lucky and other firms step in and buy them out or bid up the price. Since a few of my readers have inquired about what sorts of things I look for in an investment, I thought I’d present a list of 25 small cap stocks that I currently have my eye on. Most of the data has been taken from Yahoo! finance as of 1/26/2010, so it’s probably a good idea to double check the numbers.

1-800-Flowers (Market Cap = $136.47 million Ticker: FLWS) – Every since United Online purchased FTD, 1-800-Flowers seems to have lost market share, but despite their wilting fortunes, they represent a strong brand in a market with limited competition. After cutting operating expenses by $50 million in the second half of 09 and with Valentine’s day just around the corner, I wouldn’t count this one down and out.

Audiovox (Market Cap = $151.26 million Ticker: VOXX) – Despite having booked over a half a billion in consumer electronic sales over the last year, Audiovox doesn’t seem to get a lot of respect outside of the consumer electronic’s industry. With $361 million in shareholder equity, the firm is trading at half of their book value. While the company has lost over $50 million in the last 12 months, these losses are largely attributed to one time charges. With the firm having hit profitability in the last 3 quarters, a turnaround may be in sight for patient investors.

Bank Of The Internet (Market Cap = $87.61 million Ticker: BOFI) – While many local California banks made some pretty terrible loans during the housing boom, BofI was considerably more conservative with their assets. The market may have discounted them along with the rest of the financial community, but a closer look at their balance sheet suggests that this may be a hidden gem in all the rubble. With a charter that allows them to operate in every US state, there is a lot of potential for this little known company. With some of the highest interest rates on cash deposits, they’ve been able to attract deposits during a period where most banks have seen their customer base contract. For fiscal year 2007, they had revenue of $45.7 million, in 08′ they booked $64.8 and in 09′ they had $81.1 million. While I’m no longer a customer of the bank, from past experience I can personally attest, that they have the best customer service of any financial institution that I’ve ever worked with.

Big Band Networks (Market Cap = $205.92 million Ticker: BBND) – Since it’s debut in 2007, this content delivery network has seen their stock price fluctuate between $3 a share to $20.44. The company did lose $11 million in the last quarter, but had they not been investing in research and development they would have generated a small profit. While they do owe approximately $70 million in debt, with $161 million in cash and short term investments, they should have the stamina to make it through the market’s bust. Sitting at the epicenter of online video movement, there’s a lot of potential for this Silicon Valley company.

Calamos (Market Cap = $237.42 Ticker: CLMS) – When it comes to convertible bond investing, Calamos has set the gold standard for fund managers. While revenue is down over 20% since the market collapsed in 2008, I don’t believe that this is proper justification for trading at less than 1 times their trailing 12 month sales. With a strong management team, a fantastic brand and their recent return to profitability, I think that the company is undervalued. With their latest dividend reflecting a 2.4% yield, I’m willing to wait for their turnaround.

ClickSoftware Technologies (Market Cap = $200.88 million Ticker: CKSW) – ClickSoftware helps companies better manage their workforce. Since the beginning of 2009, they’ve seen their stock rise almost 400%, so they’re not exactly a secret. Nonetheless, this Israeli company has demonstrated some pretty impressive metrics. In fiscal 06′ they had $32.4 million in revenue, in 07′ this rose to $40 million. In 08′ they recorded $52.3 million in sales and for 2009, they are expected to report approximately $61 million. With the company having made three small acquisitions in the past year and realizing 67% gross margins, it would appear that they have a bright future ahead of them. With $48.6 million in current assets and only $22.2 liabilities, they should be able to survive for a very long time, especially if the continue to remain profitable.

DivX Inc. (Market Cap = $180.25 Million Ticker: DivX) – After making a huge splash in 07′ and hitting a billion dollar market cap following their IPO, DivX has been a huge disappointment for many investors. While there are long term questions about their business model and management has given no indication that revenues won’t continue to drop, with $139 million in cash and short term investments and only $25.6 million in liabilities, the stock is certainly priced at a bargain. Given their unique position in the digital media space, I can think of a number of large competitors who wouldn’t mind taking advantage of the market’s short-sightedness.

Double-Take Software (Market Cap $216.34 million Ticker: DBTK) – Even before cloud computing was a buzz word, Double-Take was working towards building remote solutions for businesses. After seeing their revenues rise over 50% between 2006 – 2008, the company experience some turbulence in 09′. For the first 9 months of the year, they recorded revenue of $60.4 million, compared to $71.3 million for the similar time period in 08′. Nonetheless, when you consider that they are still booking a gross profit of 89%, there is a lot here to like. With financial and insurance companies representing some of their biggest customers, it may take time for them to return to their highs, but with nearly 4 times as many assets as they have liabilities, the company should have no problem surviving.

Geek.net (Market Cap = $77.41 million Ticker: LNUX) – As a self professed Geek I may be a bit biased on this one, but with the company trading at just $10 million above their book value, I think that this could be an extremely attractive acquisition for the right partner. Through sites like Slashdot, Sourceforge and ThinkGeek, they’ve been able to build an audience of over 40 million unique visitors each month. When you consider that their core audience tends to be primarily male developers with a lot of disposable income, I’m not surprised that their revenue has grown despite a collapse in the online ad markets. Recent insider selling and the lack of profitability may be cause for concern, but I believe that their core brands are too valuable to be trading at such a steep discount.

IncrediMail (Market Cap = $77 million Ticker: MAIL) – Since hitting their bottom in late 2008, IncrediMail’s stock before has been nothing short of incredible. With the stock up over 400%, there’s room for it to take a breather, but based on their most recent dividend, investors are earning an approximate 10% yield. While it’s always possible that they could quit paying back returns to their shareholders, with revenues up 25% for the first 9 months of 09, the trend is headed in the right direction.

Jackson Hewitt (Market Cap = $101.27 million Ticker: JTX) – They say nothing is certain in life except death and taxes and given Jackson Hewitt’s past sins, it’s fair to say that both may still be in store for this company’s future, but with the stock trading at 10% of past valuations, there’s also room for an impressive “dead cat bounce”. After getting busted for issuing problematic refund anticipation loans there’s an unknown liability that hangs over this firm, but with the company trading at 0.40 times their 12 months sales, the risk/reward is attractive for the troubled tax preparer.

Internap (Market Cap = $247.71 million Ticker: INAP) – Like many of the CDN players, Internap has seen their stock price hit with a buzzsaw as investors re-evaluated the long term potential of internet delivery. While Akamai may have a firm grasp on this market, I believe that there’s a lot of untapped value in this company. With over $250 million in revenue over the past year and over a billion dollars worth of tax losses, this small little video provider is ripe for consolidation.

Lasercard (Market Cap = $75.85 million Ticker: LCRD) – After a history of losses, this Silicon Valley security company appears to have turned the corner with their business model. During 2009, they blew through their net operating losses and have once again begun paying taxes on their profits. While their revenue tends to be concentrated with a few customers, recent contract wins with the governments of Hungary and Angola should provide some much needed diversification over the next year. Their leverage is a little bit higher than I’d like to see, but with a successful underwriting early last year and a bright future for the global security market, they should be OK over the near term.

Lojack (Market Cap $74.57 million Ticker: LOJN) – Caught between the wrong end of a patent lawsuit and the collapse of the auto market, Lojack has been absolutely hammered over the last few years. With the stock down more than 80% from their all-time high, it would be easy to write this one off as a tax loss. Despite the challenges that they’ve faced though, I believe that their unique technology and brand can easily be ported into other industries and that their recent losses will only prove to be temporary. With sticky contracts with law enforcement agencies and the potential to once again realize strong earnings, I think the company has been undervalued by investors.

Motorcar Parts of America (Market Cap = $68.22 million Ticker: MPAA) – Despite their ticker symbol, MPAA doesn’t have anything to do with the entertainment industry. They’re a small firm that sells plain old boring alternators and starters for small trucks. While the auto industry has seen new car sales eviscerated over the last few years, it should provide an opportunity for companies who build replacement parts. With their current liabilities exceeding their current assets, it may be wise to wait until they raise more money before proceeding, but with the company trading at approximately half of their trailing 12 month sales, the market seems to have priced in the doom and gloom already.

OpenTV (Market Cap = $162.92 million Ticker: OPTV) – With the Kudelski group having already agreed to pay $1.55 per share, you won’t get rich off of investing in this set top box manufacturer, but there could be an arbitrage opportunity for those looking for a short term investment. Assuming that it takes them another 1 – 3 months to close the transaction, investors could expect an annualized yield of 10.75% – 3.22% respectively. While these transactions always carry the risk that something could derail them, I’d be surprised if the deal doesn’t get completed in the first quarter.

Primedia (Market Cap = $126.26 million Ticker: PRM) – From a high of $175 per share during the .com heyday, to it’s current price under $3 a share, it’s fair to say that the last decade hasn’t been very kind to Primedia investors. Despite their past performance though (and huge question marks about the ad market), there’s still life in this old dog yet. Over the last 12 months, they’ve been able to pull in approximately $270 million in ad revenue and while this is less than what they earned in 2008, it does suggest that their revenues are starting to stabilize. With an impressive portfolio of .com properties, once the ad market returns, Primedia is an a better position to recover than most.

Rentrak (Market Cap = $167.97 million Ticker: Rent) – DVD sales may be in a freefall, but Rentrak has done a good job of managing this decline. The company not only helps to distribute packaged media, but also sells industry data to the major studios. While on one hand, the current business trends would appear to be working against the firm, the decline in disc based media also makes that intelligence even more valuable. With the company trading at less than 2 times sales, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a firm like Nielsen try to buy them in an attempt to bolster their own portfolio.

Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory (Market Cap = $51.65 million Ticker: RMCF) – While this pick violates a rule I have about never investing in restaurants, I’m willing to make an exception when it comes to chocolate With $17.8 million in assets and only $3.7 million in debt, this small specialty retailer has a remarkably clean balance sheet. Sales may be down year over year, but thanks to a partnership with Cold Stone Creamery, there is potential for growth. Given the strength of their brand name, I could think of quite a few companies who would mind owning their brand.

Smith and Wesson (Market Cap = $235.94 million Ticker: SWHC) – Over the past two years Smith and Wesson investors probably feel like they’ve been shot in the gut. Despite revenue going through the roof, they’ve been sidelined by one blunder after another. With a messy balance sheet and company officials facing charges of bribery, this one may be dead on arrival, but with over $300 million in revenue and a terrific brand name I wouldn’t hesitate to take a second look once things get straightened out.

Sonic Solutions (Market Cap =$232.46 million Ticker: SNIC) – For a long time, Sonic seemed to be the little engine that just couldn’t. With a number of software products focused on digital media, success always seemed like it was just over the horizon, but delays from studio partners and the decline in demand for their DVD services put a crimp in their stock’s performance. After seeing a rebound of over 400% in 2009, investors may be setting themselves up for another disappointment, but recent agreements with Blockbuster Video and a successful stock underwriting late last year, have removed concerns about their near term future. While I still have doubts about their ability to execute, there’s no denying that the Roxio and CinemaNow brands have value.

SORL Auto Parts (Market Cap = $205.64 million Ticker: SORL) – Chinese companies always make me a bit nervous because it’s hard to trust their financials, but given China’s investment in infrastructure, there’s a lot of upside to the industry that SORL operates in. As a supplier of auto parts for Chinese trucks and buses, they’ve been immune to the issues facing the US auto sector. With assets representing more than 4 times their debt, they should be well positioned to capitalize on China’s own stimulus plan.

Spark Networks (Market Cap = $62.77 million Ticker: LOV) – Every since I made a bundle when IAC bought out UDate, I’ve been looking for an internet dating site to court. While I may have missed the bottom when it comes to Spark Networks, I’m still attracted to their business model. Revenue, net income and their member base have both been heading the wrong direction, but if their new Spark.com domain can take off, there’s still a lot to love.

SRS Labs (Market Cap = $98.73 million Ticker: SRSL) – Compared to heavyweights like Dolby, SRS is a 98 pound weakling in the audio technology industry, but don’t let their size fool you about the quality of their technology. Recently the company announced that their partners have shipped over 30 million certified TruVolume devices. Perhaps even more impressive though is that the company operates at 99% gross margins. With their technology able to prevent the sound fluctuations between your programs and commercial breaks, I see a bright future ahead. When you also consider that the company has over $50 million in assets and less than $3.5 million in debt, I think it’s a steal at their current valuation.

Stamps.com (Market Cap = $140.77 million Ticker: STMP) – Over the last few years, Stamps.com’s revenue has been more or less stagnant, but with limited competitors they should be able to maintain a pretty good hold on their niche market. With the recent growth in home based businesses, the company is poised to capitalize on FedEx’s losses. With a balance sheet heavy on assets and light on liabilities all it would take is a dividend or a share buyback to make this stock attractive.

I’d argue that this is because of the monopolies that surround most major professional sports, but it may also have something to do with the temptation to release a new game every single year. After being burned too many times, I did finally cut my upgrade cycle from every year to once every 2 or 3 years, but even with less frequent purchases I still notice that there are pieces of each game that seems to be endlessly recycled year after year after year.

Specifically, I’m talking about the commentary in EA Sports games. Whether you’re playing NBA Live or John Madden football, having live commentators lends a certain amount of realism to the experience. Sure, their puns are cheesy and sometimes there are glitches where they’ll tell you how bad you did on a great play, but overall I enjoy having someone critique my every press of a button.

The problem is though, that after you’ve played a few games, you start to hit repeat commentary and what was once cute and funny quickly becomes annoying. If EA provided entirely new commentary with each new version of the game, this would be less obnoxious, but in recent years they’ve added almost zero new commentary and just continue to repeat the same tired expressions from past versions of their games.

While I understand that there are limitations to how much content can be put on a disc and financial considerations over how much time these famous celebs can spend in a sound studio, I do think that EA is missing out on an extremely lucrative market.

Just like people are willing to purchase ring tones to customize their cell phones, I bet that sport franchise customers would happily pay a dollar or two to get their favorite commentators “in the game”. As someone who grew up watching the Lakers play, I’d be thrilled to hear some of of Chickisms that legendary sport commentator Chick Hearn used to say. Even though Chick has passed away, it wouldn’t be hard for his estate to use some of his in-game footage to re-introduce expressions like the Dime Store score or Leapin’ Lena to an entirely new generation of sports fans.

Better yet, EA could set up some kind of an online locker, where fans of the game could share their own commentary and use people’s own social networks to give us a reason to upgrade. When I was in school, I had a friend of mine who’d say “that was slammin” everytime we played and while this expression would get old if John Madden used it, I’d pay real money to hear my friend sitting next to me while I played. This could also be a good avenue for the professional players to extend their own brand. Whether it’s Shaq talking smack about Kobe or Darth Vader calling plays for John Madden, the creativity would be endless.

From EA’s perspective, they could not only use these updates as a source of revenue, but it would also give their customers a reason to buy more games. By allowing customers to make free updates over the course of a season, it would provide a strong incentive to always have the latest copy. It would also make some of the personalization even more meaningful.

It’s great that I can create a superstar player that looks like me (even if I’m not 6′5″ with one percent body fat), but how much fun is it when the game calls out “great basket by number 35″, instead of pronouncing Freeberg as my last name? Given how small audio files actually are, there shouldn’t be any technical difficulties associated with implementing this type of system. While the repetition from in-game commentary might not be noticeable to the control groups who are testing EA’s games for an hour or two, for long time fans like myself it’s a great feature that becomes irritating the longer you play. Instead of creating a product that causes less satisfaction over time, EA should be using dynamic sports commentary to improve how their games age.

With consumers clearly wanting to access content online, one would think that HBO would be the first in line to embrace this trend, but because of their status quo, they’ve chosen to fight progress instead of helping to usher in the digital age.

Over the last two years, a group of digital and traditional media companies have formed an impressive collective known as the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE). This diverse group of firms includes firms ranging in diversity from Sony to DivX. While each company has their own agenda, the goal of the group is to try and create a media framework that allows consumers to purchase downloadable media and to play it on a wide range of consumer electronic devices.

While I do think that there are some problems with their proposed implementation, I’m also pragmatic enough to see this consortium as our best chance of furthering the internet video revolution. To date, media companies have fought digitization tooth and nail, but this co-op between Hollywood and the Silicon Valley could create an environment where more new release content is made available to the public.

Anyone whose used Netflix’s Watch Instantly program knows that there is a ton of content from the 1980’s, but very few titles from the last decade. One of the biggest reasons for this, is that companies like HBO have used their vast financial resources to outbid them and other digital players for these films. With studios scared to death of upsetting deep pocket partners like HBO, it’s created an environment where consumers must either pirate recent content, set an appointment to see TV or stick to watching it on a disc.

While, HBO has made some of their content available through Comcast’s TV anywhere initiative, it’s only includes their weakest titles and you must be a cable subscriber to get access to the content. Contrast this to Showtime’s digital experiments and it’s clear that HBO is standing in the way of progress.

Like Netflix’s Watch Instantly platform, DECE has proposed a system where consumers can store their media content in the cloud and then stream it whenever (and more importantly wherever) they want to view the film. Yet, according to the industry trade publication, The Wrap (via Inside Redbox), HBO isn’t a fan of this system and is actively trying to block it’s implementation. Since they insist on legal language in their contracts that prevent consumers from accessing digital content while it’s playing on their channel, it’s possible that you could purchase a film and then be blocked from seeing it while it’s playing on HBO.

Imagine paying a steep premium to see a recently released film and then being told that you can’t watch it on certain dates, just because HBO is afraid that you might not subscribe to their channel. Clearly, this isn’t in the interests of consumers and yet HBO is using their financial resources to try and create this very scenario.

“Paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year for output deals with Warner, Fox and Universal, HBO currently restricts these studios from distributing their films digitally during its exclusive pay-TV window. Typically, that window starts six months after a film debuts on DVD and extends for 18 months. It already has presented itself as a challenge for established download sellers including iTunes and Netflix.”

HBO is free to run their business anyway that they like, but I believe that policies that are downright hostile to consumers should not go unpunished. Because of this, I’m asking HBO subscribers to call your cable company and cancel the channel. I know that this may mean giving up some great content, but if HBO starts to feel the sting from a consumer backlash, perhaps they’ll rethink their position and start to embrace the digital revolution. Currently, only 3% of the entertainment industry’s revenue come from online, but if just 3% of HBO’s subscribers were to cancel service, it would have a profound effect on the company’s profitability.

For too long, consumers have been abused by these exclusivity agreements and if you sit back and allow them to walk all over you, then you’re only part of the problem. Instead of rewarding an outdated analog business model, we need to be demanding that studios and their partners join the 21st century and make their content available online.

I may have less brand loyalty to any one particular publication, but thanks to the magic of Google, it’s a lot easier to find a diverse set of opinions on topics that I care about. For the most part, I think that Google is the best thing since sliced bread, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t improve their product.

As the media landscape has gotten more competitive, I’ve noticed that publications are becoming increasingly aggressive at trying to monetize the eyeballs that they do get. This really started with the pop-up ad, but after the web browsers figured out how to turn this control over to the users, news companies seem to have switched tactics.

The latest trend is to insert an interstitial ad between you and the content. Usually, there’s some tiny link where you can bypass it or it auto-forwards after 30 seconds, but anytime I’m forced to watch an ad before knowing how good or bad the content actually is, it creates a lot of frustration with my web experience.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually a strong supporter of smart and innovative ways that advertisers can bring their messages to the public and I’m happier than most to support newspapers who are creating great content, but with so much bad content out there, I don’t feel that consumers should be forced to roll the dice, when there’s no payoff on the other end.

I could probably list a dozen major companies who are offenders, but my biggest beef is actually with Google. If I know that someone uses this type of aggressive advertising, it’s easy to quit visiting their site, but because Google is indexing billions of web pages, there’s no way to know which link is going to take me to real content and which link will take me to an ad.

As an example, if you search for the phrase “hardware spec for Microsoft’s pink phone” the first result is a story by ZDnet showing the first line of the blog post, but if you actually click on that link, it takes you to a page that is missing the content and only displays an ad instead. If you wait long enough you will be forwarded to the right destination, but isn’t this false advertising on behalf of Google?

If they know that someone’s browser is going to be hijacked, then why are they taking you to a different page instead. It’d be one thing if Google was trying to actively stop the process, but they’re actually helping publishers create more of these roadblocks on the web.

While Google is free to advertise (or link to anyone) that that they see fit, they should realize that this harms their own user experience while benefiting no one but spammy news publications. If a company like Bing or Ask.com were to come out with an interstitial ban, it would take me about a half a second to change my default search engine. It may be that this isn’t seen as a big enough annoyance to do anything about or it could be too late and is considered an industry standard now, but to show one search result and then take a user to an entirely different page (albeit temporarily) feels an awful lot like a bait and switch tactic to me. What do you think, would Google be better off banning these ads from their search results or is content from newspapers so valuable that it would do more harm than good to blackball offenders like Forbes and ZDNet?

When e-commerce started to become a reality, some were nervous about trying new companies online, but I had no reservations about being one of the first ones in online. While I still miss my Webvan and Kozmo.com deliveries, no one can say that I didn’t do my part to support the shift from bricks to clicks. Given my preference for the online experience, it would be easy to conclude that for traditional retailers, I’m a lost cause. Yet, recently I’ve been thinking a lot about one of the biggest weaknesses of the online experience. For as fast as all those ones and zeros move, when it comes to instant gratification, you still need to wait a few days to receive most purchases.

While I do tend to plan ahead, there are times where I’m willing to pay a premium to have something right away and while it’s easy to transport media over broadband connections, when it comes to physical goods, you typically have to wait for UPS or the post office to stop by. This is a huge advantage for traditional retailers, but it’s one that I don’t believe that they are leveraging enough. Certainly, they do their best to draw traffic into their stores, but if they want to court the internet generation, they’ll need to use technology to better highlight this advantage.

Recently, I was in the mood for a little bit of world domination, so I set my sights on a lengthy game of Axis and Allies. For those who aren’t familiar with the game, it’s a complex simulation of world war two that is a ton of fun and can take all night to play. While there are digital versions of the game, it can’t fully replicate the real world experience of the board game.

It may have only taken me 10 seconds to find a copy of the game online, but when it came to finding out which local retailers carried the game, it was almost impossible to find. After a half a dozen phone calls to all of the usual suspects, I finally tracked down a copy that was over 40 miles away

In this case, I was so motivated to play the game that night, that I begrudgingly made the long journey to get it that day. While real time search has seen huge improvements over just the last year alone, when it comes to searching retail inventory, it’s almost unheard of to be able to check availability before driving to a store (let alone to be able to get that information in real time.) Yet, many companies employ expensive sophisticated inventory management software, that allows them to know exactly what’s sitting on their shelves, what’s being delivered via truck and what needs to be ordered pronto, just so that it can be restocked in time.

Despite this wealth of information though, unless you’re an employee inside of one of these companies, the data more or less doesn’t exist to the public. While there may be some competitive reasons to keep sensitive inventory data out of the hands of the public, I think that retailers are missing a golden opportunity to use that real time inventory data to draw online adopters like myself, back into their real world stores.

In the case of my situation, I would have gladly paid 50% more for the game, if I could have found it within 10 miles. Instead of being to forced to compete by heavy discounting, local stores could compete using their greatest advantage, the instant gratification that the internet simply can’t provide.

While i don’t expect that we’ll see this void filled in the near term, I do think that the firms who sell real time inventory solutions could easily become the next Google, by negotiating to list their client’s information online. Not only would retailers be able to charge different prices based upon distance or availability, but they could allow consumers to reserve and purchase the item before they even got in their car. If one of these real time inventory firms could get just a handful of major players to participate, it wouldn’t take long before real time inventory software went from being an efficient. but expensive luxury to a lucrative revenue source for their clients.

Ten years ago, Blockbuster video was on top of the world. They didn’t know it at the time, but it was the golden age for the video store. After years of reminders to be kind and rewind, consumers were adopting DVD players en masse and needed a source for their entertainment needs. For better or worse that source was Blockbuster.

With the internet buzz hitting a fevered pitch, Blockbuster was already hard at work creating a digital strategy. Given their dominate position in the video store industry, they even flirted with the idea of buying a small internet start up named Netflix for a mere $50 million.

With the entertainment world seemingly in the palm of their hand, Blockbuster was positioned to make the jump to digital better than anyone, but over the last decade they’ve made a series of blunders that now threatens to bankrupt them today.

Yet, in looking at their rise and fall, it’s easy to make the quick assumption that their problems were a result of technological innovation, but the truth of the matter is that they have no one but themselves to blame for the weak position that they find themselves in today.

Of all their missteps, the biggest blunder was assuming $1 billion in debt, so that Viacom could collect an obscene dividend payment when they sold the company to a naive public. That debt now hangs over them like an albatross across their their neck and has caused them to lose pace with their unencumbered competitors.

With revenues in steep decline, it will only get harder and harder for Blockbuster to continue to meet their obligations under this debt. Without the firepower to compete on a level playing field, their situation will only get worse

With the precariousness of their position becoming increasingly clear, Blockbuster has done everything from paying a high price to refinance their debt to hiring a bankruptcy specialist to help salvage what is left of their business.

Yet, despite the clear and present danger of their situation, Blockbuster has continued to keep their head buried in the sand. Over the years, I’ve offered my fair share of suggestions criticism for how they could improve their business model, but we’re now at a point where a tourniquet won’t save them, they must do massive surgery and Stat!

In an effort to try and preserve a dying part of the entertainment industry, I present to you, my plan to save Blockbuster.

With the future looking pretty bleak for just about any video store, how can a company like Blockbuster save themselves? By sacrificing their media business in exchange for an opportunity to reinvent their retail business.

What I’m proposing would be tricky and the devil really would be in the details, but with the right execution, Blockbuster could shed their legacy of debt, future proof their business and position themselves to take market share, instead of losing it.

Essentially what they’d need to do is create a “good Blockbuster” and a “bad Blockbuster” to isolate their problems.

On one side you would have their DVD by mail program, their DVD kiosks and their digital business. On the other side, you would have Blockbuster’s traditional video store business that so many are quick to write off.

Together, the two businesses are slowly strangling Blockbuster, but split apart, they could free them from the impact of years of stagnation and ineptitude on their part. What I’m proposing is that they spin off their good assets and use that money to pay off their debt.

In the past, Blockbuster tried to launch an aggressive initiative to boost their DVD by mail program, but by doing so, they only ended up cannibalizing their in store customers. As a result, they’ve all but abandoned the program and have allowed their future to slip away.

If an independent Blockbuster.com doesn’t have to worry about that cannibalization, they could focus on going head to head against Netflix. They could create a subscription program for their kiosks that could offer value that Redbox couldn’t match. They could be price competitive without having to worry about their legacy stores. The result would be a smaller Blockbuster with less meaningful revenue, but it would represent profitable revenue instead of losses.

Neither Netflix nor Redbox would be able to offer DVD exchanges at the kiosk level and through the mail, but Blockbuster could capitalize on both strengths. Yes, the company would be a mere sapling in the larger entertainment industry, but Netflix was once a sapling and they’ve been able to grow into a very large oak.

From the video store side of the equation, Blockbuster could focus on what they do best, maximize cash flow while transitioning their stores into a new business. Whether that means turning their stores into modern day Starbucks or a replacement for the now defunct Circuit City, there are still plenty of opportunities for smart and nimble retailers.

To date, Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes has made this transition a priority for the company, but when they are forced to forgo tens of millions in capital expenditures, just so that they can service their debt, it limits how quickly they can make this jump. As a result, they continue to face pressure to close stores instead of turning them into cash flow producing machines.

Given all of the negative media attention, it may be hard to believe, but Blockbuster still does a ton of business. For the first 9 months of 2009, Blockbuster brought in over $1.9 BILLION in revenue. By comparison, Netflix brought in $1.22 billion during the same period. Yet, when you look at the differences in market capitalization, Netflix is over 20 times more valuable than Blockbuster.

Perhaps even more surprising is that Blockbuster would have turned a profit of $38.4 million during that 9 month period, had they been able to ignore their debt. Instead, that $38.4 million profit turned into a loss of $131.6 million for the company. Now you don’t need to have a Phd in math to know that losing over $100+ million per year starts to get expensive fast and perhaps even more damaging than the loss of the cash is the effect that these interest payments are having on their competitive ability.

Instead of being able to invest in their future, they’ve been forced to make cut backs. Instead of retrofitting their stores, they’ve been closing them instead. Instead of stepping up the marketing, they’ve been forced to dial back. The result is that more revenue shifts to Redbox and Netflix and their cost to acquire customers has plummeted. If this trend continues, you don’t need Dr. Doom to tell you that it will be curtains for Blockbuster. They must stop the bleeding and they must stop it now.

Now I know what you are thinking, if Blockbuster is a penny stock today, how are they going to come up with $1.6 billion to pay off their long and short term debt. Part of it comes from the assets that they are holding today. With $980 million in current assets, they should be able to keep a good chunk of their leverage in check. The remaining $620 million worth of debt would be paid off by spinning off their new media divisions.

According to the most recent data, Blockbuster currently has 1.6 million online subscribers. As of last September, they had deployed 1,000 kiosks, but were anticipating that they would have over 10,000 deployed by the end of 2010. While Blockbuster doesn’t break down their digital revenues, I think that it’s reasonable to suggest that this division would be worth anywhere between $25 – $75 million based on their market position and intellectual assets.

If you look at Netflix’s current valuation, it works out to be approximately $255 per subscriber. Assuming that you discount Blockbuster subscribers by 30%, it would value Blockbuster’s DVD by mail business at $285 million.

In February of 09′ Coinstar completed their purchase of Redbox at a valuation of approximately $350 million. At the time, Redbox had 12,500 kiosks suggesting a value of approximately $28,000 per kiosk. Assuming that Blockbuster can get to 10,000 kiosks, even at a 50% discount to what Coinstar paid at the bottom of the market, one could assume that this stake would be worth approximately $140 million without Blockbuster’s legacy stores or debt.

What these numbers suggest is that if Blockbuster were to do a spinoff, it’s easily conceivable that they could raise at least $500 million in the offering. Assuming that they start to market their DVD by mail and get it up to 2.5 million subscribers, it would value their new media business at approximately $660 million.

If they did the spin off in the form of a convertible bond, I believe that this number goes even higher, because bond investors could be given the option to return to their current position, if the spin off flopped.

While this sort of transaction would create a new competitor for Blockbuster Video, by getting rid of their debt, it would enable their stores to become profitable once again, which in turn would make it easier for Mr. Keyes to raise money for the marketing and store improvements that Blockbuster so desperately needs.

While I believe that this rescue plan could make Blockbuster competitive again, I don’t believe that their current management is willing to sell off their future, even if it means saving themselves. Despite all evidence of a dying industry, Keyes continues to insist that the video store is the cornerstone of what they do and has consistently defined Blockbuster’s competitive advantage as being able to offer entertainment across multiple channels. While it’s easy to point to Netflix and Redbox as the source of Blockbuster’s kryptonite, I believe that it is their own unwillingness to let go of the past that is preventing them from being a video superhero of the future. Only time will tell how indestructible they really are, but if they continue down the same path, they’ll end up as a mere footnote in the history of the entertainment industry.

When I called Comcast to inquire about the increase, they told me that instead of extending their “promo” deals like they have in the past, they would rather lose my business than extend my discounted rate. After much hand wringing, I finally decided to cut the cord and figured I could always go back.

Sure enough, less than one week after discontinuing my cable TV service, Comcast had a change of heart and sent out a 12 month promo offer bundled with internet. While the deal looked tempting, I didn’t want to keep trying to play musical chairs when it came to how much I paid for television and I didn’t particularly appreciate Comcast’s policy of screwing existing customers until you actually quit. At first, I tried going cold turkey and figured I’d have withdrawals, but much to my surprise, I found that I didn’t really miss cable TV all that much.

Thanks to sites like Netflix, Megavideo, Amazon and Hulu, it was easy to stay up to date via the laptop and with less distractions, I found that I was actually accomplishing a lot more in my life.

Over the holidays, it became clear that cable TV simply wasn’t offering a very good value for what they were providing. In the past, there’s been talk of allowing consumers to subscribe to channels a la carte, but Comcast has consistently resisted offering this to consumers. As much as my laptop provided a reasonable solution for finding content though, I still felt like I was missing out on the high definition experience that I had grown to love, so after the holidays were over, I purchased an Audiovox HDTVo antenna to see what kind of free OTA signals I could get.

In the past, I’ve seen plenty of negative reviews on HD antenna’s, so I half expected that I’d be taking the product back, but despite a few difficulties in getting it set up, I couldn’t be more pleased with the reception that I’m getting.

When I was a kid, we had a giant antenna mounted on top of our house. Not only was it ugly, but every time a storm blew in, we’d lose all reception. On the good days, we were lucky to get three channels and even then it was intermittent with static. While the price for OTA signals hasn’t changed any, technology sure has.

Not only did my Audiovox antenna allow me to pick up signals that were over 50 miles away from my house, but they provided the signals with incredible clarity. No static, no glitches, just pure high definition goodness. When you throw in the ability to time shift my programs with my TiVo, it creates a remarkable user experience.

In comparing my season passes from cable to post-cable, I found out that there are approximately 15 programs that I’m missing out on. Of those programs, 10 of them are available through Hulu or Netflix. While I do miss some of the Laker games that are broadcast on ESPN and some of the original programing on USA and TBS, with over 45 programs being recording each week, there is more than enough high quality content to keep me busy. If you throw in Netflix’s watch instantly integration via the TiVo, there are another 250 movies or shows that I’ve got waiting in my queue.

While my overall impression of the AudioVox HDTVo antenna was positive, there were a few drawbacks. While the antenna is fairly small, it does look a little obnoxious sitting on my roof. Because of the location of the broadcast towers, in order to capture the signals I could only install it on one side of my house. This makes it hard to camouflage from the neighbors and could present problems to those who live next to tall trees or buildings.

Another difficulty that I had was that the installation instructions were very poorly written. They referred you to web addresses that didn’t exist, didn’t provide the names of each part, but referenced the parts like you were supposed to already know what they were and when I first hooked it up to my TV, I couldn’t get any signals because by five year old HDTV did not include an HD receiver inside of it. Luckily, My HDTiVo did and was able to translate the signals perfectly. I also thought that the name HDTVo was a little bit deceptive and made it seem like this was a product designed specifically for TiVo. While I’m not sure that it would amount to a trademark violation, I do think that the way they’ve chosen to market the antenna could lead to a bit of confusion on the part of consumers.

Despite my frustration setting it up though, the final experience exceeded my expectations and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the product to anyone who are looking for a way to save money on their television. At $65, it takes about 5 weeks before it becomes cheaper than paying Comcast for lackluster service and when you consider that you can save over $600 in the first year that you use it, the savings can add up pretty quick.

That $600 could be spent on two movies a night from Redbox or a Blockbuster rental every other day and I’d still end up ahead. While antennas in the past may have been a disappointment, the new generation of digital antennas make it easy to cut the cord and make it awfully hard to justify the expense of pay television. I don’t expect that we’ll see everybody cancel their cable bill, but if enough people begin to take advantage of this type of equipment, hopefully we’ll see some of the cable companies begin to rethink their fee increases.

Recently, Paramount announced that they were going to be distributing content on USB sticks. At the time, they didn’t say what format it would be in and even on DivX’s conference call there was no mention of this realization of their strategic vision, but Electric Pig is reporting that the Paramount movies will in fact be encoded in DivX.

With only 20,000 memory sticks for sale and at a price of approximately $33 US, Paramount is still clearly in the testing phase, but the fact that they choose DivX demonstrates the clear advantage that DivX has over all of their other digital competitors. They have the only real solution for brick and mortar retailers.

If Paramount tried to do this with a proprietary solution, it wouldn’t work because it wouldn’t give them a way to get that movie to the television. They could try to do it with Apple, but Apple doesn’t have the same reach to the TV, especially in Europe where this is being launched.

To date, most of my thoughts on DivX’s courtship of Hollywood have centered on the futility of trying to win enough support, so that online retailers could adopt their technology for digital distribution. If you can’t get a Disney or UMG to license DivX’s format, it makes it tough for someone like Netflix or Blockbuster to use their codec even with the other 80% of the content owners on board.

The beauty of the USB distribution strategy is that they won’t need 100% industry support in order to move their plans forward. Shelf space is limited as is, all they need is for a single studio to want to take advantage of this and there will be more than enough titles to tempt you with while you are waiting in line at the cash register.

Now I know what many of you are thinking, movies on USB are pretty lame. When Paramount made their announcement, there were more than a few commenters who zinged them for being out of touch with current trends. While there’s no doubt that the world will go digital, I also realize that the major studios aren’t going to abandon the retail partners that deliver the majority of their profits each and every year. It may end up becoming super easy to buy movies straight from your home, but if you have millions of consumers visiting a store each day, you can bet that the studios will want to reach those customers where they are hanging out. The shelf space is too valuable to be abandoned.

DivX on USB also opens up new business models for the studios. Instead of selling three DVDs, they could package all the Godfather films on one stick to justify a higher price tag or they could offer an entire season of television on an 8GB stick instead. If a retailer can sell something for twice the price, they will take smaller margins from the studios for the larger transaction. With the studios under pressure to develop new revenue streams, this will be too tempting for them not to exploit.

There’s no doubt that DVD is moving to Blu-Ray, but DivX memory sticks allow their Hollywood partners to reach consumers who may not have upgraded to high def just yet. With the industry in a state of flux, being able to sell a device that can be read by any computer and over 200 million devices gives DivX broad reach when it comes to the world of disconnected playback.

Paramount may be approaching this market cautiously, but I think people have greatly underestimated the size and the impact that USB films will have. It may not be cutting edge technology, but there are too many powerful companies who need it to succeed for it to fail. At the birth of this industry, it’s encouraging to see Paramount actively supporting their partnership with DivX, instead of just taking a licensing payment and then ignoring what their technology can offer.

USB movies won’t necessarily solve DivX problems with their shifting business model, but it does underscore the significance of the platform that DivX has built. As much as DivX is threatened by the obsolescence of the DVD, they can also benefit from the format shift. So far, they haven’t done a very good job of managing this transition, but this deal proves that even an old dog can learn new tricks. If retailers start asking for DivX as a weapon against Blockbuster and Netflix, other studios might also understand the benefits of using open and popular technology to make more money.

Over the next decade, it’s clear that things will improve, but I also worry that we’ll repeat some of the same mistakes. As the industry moves past early adopters and into the mainstream, it will have a profound change on the entertainment industry.

One of the biggest drivers of that mainstream adoption will be the rise of the internet television. A year ago, it was hard to find them outside of tech events, but television manufacturers have started to embrace the concept and now there’s at least a high end market for internet enabled TV sets. The New York Times, has a good article on this trend as well as some appropriate criticism,

“we’re still a long way from being able to order any movie we want to watch whenever we want to watch it. Film studios are loath to release what they perceive will be blockbuster DVDs for digital distribution, for example, until months after release, and there are many more held back by copyright issues and concerns about piracy. And even the movies you can rent digitally from Blockbuster or Amazon are often subject to the dreaded 24-hour window, which means if you don’t finish watching on the same day you started viewing it, you’ll have to pay an additional charge. Still, the option of streaming a movie from anywhere — Netflix, Amazon or whoever — is a major leap forward. It frees viewers from the yoke of the one-store-only approach taken by cable companies and products like Apple TV.”

While I agree that consumers are foolish to enter into one-store arrangements like AppleTV, I also don’t feel like any of the TV manufacturers have differentiated themselves with what they are offering. Whether you’re talking Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Sony, Mitsubishi, Sharp or Vizio all of them seem to be going after a small handful of Hollywood partners.

Don’t get me wrong, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster and Sony all have great content, but in such a tightly controlled eco-system, the consumer doesn’t really have very many options. If you don’t like a restrictive 24 hour window, then you just have to deal with it. There’s also a lot of content that isn’t available on these new services. Whether we’re talking new releases or material that is more appropriate for adult audiences, consumers can’t access it, without some kind of alternative device.

Limiting your audience makes sense if Hollywood is the one buying your televisions, but is a poor strategy to employ when you want consumers to buy your TV sets. At one point I had hoped that DivX would partner with one of the TV makers to give consumers more flexibility, but so far they have struck out when it comes to the connected television. I don’t know why the internet TV has been such a tough nut for DivX to crack, but I suspect that it has something to do with why they have been so hell bent on partnering with Hollywood. The sad part is that in order to win over these studio partners, DivX has already started to ignore their consumers.

Take for example, DivX’s recent acquisition of AnySource Media. Ideally, this software will accelerate DivX’s plans to the TV, but even if they are successful it doesn’t necessary mean that consumers will win. In an article for NewTeeVee, DivX CEO Kevin Hell said that “content partners of the new entity will not be required to offer video in the DivX format, and the platform will support a wide variety of codecs.”

If DivX is truly committed to being “a digital media company that enables consumers to enjoy a high-quality video experience across any kind of device”, then how could they even consider creating a device that doesn’t support the eco-system that their fans have built their entertainment system around? Making such a sacrifice may be seen as necessary, in order to get their piece of the connected television, but it would be self-destructive to their brand and only highlight the sacrifices that they seem willing to make just to be another me too provider of digital content.

Instead of partnering with Hollywood, DivX should be arming consumers so that they have the tools to force content owners to accept a digital revolution. How many TV sets could DivX sell, if they provided support for MegaVideo alone? With over 1% of all internet traffic, they get more hits then Amazon.com, let alone Amazon Video or what if DivX’s software supported free streams from any of the adult websites that regularly appear in the Alexa top 100 listings? People may not want to admit it, but the adult film industry is almost as large of the regular film industry. Samsung may not want to splash a XXX logo on the front of their TVs, but if DivX;) could offer this functionality, I guarantee you that there would be demand for it.

Getting down and dirty with copyright thieves and alternative content providers may not be DivX’s grand ambition, but I’d rather see them comprise their morals in this regard, then to see them knife their own customers and still not end up on any connected televisions. The development of the internet TV is an exciting chapter in the transition to digital, I just hope that consumers don’t get trampled on in the rush to fight over the same old content.

For the most part, the television world has been forced to accept reasonable restrictions in exchange for the public bandwidth they use to deliver their content. In the internet world though, the content rules are more like the old west because consumers are opting into the service by paying for it. As long as you have the quickest draw, your behavior doesn’t matter as much and so far companies like Netflix have been more concerned about digital market share, then doing what’s right.

Maybe this is because internet audiences are still small compared to television or it could be that it takes time for rules and standards to develop and emerging markets don’t tend to care about these things. Whatever the reason though, there are parts of the television experience that aren’t making the jump to the internet.

Specifically, I’m talking about closed caption data. For years, television studios have been legally required to provide this information, so that people who are hard of hearing can also enjoy the content. While there are some technical issues associated with adding this kind of data to a movie file, technology is at a point where it could easily support this. The Matroska container for example, is able to include optional sub-title information along with video and audio data. Alternatively, because online delivery can microstream to people, files with the embedded sub-titles could made available to viewers who opted into them. This would involve keeping multiple copies of the same movies though and so far the digital movie industry hasn’t wanted to bear this cost.

While I’m loathe to suggest new regulations on a burgeoning industry, I also feel like we have a responsibility to consider the needs of everyone. It costs companies extra money to include wheel chair ramps at their physical locations, but we pay for that as a society because we want to treat everyone as equally as we can. As the traditional line between telecommunications and entertainment becomes blurred, it’s important that we don’t leave behind those less fortunate in life. Having a law that requires subtitles in order to qualify for DRM legal protections wouldn’t be popular with the entertainment industry, but it would fill a void that the market isn’t interested in addressing. Personally, I don’t know whether or not I’d actually support a legal mandate for firms like Netflix, Amazon and Apple to require this data, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue.

Update – Interestingly enough, I found out that the FTC is actually hosting a hearing (not sure if there was a pun intended) on this topic on Friday Nov. 6. It sounds like the entertainment industry’s position may not be represented, but they will have several prominent members of the deaf community weigh in on the topic. The event will run from 9am – 1pm EST and will be broadcast on the web at the FTC’s website.

“With a set of millions of users, they identify viewing patterns and can predict with certainty how receptive you might be to one television program given that you voluntarily watch some other one. What’s interesting is their business model. Instead of selling the clean data back to the networks like we’d expect, they go back and ask, for example, “How many viewers would you like us to deliver to Mad Men?” Then they take the network’s own marketing assets, like a 15-second trailer, buy commercial slots on other networks, and target the viewers of specific shows who they know will be receptive to Mad Men. In turn, they get paid for the uptick they promised.”

Secret Enemy Hideout calls Simulmedia a new media bounty hunter and as DVR data matures, I expect that the media bounty hunter industry will be a burgeoning one. By having a more intimate understanding of an audience, many different types of advertisers will become increasingly more efficient at extracting value from their ad spend. With billions of dollars a year being spent on television ads, the stakes are huge and while TiVo may not end up being a pariah to the advertisers that can feast off this info, these sorts of bounty hunters certainly won’t endear them to studios. From the studio’s perspective, it’s bad enough that their technology is having a huge disruptive impact on the 30 second commercial, but now TiVo is teaching the studio’s best customers how to get the same exposure by spending less money. As TiVo makes it more and more efficient for marketers, it will take money that is being wasted on the studios and transfer it into the pockets of the companies advertising. Ultimately, this means that ads end up being a lot more relevant to the consumer, but it will also represent a new challenge for the studios to wrestle with, amidst the broader changes brought on by digitization.

It’s hard to believe, but it’s been almost five years since I wrote my first blog post on Thomas Hawk’s digital connection. Since then, the internet has changed almost as much as it did in the previous five years, but I’m still having fun sharing my thoughts with others online. While I normally write about other people’s ventures (I’m just not that interesting) I did want to take a moment to share a piece of my life with you.

When the Hawk first started to recruit me to write articles for his site, I was a little bit reluctant. Part of it had to do with a lack of interest in creative writing on my part, but a large part of it had to do with my not wanting to take center stage in front of so many people. You wouldn’t know it if you met me in person, but deep down inside I tend to be shy and don’t particularly care for the spotlight.

To help overcome my stage fright, Thomas Hawk suggested that I publish under a pen name instead of mixing business with pleasure. Since I share my legal name with a celebrity, my chances of being heard above the fan posts were slim to none anyway. When picking a pen name, I wanted something that reflected a part of me, but had never been used on the internet before.

Ten years ago to the day, I was finishing up my final semester in college and was taking a course on entrepreneurism. I must of have saved the best for last because unlike some of my more stuffy classes, this one really connected with me. At the time, the internet bubble was still inflating and .com madness was everywhere, but even before we saw the wealth creation of the 90’s, I always knew that I wanted to start my own business.

One of the projects for my class was to create a business and to try and raise funding for it. After many late night brainstorming sessions, our team finally settled on the idea of an MP3 car radio. At the time, Napster was just taking off and while most people over the age of 30 hadn’t heard of an mp3 yet, I knew that it would be the format of choice to replace the CD. With limited hardware supporting MP3s, we felt that there was a large market opportunity for the first company to build an MP3 car radio.

Immediately, we set out to build a prototype and was lucky enough to attract top tier tech talent to our team. We also assembled an out of this world advisory board to help and started putting together a business plan. By the time we were done, we had a great idea, but lacked the experience to actually make it take off. At the time, I remember thinking if I had only been born ten years earlier, it would have been a lot easier to raise financing. We did enter our business plan into several competitions (and performed quite well I might add), but overcoming the challenges of educating investors on MP3 technology, ultimately proved too tough for a scrappy group of college seniors.

I remember one meeting where an investor who had never heard of the MP3, told us that we were foolish to try and take on the compact disc. He had asked us why we thought we could compete against Sony as a startup. When we pointed out Sony’s reluctance to embrace the technology because of their studio business, he just kind of rolled his eyes and told us that if the format was any good, it would only be a matter of time. As it turns out he was right in a way, but Sony ended up waiting too long and lost their walkman franchise to Apple’s iPod.

Since then, the MP3 has become the de facto standard of choice and while there are plenty of mp3 players and other devices, there still isn’t a lot of choice when it comes to the MP3 car radio market. Maybe we were ahead of our time or maybe we simply lacked the experience to create something this big, but whatever the reason, our business never got the funding and eventually became a fond memory.

Since this experience had such a profound affect on my life, when trying to come up with a pen name, I wanted to use something that referred to the original idea. Since the name of our business was Discfree, Davis Freeberg was born. Before hitting publish on my first post, Google said that there were 0 search entries for the term “Davis Freeberg.” Today, there are 105,000 references. While it’s probably too late for me to go back and be the first to create an MP3 car radio, the entrepreneurial spirit that was discovered during the project has carried over to this very day.

Eventually, I set up a business on my own and am living out my dream from ten years ago, even if the details are different than I imagined them at the time. As a way of thanking all of the great readers who’ve stopped by my site over the last five years, I wanted to share a copy of my original business plan with you. I’ve removed some of the details to protect the anonymity of my partners, but it should give you a good idea for what we were trying to build.

In retrospect, I think that our numbers were a bit aggressive (what startup isn’t?) and that we were asking for too little money given the equity that we were prepared to give an angel investor, but the idea was solid and had we moved forward with our team, I think we could have at least made a run with it. While Discfree won’t ever become the business that I had hoped it would be, I am pleased to see Davis continue the dream, even if it’s in a different form. Thanks for making the last five years a truly remarkable experience for me and I hope you enjoy the sneak peak at what Davis was blogging before he even knew what blogging was.

Just in case you think Blockbuster’s problems are isolated to a declining video store industry, I’d encourage you to take a closer look at their latest 10-Q filing. Despite there being clear growth in the DVD by mail category, Blockbuster is hemorrhaging subscribers. In fact, the percentage of people giving up on their by mail service is almost as high as the percentage of people giving up on their video stores. According to their 10-Q,

“Rental revenues decreased mainly as a result of: a $76.3 million decrease in by-mail revenues driven by a 30% average decline in by-mail subscribers, which was more than offset by related cost reductions described below under “Domestic—Gross profit;”

At one point in early 2007, Blockbuster had the pedal on the metal and was boasting of having close to 3 million subscribers. Since then, they’ve been understandably quiet, but I had no idea things were this bad until I read their most recent filing.

After piecing through other filings, I was able to come up with an estimate of 1 – 1.25 million current subs.

Here’s the math for those playing at home.

At the end of 2006, Blockbuster had 2.2 million subscribers and had brought in approximately $250 million in revenue. By the end of 07′, they were flirting with 3 million subs and had $525 million in DVD-by-mail revenue.

From a historical standpoint, this tells us that Blockbuster’s subscribers tend to average between $9.49 – $14.60 per month, but these figures are a bit skewed by their total access efforts. Since most of their subscriber gains were added at the end of 06′ and the beginning of 07′, it pushes both numbers to an extreme. Their actual monthly average is probably closer to somewhere in the middle.

By comparison, Netflix subscribers were averaging $12.84 per month as of their most recent quarter.

The information that Blockbuster discloses doesn’t allow us to get at an exact figure, but if we also dig through past filings, there is more than enough info to extrapolate a reasonable estimate for their current number of subs.

In December of 2006, they had just passed 2.2 million subscribers. Two months later, they were predicting that they’d be at 3 million subscribers by March 07′

A year later the first sign of trouble shows up when they disclosed that they saw “significant” subscriber losses after pulling total access in 07′. If we assume that 20% of their subscribers left after they cancelled the free in-store exchanges, it would bring you to an estimate of 2.4 million subscribers for midway through 07′.

By Oct 08′, Blockbuster admits that their by mail revenues decreased another 21.5%, so if you subtract another 500,000 subs you get a total of 1.9 million from 9 months ago.

Since we know that they’ve lost 30% of their subscribers over the last 12 months, it gives us an estimate of 1.3 million subscribers today. With some of these number being moving targets, I wanted to check to my math to see how reasonable this guess was and I actually think it’s a tad high. If you take a look at their most recent by-mail revenue number, it suggests that the total is slightly lower.

Since Blockbuster has plans that range from $9 – $17 per month, it gives us a range to consider. If a decline of $76 million represents 30%, it would suggest that they are currently earning $14.8 million per month from by mail subscribers.

If we assume that 100% of them were $9 per months subs, it would mean that the maximum number of subscribers that they could have at this point would be 1.64 million and if 100% of the subscribers were paying $17 per month, it would peg the minimum size of their subscriber base at 870,000.

Since $12 – $14 is a more reasonable estimate for what the average Blockbuster by mail subscriber pays each month, it gives us a ball park range of 1 – 1.25 million current subscribers.

I wasn’t surprised to see a drop in subscribers right after Blockbuster abandoned their total access plans, but to see them drop below TA levels has to be concerning for Blockbuster Execs. This is the one part of the company that should be firing on all cylinders, but clearly Netflix’s Watch Now service has been poaching their members.

Blockbuster may have put up a good fight in the DVD wars, but with nearly 10 times the number subscribers, Netflix is now threatening to do to them, what they did to Wal-mart’s DVD by mail program.

The smaller membership gets, the harder and harder it will become for Blockbuster to run their by-mail program at a profit. They could always raise prices, but that would only lead to additional defections. With Blockbuster on the ropes, don’t be surprised to see Netflix maintain the price war for another 12 months while they wait for Blockbuster’s bond owners to take control of the company.

In the meantime, this data only highlights the fact that Blockbuster’s problems aren’t because of a lack of opportunities, it’s an issue with their execution.

Anyone who has paid attention to digital distribution knows that P2P is a popular way for people to download content, but how popular it is may surprise more than just angry content owners. Last June, Futuresource Consulting released the results of an in depth survey called “Living With Digital: Consumer Insights into Entertainment Consumption” which examined legitimate and illegitimate video usage in the UK, France, Germany and the USA and came up with some pretty interesting data.

According to their survey’s, 8% of consumers in these countries have admitted to using p2p in order to get content.

With these countries representing approximately 500 million of the 6+ billion global population, it would mean that approximately 40 million people are participating in illegal downloading in just these four countries alone.

In France, where the p2p movement initially got started, as many as 25% of the population admits to downloading illegal content. What is so amazing about this statistic is that it stands in stark contrast to the draconian rules that the French government has tried to impose on their citizens. How elected officials think they can get away with making behavior a crime that one out of four is engaging in, I’ll never understand, but there does seem to be strong political support for banning downloaders from the net.

If you’re a content owner not all hope is lost. Some are taking advantage of this huge audience by encouraging them to share their films with friends, while others are finding that if they put their content online at a reasonable price, plenty of consumers don’t have a problem with paying for it. In fact, according to Futuresource’s report, 48 – 65% of residents in the respective countries mentioned that they watch TV sometimes or a lot on their PC or laptop. This would suggest that as many as 200 -300 million people in these countries are consuming legal internet content.

With more and more people turning to their computer as a television, the popularity of P2P will have a profound effect on video. Already we’ve seen content starting to become more bite sized for the web and smart producers turning towards alternative distribution systems to get their films out there. Competing in a world where you don’t control the entire chain of distribution may be scary for the big studios, but for small independent films, this rabid 8% could be your biggest source of marketing for your film.