The BBC iPlayer

The BBC iPlayer has grown in both usability and popularity since its launch over two years ago. It’s now a must-use service for all residents in the U.K. and those outside of the U.K. who have found a way to circumvent the geo-blocking.

The man now overseeing the iPlayer as part of his job as the BBC’s director of Future Media and Technology is Erik Huggers. And he recently spoke to The Telegraph about the future of the iPlayer at the Changing Media Summit 2010.

iPlayer 3.0

The iPlayer 3.0 beta is set to launch soon. And it will bring integration with various social networking sites to the TV on-demand service. Deals with Facebook, Twitter, and Bebo are already in place, with more sure to follow.

IPlayer users will be asked to integrate their accounts with the BBC site. Them every time they sign in and use the iPlayer, they will also be connected to the social networks they use. This will enable them to see what their friends are watching or listening to, and vice versa.

The only other feature of the new-look iPlayer discussed was a new embeddable video player being rolled out across the whole of the BBC’s online presence. So, online video is clearly at the very heart of the larger BBC Web redesign.

Social Networking

It could be argued that the BBC is playing catchup in offering social network integration with the iPlayer, as social networking sites have grown phenomenally over the past couple of years, most notably Facebook and Twitter.

The effect this integration could have on viewing figures cannot be underestimated. Social networking sites are known to drive traffic to external sites in a big way, and if your friends are watching a show you’ve maybe never even heard of, there’ll be a temptation to give it a try.

Record Viewing Figures

With that in mind, I suspect the iPlayer’s viewing figures are going to continue growing, as they have been all along.

The iPlayer hit the 100 million requests milestone in December 2009, but February saw that figure increase to more than 116 million. That’s a whopping 81% year-on-year increase.

Related Ad

Buy ‘The Social Networking Toolkit for Business’ on Amazon

Google’s YouTube

Google acquired YouTube for a whopping $1.65 billion in October 2006, just 18 months after the domain name was registered. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has since stated he thinks the company paid way over the odds for the startup, but that it was a necessary purchase.

What Google got was a YouTube that’s very different than the one we see today. Piracy was still rife, with unauthorized clips all over the site. Although these were eventually removed it took a lot longer than it does these days.

YouTube Revenue

YouTube has likely never made money for Google, at least if analysts’ previous attempts to estimate the incomings and outgoings of the company are to be believed.

However, according to MediaMemo, Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney has a different view. He estimates that YouTube made around $727 million in revenue in 2009, will make $945 million in 2010, and $1.1 billion in 2011.

He doesn’t mention the expenses YouTube carries with it, which are likely to be vast. However, with those sorts of revenues there’s a strong chance that YouTube is either already turning, or about to turn, a profit for Google.

Mahaney’s methodology was simple: transpose MySpace’s revenue-to-page view ratio with YouTube’s. Which is hardly scientific but is as good a method as any with Google continuing to keep official figures confidential.

Google Vs. Viacom

Today has also brought new news in the continuing legal battle between Google and Viacom. The latter sued the former for $1 billion in damages way back in 2007, alleging “massive intentional copyright infringement.”

Viacom’s complaint is that Google profited from the 160,000 unauthorized clips on the site before new methods were introduced to combat uploading of pirated video clips.

According to CNET, both sides are filing motions for summary judgment. In essence, this means that the talking is over with both sides now confident enough to put their case forward. It’s now up to the judge to decide the next course of action but the case is likely to come to a head very soon.

Hulu Loses Big Names

Two of the most popular shows on Hulu are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Unfortunately, neither will be available to watch on Hulu after March 9 as Viacom has decided in its infinite wisdom to pull all Comedy Central content from the site.

This is a big deal when you consider The Daily Show is only behind Lost and Family Guy in terms of the number of viewers it gains on Hulu. So if even those kinds of viewing figures aren’t making it worth Viacom’s while what about the less popular shows?

Hulu’s Big Problem

This sums Hulu’s problem up in a nutshell. While it’s the most popular TV catchup service on the Web in the U.S., it is wholly reliant on the networks and content creators for its product. If that disappears then Hulu is left with nothing to sell. Or at least no content to sell advertising against.

The same is true for any content aggregator, of course, but Hulu is slap-bang in the middle of an emerging market which could still evolve in a number of ways. And it could turn out that Hulu is crowded out of the market by initiatives such as TV Everywhere.

Viacom Threatens To Sue

For viewers this news won’t mean too much. Both shows will still be viewable online (in the U.S. only, naturally) on their own Web sites. However, the art of embedding is going to be affected.

While Hulu has the whole show and allows users to crop whichever section they want to, Comedy Central only makes certain clips available. Which is bound to lead to unauthorized clips being uploaded on sites such as YouTube.

The Hollywood Reporter quotes PR rep Tony Fox in saying, “My feeling is if (websites) are making money on our copyrighted content, then that is a problem.” he also answered, “Yes, we intend to do so,” when asked if Viacom will now target sites and bloggers who post clips from the shows in question.

Ars Technica got spun a different story, but it’s clear the company will be closely monitoring online video sites after The Daily Show and The Colbert report are removed from Hulu.

Conclusions

Viacom and Hulu were reportedly discussing a deal right up until the last minute, but one which pleased both sides couldn’t be found. My guess would be Viacom was after a bigger slice of the revenue pie, and Hulu cannot really afford to give up any more at this time.

Maybe when Hulu starts charging Viacom will have a change of heart. In fact, I’d suggest it’s inevitable.

Google Video Upload

In 2006, before Google acquired YouTube, a short video appeared on the now-defunct Google Video showing a disabled teenager being bullied by a group of his peers. One of the teenagers had uploaded the video, which remained on the site for a couple of months until complaints were received.

At that point, Google removed the video as fast as it could, and helped the Italian police track down the people responsible. The female uploader and several of her classmates were sentenced to 10 months community service.

That surely should have been the end of this sorry story, but it wasn’t.

Google Execs Charged

In July 2008, four Google executives were charged with criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All over a video that had nothing whatsoever to do with any of them. They merely worked for the company which hosted the video online.

Italian prosecutors then spent more than a year building a case against the quartet before the trial began in October 2009, with reports in November suggesting that jail time was being sought.

Google Execs Convicted

The verdict was announced this morning, and while all four of the men on trial were absolved of the defamation claim, three were convicted of bypassing Italian privacy laws.

The three convicted men, David Drummond, Peter Fleischer, and George Reyes have each received a suspended six-month sentence.

Google has responded to this verdict and sentencing in a vitriolic blog post, stating:

“In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload.”

“It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming.”

And I have to agree. This verdict is complete nonsense and would appear to go against established European Union laws which state that companies hosting content have a safe harbor so long as content found to be illegal is removed upon request. Which it clearly was in this case.

The Future For YouTube?

This verdict, if upheld on appeal, could be very serious for Google, YouTube, and all content-hosting companies in Italy, Europe, and beyond. As it implies they are responsible for the content being uploaded at all time, no matter what action is taken after the event.

For YouTube specifically, this kind of case could only be prevented in the future by all UGC videos being moderated before they appear on the site. Which, with 20 hours of video uploaded every minute worldwide, would be a near-impossible task.

YouTube Video Rentals

YouTube signaled its intent to start charging for some videos last September, with rumors of a movie rental service priced at $3.99-a-film emerging.

The trail then went cold until January of this year when YouTube officially released the first five offerings under the new service. Until then, the service had merely been trialled by Google employees.

Sundance Film Festival Trial

The first offerings were The Cove, Bass Ackwards, One Too Many Mornings, Homewrecker, and Children of Invention, all independent films from the 2010 Sundance Film Festival which would otherwise have struggled to find an audience.

The trial ended when the festival did, and the total revenue brought in by the trial was $10,709.16. This isn’t a huge amount of money, especially for a site as popular as YouTube or a company as big as Google.

But it was a good enough start to justify an expansion of the service, proving that should the right content, and a fair amount of it, be made available that it could prove to be another way of bringing in revenue to YouTube. Which, lest we forget, has yet to turn a profit.

Expanding The Library

NewTeeVee now reports that YouTube has expanded the service to include more videos, more content providers, and a greater variation of genres. Rather than just independent filmmakers, genres such as sport, travel, cooking, and education are now also available.

Not that YouTube is publicizing the service yet. In fact, it’s all being rolled out very quietly and with no fanfare. Then again, the video rentals service is still in beta, and will likely be for some time to come.

Conclusions

YouTube obviously has high hopes that there’s a profitable future in offering video rentals, and not just in the form of movies. And I don’t doubt this is the case.

Although most people will still only use YouTube for the free UGC that is at its core, there is a significant proportion of people happy and willing to pay for content, if that content is what they’re seeking.

Related Ad

Purchase TV shows and movies from Amazon Video on Demand

Hulu U.S.

In the U.S., Hulu is doing phenomenally well. It hit the one billion video views in a month milestone in December 2009, bringing a great year to an even better close. And 2010 is likely to see traffic increase even more.

This year will also see Hulu likely experiment with a paid subscription model alongside its free model. However, Hulu is currently limited to the States, with those of use who reside outside America blocked from watching content.

What Hulu needs to do is move abroad and go international.

Hulu U.K.

Hulu has actually been trying to do exactly that for a while now. With the U.K. chosen as the testbed for a larger international roll-out.

In March 2009 it hired someone to oversee its international operations. And in May Hulu began negotiations with several British broadcasters and content providers. A September 2009 launch was envisioned, though that date came and went without anything happening.

An ITV deal was considered close in August yet Hulu was already extending its launch plan into 2010.

Talks Stall

According to The Telegraph, Hulu has now set its sights on June 2010 to launch in the U.K. But even that seems optimistic considering the state of negotiations with the main channels.

ITV is undergoing a “10 week strategic assessment” and will not be moving talks forward in that time. While Channel 4 and Five are balking at Hulu’s demand that it controls the sale of advertising around the broadcasters’ content.

Both want to be able to sell the advertising around their own content so that they control what advertising appears attached to their programs and retain the majority of the revenues generated. Hulu doesn’t think this will make a U.K. site a viable business for itself.

Competing With YouTube, SeeSaw

The problem Hulu has is one of timing. Channel 4 and Five have signed deals with YouTube and SeeSaw in the meantime, both of which allow them control of their own advertising inventory. Neither will want to give that control up to the new kid on the block.

The bigger problem is, of course, that Hulu has lost the chance to get Channel 4 and Five on an exclusive basis. And if the same content is going to be on the broadcasters own sites, YouTube, SeeSaw, and Hulu, it makes me wonder whether Hulu should even bother trying to get a foothold in the U.K.

Apple iPad

Apple’s head honcho Steve Jobs unveiled the long-anticipated iPad at the end of January. It’s a touchscreen tablet pitched somewhere between smartphones and notebook PCs. And it could change the way we consume digital media. Possibly.

Apple wants the iPad to become the device for media on the go. The screen makes it ideal for watching video, but there’s also gaming, e-books, and music which could be given a new lease of life from the iPad.

And it seems the content creators which Apple needs to partner with are coming round to the idea.

Hulu Without Flash?

One of the big problems with the iPad is the lack of Flash support. Apple and Adobe just don’t see eye-to-eye, and that could affect the iPad’s ability to stream video or display games. At least in the short term until HTML5 becomes dominant.

No Flash means no Hulu. Which is a shame because the iPad would be ideal for watching Hulu on the go.

But Hulu realizes this, and TechCrunch claims an industry insider as being confident Hulu is working on an iPad-friendly version of the site. With its videos already encoded in the H.264 standard, this wouldn’t actually be as difficult as first imagined.

The obvious advantage for Hulu would be the chance to charge for access through the iPad-friendly site. The company could either charge for the app or make it a subscription service, possibly only available to premium users when it likely switches to a pay model later this year.

99 Cent Shows

Even before the iPad was unveiled, we reported how Apple was seeking a deal with the big American TV networks to slash prices of episodes from the current $1.99 to just 99 cents. This would follow a similar deal with the music industry in 2003 and signal a coming of age for online video.

The FT is reporting that some of those TV networks are coming round to the idea, with the iPad playing a big part in their change of heart. If such a deal goes through then iTunes could corner the market in the same way it has done already with music downloads.

Conclusions

This is just the start of the deals we’re likely to see emerging in the run up to the launch of the iPad in two months time. If the Apple tablet is going to be as big as some analysts think then purveyors of video would be mad to miss out.

Related Ad

Purchase TV shows and movies from Apple iTunes

SeeSaw

SeeSaw is the service which has risen from the ashes of Project Kangaroo, an attempt to build a one-stop shop for all British TV catch-up services. And SeeSaw fulfills that original remit, drawing its content from the likes of the BBC, Channel 4, and Five.

Arqiva spent an estimated $8 million on the infrastructure for SeeSaw, and the company intends to turn a profit. That’s why although it’s currently a free, advertising-backed endeavor, the future will likely see paid-for options as well, possibly with international programming at its heart.

User Experience

Arqiva has taken the minimalist approach to online video. The colors are basic, the interface easy to navigate, the menu and program options simple enough for even a child to understand. Which is a good thing, and owes much to both the style of the iPlayer and Hulu.

The homepage currently displays a rolling carousel of content at the top, with ‘Catch Up TV’, ‘What’s New’, and ‘All-Star Casts’ sub-menus completing the line up. The latter is part of the offering that will change according to current events. So, SeeSaw’s editors will offer playlists of content that may appeal for a particular reason at a given time.

You can choose one of the shows on the homepage or navigate via a topbar listing categories (such as Comedy and Sport) and Channels (currently only BBC, 4oD, and Five).

Video Playback

Clicking on a show brings up the video, details of the chosen program, and further episodes if applicable. Navigating the site is quick, although that could change when more people begin using it after the full launch.

Starting the video means the pre-roll ads begin. There are typically two or three on each show. The quality of the video is brilliant, much better than seen on the MSN Video Player, and the option to choose from ‘Low’, ‘Medium’, and ‘High’ bandwidth settings is welcome.

Nothing Original

Watching content on the SeeSaw beta is a fine experience, but the problem is the content itself. The current offerings are a fraction of what you can get from the sources themselves, and there’s little reason (beyond the changing playlists) to choose SeeSaw over the source it’s drawing its content from.

SeeSaw has the ambition and the core components necessary to make it a great service. But as always content is key. Arqiva is no doubt busy behind the scenes forging new content deals to add to what is there already. But until they’re in place, SeeSaw is unnecessary in the big scheme of things.

Give it six months and a host of new content and then it may well be the service it promises to be.

The Present

At the present time, online video viewers are lucky. And I say that as one of them. Most video sites are free, with advertising (both text and video-based) paying the bills and ensuring we get to watch good content without having to pay.

What’s more, the advertising is nowhere near as intrusive or as frequent as it is on traditional television. There’s probably four times as much advertising on TV as there is on the Web, on average.

However, according to AdAge, that could soon be set to change.

The Future

Starting in September, Nielsen intends to unify its data collecting to include both TV and the Web. So the advertising attached to a particular show, whether it be online or off, will be noted. This may not seem important to us, the end consumers, but from February next year it will be.

That is when the data is expected to begin being used for advertising negotiations. And to make the data accurate for this purpose, shows broadcast online would have to show the same ads as when they’re shown on TV. Which will mean a significant ramping up of advertising against online video.

TV Vs. The Web

This is all part of the convergence which is happening between traditional TV and Web TV. More and more consumer electronics are Internet-enabled, and that means people have multiple options for watching TV other than the box in the corner.

Time Warner and Comcast’s ‘TV Everywhere’ is a reaction to that, giving consumers more viewing options while still retaining the ability to squeeze cable subscriptions out of people’s pockets. As TV and online video meld into one, more advertising is almost guaranteed.

Keeping It Free

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as advertising is the only way content is going to be made available for free in the future. There are only two options for media companies seeking to make a mint from the Web: a subscription paywall or enough advertising to keep the content free.

And I know which one I, and the majority of other people, would choose.

Conclusions

So I say increase the amount of advertising. So long as it coincides with a commitment to keeping the sites free and an increase in the amount of premium content which Web TV viewers are crying out for.

Related Ad

Buy ‘The Online Advertising Playbook’ on Amazon

Online Video Viewer Stats

Online video is showing no signs of slowing down in growth. As the latest comScore statistics for December 2009 show.

178 million Internet users in the U.S. watched online video during the last month of the decade. Which equates to almost 87 percent market penetration.

Between them they watched over 33 billion videos in December, or the equivalent of 187 videos each. The average length of video now stands at 4.1 minutes, up from 3.5 minutes around the same time last year.

YouTube Leading

As always, YouTube is leading the pack by quite a margin. 13 billion (40 percent) of the 33 billion video total were watched on the Google-owned site. The 136 million people who used YouTube averaged 97 videos per user.

With viewer numbers and loyalty like that it’s really no wonder Google is trying to shape YouTube into a site which can turn a profit, be it from movie rentals, a TV subscription service, or better advertising options.

Hulu Growing

Hulu ranks second again, as it has done for a while now. However, it’s a long way behind YouTube, with a 3 percent market share. Not that Hulu is complaining though, as it has broken the one billion videos barrier for the first time in its history.

Hulu is almost certainly to launch paid options this year, but it’s viewer numbers such as this which will ensure a free option always remains. Hulu would be mad to put all its content behind a paywall and lose that momentum at a stroke.

Conclusions

I cannot see anyone ever catching YouTube. The site continues to go from strength to strength, picking up new viewers, serving more videos than ever, and innovating to stay ahead of the chasing pack.

Online video as a whole is continuing its long march upwards. And that’s unlikely to stall anytime soon. The emerging tablet computer sector, as led by the Apple iPad, is promising to change the way we access media content, and that can only be good for Web video.