Why premium video content is at risk of becoming a simple commodity

March 2, 2012 - Leave a Response

The “Premium” of video content from major studios is quickly disappearing. First it was Netflix, then Hulu, and then came Amazon with its Prime Instant Video Service, and Comcast has followed suite with Streampix, which will be soon followed by Verizon’s strategic Redbox partnership…all services that offer access to thousands of hours of premium content viewing for a low monthly fee. Premium video content is becoming easier to access and as more services compete for the customer, the cost to access this content is rapidly decreasing.

But the real risk that can send the industry’s business model out the window remains Apple. A very lucrative part of the content industry’s revenues, premium TV rights, are at serious risk. If Apple succeeds in launching their own video streaming service, the market value of premium content will drop even more and content owners will quickly see their control of an important value chain disappear.

Here’s a very interesting read on the subject: Apple throws weight around in TV negotiations

The increasingly risky business of digital video distribution

August 15, 2011 - 12 Responses

Summary:

In this high level review of today’s legal digital video distribution business I discuss the issues with the current value chain, problems with content licensing, and why these will not support desperately needed long-term growth for the industry. Evidence is provided to support this view and, unless there are some significant changes in the industry, digital video distribution will be limited to a short-term upside for only certain market players. Confronted with the flawed download-to-own model, currently in crisis, digital players are also struggling with the rental model and they are negotiating themselves into major losses. Content owners are reaping the bulk of the benefits today, but this way of doing business is ultimately unsustainable for the entire value chain and it is only a matter of time before studios see their digital content revenues suffer. The current success of services such as Netflix can be deceiving, for many reasons highlighted in this post, and belief that such services will continue to prosper under current commercials ultimately sets flawed precedents for the market and puts its true potential at risk.

Main Post:

Through evidence collected from the market, and from personal experience, I will formulate a high level position on the state of today’s digital video distribution industry. In short, it is not looking very healthy for numerous reasons, but before discussing in more depth, let’s define some terminology. We can split premium digital video distribution into two main segments: Ownership (aka Electronic Sell Through, EST, or Download to Own, DTO) and Rental or Video On Demand (VoD). Globally, the EST business has been a disaster while the VoD segment has shown some promise. It is easy to view Netflix’s impressive growth, the “Hulu For Sale” sign and related asking price, and the numerous digital content deals being signed for hundreds of millions of dollars, as a sign of a healthy and growing industry; however, by looking at these companies and deals in more detail, piecing together the facts, and crunching some numbers, it quickly becomes apparent that there are some clear symptoms of a struggling industry.

Below are two excerpts from a Morgan Stanley Home Entertainment Industry paper dated July 16, 2009 (2 years ago). Although only addressing the US market, the below trends can be considered as relatively analogue in many developed European markets. These two “Debates” address both the sell-through and the rental businesses.

With perhaps a few exceptions, I believe it is safe to conclude that the EST model has been an overall disappointment so I will not provide much detail or specific evidence in this post. Morgan Stanley’s own assessment on the Sell-Through market, in my view, is still relatively on target, as-at 2011:

The continued increase of illegal “digital” sources (piracy), the inflexibility of legal copy DRM formats, and the higher than acceptable pricing points are all killing the digital sell-through business.  A recent article from the Financial Times does an excellent job of painting the picture of today’s EST market and the challenges facing Studios and distributors…but as Mitch Singer, President of the DECE consortium, states:  “EST isn’t dead … we just haven’t offered consumers something they want to collect yet…” and perhaps he is right, and a standardized and flexible solution such as Ultraviolet is the answer, but it is not so much a problem of technology as it is of attitude and outlook – and here is where I believe most of the changes are needed. Since much of these issues also relate to the VoD business, I will provide more detail further on in this post.

In another key debate, Morgan Stanley suggested that the rental model, including VoD, would essentially be Home Entertainment’s saviour. They took a Bearish view (as opposed to a Bullish one) on predicting the growth and impact of digital (both digital & VoD in the below exhibit) on the overall video rental market:

Morgan Stanley’s take on this is can be considered as a very “short-term” view. Yes, digital rental is beneficial for the content owners and this will remain the case short-term, but a healthy market depends also on the success of other value chain players, principally the distributors. And for the distributor, the short-term has already proven difficult in most cases and long-term is looking even worse. Although digital rental has shown more promise than digital ownership, it still has not met expectations. Excluding the US market, digital movie revenues in 2010 were $243 million according to Screen Digest. This is only a small fraction of the revenues generated today by both rental and retail of physical disks and assuming that this figure is reported by distributors (i.e., their revenues), my key question is this: Has the reported $243m covered the Minimum Revenue Guarantees (MRGs) often required by content owners (and paid in advance)? Even if it has, by what margin? These are delicate questions for distributors to answer and most likely they would never give a straight answer. So what does all this mean to the overall health of the digital distribution business? All players – not just distributors – should be concerned. Today’s pure (i.e., non subsidized by other services) digital premium content distribution business model is not making much “business” sense.

The significant growth and success of Subscription VoD (SVoD) services (e.g., Netflix), where individual title buy-rates are not applicable, has created an additional false sense of overall industry security. Granted, SVoD runs on a different business model than Transactional VoD (TVoD), and it can be considered as the future of VoD consumption bringing a real sense of “value for money” to the end-consumer (more details on this view here); however, what is often not considered is the fact that most SVoD services not only have similar content costs to TVoD businesses but, unlike most TVoD services, they have the added issue of no “higher margin” revenue streams, such as PayTV, internet, mobile, and fixed line subscriptions, to bundle with – Despite the rapid growth in SVoD subscriber numbers, most of these services still rely on their physical distribution business to remain profitable.

Something is clearly not right with today’s digital distribution value chain, and if you do some research, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence out there that suggests an imminent collapse of the business; unless the DNA of the business model and its value chain is revolutionize, that is. Below are some symptoms I’ve managed to identify of an unhealthy industry:

Netflix is setting itself up for trouble, primarily due to increased competition and rising content costs:

A recent in-depth financial analysis of Netflix provides numerous warning signs of a business that could very well fail long term. I believe that Netflix’s rising cost of content will not be supported by future subscription revenues. An analyst at Wedbush Securities, Michael Pachter, predicts Netflix’s streaming content licensing costs will rise from $180 million in 2010 to a whopping $1.98 billion in 2012 – Full article. Most likely, the quality of Service (and the end-consumer) will ultimately pay the price: Netflix’s current content deals probably have subscriber caps (limits) and once these are reached, Netflix will be forced to remove content from its service (unless it pays much more in content licensing fees). This ongoing business model issue is already impacting the Netflix customer, as they learned the hard way when hundreds of Sony Pictures movies vanished from their “Watch Now” menus in June of this year. Add an aging list of library titles on offer and the fact that there has been a high level of insider stock trading amongst Netflix Execs, and the signs rippling through the investor community are not positive.

Other similar SVoD (and Advertised-funded premium VoD) Services will follow suit:

Although the Googles and Amazons of the industry have much larger wallets to invest in content and higher margin businesses to lean on, they will quickly run into similar issues as those facing Netflix today. And the ultimate question will haunt them as well: Will future subscriber revenues be able to support the rising costs of running such services?

Amazon will soon be seeing its content costs soar. The recent CBS deal is a carbon copy of the Neflix deal and another deal with NBC Universal will cost them an additional fortune in licensing fees.

Once Hulu leaves the cushy womb of the content rich triad (ABC-Disney / NBC-Universal / News Corp.), it too will need to put up the cash currently demanded by major premium content owners to cover MRGs and it too will need to accept steep commercial conditions where over 50% (often 70%) of content revenues go back to the Licensors. Why else has Yahoo! stated that it will not consider buying Hulu, at its owners’ asking price, unless the Hollywood triad guarantees 4 to 5 years of exclusivity for its content? Full articleEven one of the most cash rich giants, Microsoft, has said no to a potential Hulu deal.

The high cost of content is not the only issue facing these services, as so clearly stated in a recent New York Times article on the fate of Hulu: Every legal digital video distribution service is “bound by contractual handcuffs that hamper prospective viewers…Viewers want more shows on more screens. But Hulu’s partners — the big networks — want steady profits.  And, for the moment, the networks seem to have the upper hand.” Full article And it is this exact conflict of interest between the distributor (who wants to provide the end consumer the best service possible, while still making “some” money) and the content owner (who wants to offset its dying physical format business with big revenues from digital) that is stunting the growth and true potential of the digital video distribution industry. It also promotes the use of illegal substitutes. “For all the innovation that Hulu represents, the site also lays bare the gulf between what online viewers want and what TV companies are willing to give them…CONVOLUTED and often outdated contracts for the rights to shows and channels are the single greatest impediment to the growth of TV on the Web, on Hulu and elsewhere.” Read my in-depth post on the real issues behind Piracy for more insights.

Most TVoD services aren’t achieving profitability or even breaking even:

Of the numerous TVoD businesses out there (Online, ADSL, Cable, ect.), I would bet that 95% of them never achieve breakeven or profitability. Studio imposed pricing levels are often too high to stimulate enough sales to make business cases work, not to mention the upfront revenue guarantees required to even get the content. Content ingestion costs and DRM restrictions are unnecessarily high. Digital versions of the same DVD or Blu-ray copy are inferior products, often with no subtitles and with limited language support, and the list of issues goes on…

Apple’s iTunes service is an exception, but it runs on a very different business model:  A) their business plan was never approved to make profit off content sales…content distribution is considered a marginal business to drive device sales so their business model favors the Licensors’ quest for the biggest piece of the revenue pie, B) they virtually guarantee Licensors high sales volumes (iTunes is one of the biggest digital content stores in terms of subscribers in the world), and C) I would bet that they don’t owe the content companies a single dollar in MRGs because Apple simply refuses to accept them. Similarly, a Telco often accepts to run a money losing TVoD element of their larger triple/quadruple play offer. They would view the cost of VoD content as a “necessary evil” to reduce the risk of churn and to ensure that their customers don’t seek this content through competition. Unfortunately, this sets a dangerously expensive standard and gives an inaccurate impression of the business. The TVoD business is viewed as a success story to numerous external constituents, including journalists and the general media. Every Digital TV service now has an extensive library of VoD titles for renting, and to the delight of content owners, acquiring VoD content rights has become a must have commodity. But the distributors’ actual business case performance, in most cases, tells a dismal story. With VoD buy rates not growing as expected, Telcos often find themselves constantly trying to renegotiate 3 to 5 year deals with content owners in a desperate attempt to reduce losses.

Up to now, the digital business has been good to content owners and this will probably remain the case in the short term. Unfortunately, their long term upside (if I were to predict one) is not good. And this is exactly where the problem lies. Currently, each player in the value chain is taking too short-term a view on their digital business: Content owners want to offset decreasing Home Entertainment and TV licensing revenues as quickly as possible; they want to maximize revenues upfront and lock key partners into getting use to paying a high price for their content. Distributors want to beat out competition with “first to market” services and innovations, easily giving into content owner demands. But this behaviour creates unsustainable game play conditions, which will ultimately impact the end-consumer.  Articles such as The Sale of Hulu is good news for the content business stimulate unhealthy presidents for the digital distribution business and they harbour short sighted strategies. This Modus Operandi has inflated the real market value of digital content rights, where the cost of this content is higher than the end consumer’s willingness to pay, and where distributors are often cushioning the true cost of content.

I predict that the laws of economics will eventually win, long term, and that the true value of digital rights will decrease significantly. With the long list of easy and cheaper alternatives to legal digital copies, including $1.50 Blu-ray New Release rentals from Redbox.com and the growing number of sophisticated illegal high quality digital sources, consumers will ultimately determine the success of digital video services. The sooner that distributors and content owners work harder together to improve the value chain into a mutually beneficial business, and the sooner a network of innovative, low cost, and 100% DRM flexible distribution services immerges, then the sooner they will save the entire business from failing. This, in my view, is what it will take for Digital Entertainment to achieve its true potential.

An Orange exclusive: follow the Cannes Film Festival live on Orange TV

May 12, 2011 - Leave a Response

 

At home on their PC, on their iPad or smartphone – Orange customers will be given the opportunity to follow the 64th Cannes Film Festival live on TV. Film fans will be able to watch the official Festival TV exclusively on Orange TV and find out everything about the movie stars and the festival. In addition, there’s a VIP package for 2 persons to be won.

The 64th Cannes Film Festival takes place from 11 to 22 May 2011 and is chaired by Robert de Niro. Orange has been a partner of the Cannes Film Festival for more than ten years, and since last year has also been a co-producer of the official Festival TV, which reports live daily and broadcasts numerous exclusive features regarding the event.

This partnership allows Orange to offer its clients exclusive access to the official Festival TV. This is also available to Swiss customers with an Orange TV subscription:

  • From May 11 at 6:30 pm to the evening of May 22 
  • Eight hours of live coverage every day and re-broadcast 
  • Supplemented by numerous background stories, interviews and film material on the films shown.

Cannes Festival live TV channels (in English and French) are included at no extra cost within Orange TV. Orange TV is available on smartphones, computers and on tablets for CHF 9.00 per month without a minimum contractual duration. Orange TV also gives access to over 50 TV channels, a 10-hour remote recording function, over 2,000 video clips, film trailers, and a comprehensive TV guide. Orange customers can access this world famous film festival on their mobile phone via m.orange.ch/tv, from computers and tablet PCs at www.orange.ch/tv.

Opportunity to win VIP packages for Cannes

For the duration of the festival, additional information about the event (including photos and videos) will be on available at www.orange.ch/tv . At the same time, film enthusiasts can enter a competition to win an exclusive VIP package for 2, which includes the following features:

  • Red carpet together with the film stars
  • Viewing of the film competition on May 19
  • Lunch, dinner, and breakfast
  • One night in a 5-star hotel (Hotel Martinez)
  • On-call Chauffeur

Customers can participate in this contest and get a chance to walk the stairs with the stars by simply signing up on www.orange.ch/cannesvip.

More information at: www.orange.ch/tv

One small step for Home Entertainment, one giant leap for the Entertainment Consumer

March 14, 2011 - One Response

The recent Jan 2011 launch of Orange Switzerland’s hybrid physical/digital home entertainment service, CineHome, has added yet another Video On Demand (VoD) product to the already crowded Swiss digital TV market – There are now 8 VoD services, which is quite an impressive number for such a small country. Until recently, only Swisscom TV, Cablecom, Acetrax, and Microsoft’s Xbox’s Zune were available, but 2010 saw the launch of Apple TV, Swiss TV, and DVDFly’s new MovieBox. So what makes Orange’s new CineHome product unique in the Swiss market? In addition to the combined Disc (DVD & Blu-Ray) mail order and VoD offering, CineHome includes what in my opinion is the killer concept that will revolutionize the consumer entertainment industry: Unlimited VoD, for a monthly subscription. Also known as Subscription Video on Demand (SVoD), this simple concept promises superior value to the end consumer. It is essentially Pay TV programming (block buster movies and TV Series) without the programming schedule. Premium content is accessible at any time, on demand, directly on the TV set; imagine catching up on the entire last season of Two and a Half Men before the new season airs on Pay TV, and doing a six film Harry Potter “movie marathon” before hitting the Cinema to catch the 7th and latest release in the Series. Include regularly refreshed content and you get the killer concept that will quickly replace today’s Pay TV and pay-per-view driven home entertainment experience. In CineHome’s case, there is no additional fee for SVoD; content is included in the basic monthly subscription under the WarnerTV brand. But CineHome is not a pure SVoD service, which generally includes only Library titles: most of CineHome’s content is very recent and still accessible on a transactional pay-per-view basis. Orange decided to add WarnerTV’s 100 to 130 hours (at any one time) of weekly and monthly refreshed Hollywood studio content including movies, TV Series, and Animated Series, at no additional cost to the end consumer. But, CineHome is not Orange’s first unlimited subscription based on demand service. In May, 2010, they launched Switzerland’s first and only unlimited Gaming service offering PC based game play across over 450 titles, for a single monthly fee. And with other products under development, Orange may quickly become Switzerland’s premiere entertainment provider.

Although new to Switzerland, SVoD is already proving to be a massive success in the US market. Netflix, is an excellent example of how unlimited access to digital content is the future. Initially founded as a subscription based physical disc mail order rental service, Netflix has quickly (and successfully) realized the potential of unlimited content packages whilst adding the important convenience of direct to TV VoD streaming. By offering their clientele access to an impressive catalogue of block-buster movies, on demand, with no limit to the number of films they can view during any given subscription month, Netflix has single handedly revolutionized America’s Home Entertainment business. And this has captured the public’s attention, propelling Netflix into a market leadership position among traditional and digital home entertainment services. In fact, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently stated that his company is “now primarily a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail.” The below figure is a snap shot of the trend that Netflix experienced between its physical (Disc) and digital:

This rapid growth in SVoD consumption (see WI views, which in 2011 are expected surpass declining disc rentals) caused a major shift in the company’s focus, spurring Netflix to increase investment on its now more popular SVoD service, and announcing its intentions to decommission its physical rental business. However, Netflix is far from being the only provider of SVoD content in the US market. Services such as Comcast’s Xfinity include unlimited free views of content within its basic introductory subscription (as does Orange CineHome); however, by browsing the Xfinity free view service, one quickly understands the limited offer compared to both CineHome and Netflix. But like Orange CineHome, Netflix is an Over The Top (OTT) ISP agnostic product where the luxury of leveraging on triple play (and often quadruple play) traditional Telco services is not possible. Orange is the only mobile centric telecommunications operator in Switzerland and with no fixed broad-band assets, its VoD product must continue to lead in the content arena; otherwise, Orange will find it difficult to gain Swiss home entertainment market share.

Out of Switzerland’s 8 VoD services, and at the time this article was written, only two offer any SVoD content: Orange CineHome and DVD Fly; however, both are essentially one in the same. The CineHome product is based on DVD Fly’s platform but with Orange born enhancements – DVD Fly’s own product evolution has greatly benefited from the partnership with Orange. Common to many large telco / start-up relationships, Orange has brought not only an essential cash injection into DVD Fly’s business, but also rigorous product development discipline, product innovation (e.g., the introduction of SVoD), and attention to pre-launch consumer testing and approval. In fact, since the relationship with Orange was founded in early 2010, DVD Fly was able to increase its major Hollywood studio content catalogue, improve the user interface and performance of their portal, optimize their go-to-market proposition, and ultimately benefit from Orange’s SVoD content strategy.

The success of the SVoD concept has already proven itself in the US, so it is most likely only a matter of time before it also proves itself in similarly competitive markets such as Switzerland. And once consumers become accustom to the advantages of SVoD based content consumption, pay-per-view based consumer Entertainment as we know it today will never be the same.

A new OTT Home Entertainment Service is born

January 14, 2011 - Leave a Response

 

Introducing Orange CineHome: VoD, DVD/Blu-ray rental, and catch-up TV, with unlimited content

 

<Click here for Product Demo>

 

Orange Switzerland will be launching the world’s latest Over the Top (OTT) IP connected home entertainment service on January 17, 2011. The TV based product, CineHome, offers an impressive content line-up and flexibile viewing options, for a very afforable monthly fee. For just CHF 14, any Swiss household with a broadband internet connection will gain access to a wide range of local and international hits, including: Hollywood block buster films, TV series, and catch-up programming from both TSR (Swiss French regional TV) and SF (Swiss German TV). Orange customers benefit from a reduced price of just CHF 9 per month.

Set-top box for every broadband Internet connection  

The service is accessibile via a set top box that is rented separately and works with any broadband Internet connection of 2 Mbit/s or more. What’s more, you don’t need to be an Orange broadband subscriber to enjoy Orange CineHome. Simply connect the CineHome box to any broadband Internet modem and then link to a TV set (both Scart and HDMI cables are included with the set top box). A broadband Internet connection with a capacity of 2 Mbit/s is enough for standard picture quality. For HD quality (up to 1080 dpi), a 5 Mbit/s connection is the minimum requirement.

  

Films, TV series and other programmes

The Orange CineHome’s subscription package offers:

  • unlimited access to a large catalogue of Warner Brothers films and hit TV series, at no extra cost.

with more than 30 selected films and 90 to 120 episodes of TV series at any one time. Unlimited access is included in the monthly subscription and the series catalogue is updated weekly with numerous new episodes, while the film catalogue is updated on a monthly basis with ten new films each month.

 

  • unlimited on demand access to more than 80 selected programmes from Swiss TV channels SF and Télévision de la Suisse Romande TSR. The range of programmes is updated daily

  

  • access to more than 1,500 films and TV series, on demand, with multi-lingual audio support during viewing, streamed directly to a TV in 5.1 digital audio surround sound, starting at only CHF 1.50 / episode and CHF 3.50 / movie, all at the touch of a button. The range of films and TV series is updated continuously with the latest new releases.

  

  • High Definition (HD) quality films, on demand, starting from only CHF 5- per 48 hour rental.

  

  • access to more than 18,000 DVD and Blu-ray titles that can be easily rented directly from the TV menu with next day delivery by post. The range is updated continuously with the latest new releases.

 

Sneak Peak at the TV interface

  

Pricing Overview

  

 

 

Has Hollywood moved to Switzerland?!

January 11, 2011 - Leave a Response

After seeing the large Hollywood-like sign going up this Monday on the slopes of a small Zürich area town called Hergiswil, Swiss residents have understood that something is brewing in their Entertainment market:

 

Comparing this Hergiswil panorama to the below Hollywood vista I recently experienced this December, one can’t help to notice the similarities:

Besides the bad weather (like California, Switzerland isn’t always sunny), both signs have 9 letters, both have neighbouring towns with the same name, and both start with an”H”….Coincidence? Not quite: Hollywood IS coming to Switzerland, and it’s Orange Communications that’s bringing it.

This crafty Orange PR stunt, has not only teased Switzerland’s Entertainment market, it has also signaled the imminent launch of yet another Orange branded Entertainment product before the end of this month – The latest example of Orange’s commitment to become Switzerland’s premiere Entertainment provider.

Stay tuned for more details!

What’s the colour of Entertainment? …it’s Orange, of course.

December 15, 2010 - Leave a Response



 

 

Orange launches its new World Of Entertainment

Orange Communications SA strengthens its market presence as Switzerland’s premier supplier of Entertainment by launching a new website focused on the discovery of content and of its entertainment offerings. Orange’s acquisition and integration of the Citydisc Home Entertainment retail chain is now complimented by a new digital content playground called the World Of Entertainment

The World Of Entertainment website highlights Orange’s commitment to offering a 360 degree entertainment experience across Retail, Cinema, Online, Mobile, and Events. Some key platforms are still missing from their product offer, but these are already targeted byOrange with new products planned for a Q1 2011 roll-out.

In addition to traditional mobile entertainment services such as caller ring back tones, mobile gaming, and VoD clips, Orange is providing innovative products not common within the Swiss Telecommunications industry. Most have been integrated into the new entertainment site, including:

  • Unlimited, subscription-based Gaming accessible online from any PC. This service offers three different subscription packages and over 450 digitally distributed titles, many available within 3 months of retail release, and catalogue games from casual classics, such as Plants vs. Zombies, to action based megahits like Bioshock. The product is exclusively offered by Orange; however, it is a true Over The Top service open to any internet connected consumer. Jeux PC (French) / PC Spiele (German)

 

  • Orange TV: High quality subscription-based mobile and web TV with access to over 50 free and pay TV channels (with complimentary VoD content) under a single subscription – Not only is national and international programming offered, but premium priced bouquets of themed content are also available. Additional PVR functionality is provided, allowing for the recording and playback of content from the customer’s mobile, PC, or tablet

 

  • Orange MusicStore: Full track downloads for PC and Mobile-based consumption. Close to 5m titles are on offer with individual track and full album purchasing capabilities. All content is DRM free and in mp3 format, offering Orange customers maximum flexibility with their music and seamless monthly mobile bill integration

 

  • Orange CineDay: 2 for 1 Cinema tickets every Tuesday. Orange provides its customers with a free Cinema ticket (an $18 value) for every purchase of a full priced ticket

 

  • Orange brings key musicians, bands, and films onto the Swiss entertainment scene with sponsorship of major events such as concerts, shows, and summer music/film festivals…check out the current line-up of Events

 

The site only soft-launched on December 14, 2010, so Orange is still optimizing the site’s look & feel, performance, and functionality with numerous additions and improvements planned for Q1 2011.  Since this is a soft launch, any comments and feedback are welcome so please provide!

Stay tuned for more developments in 2011 as Orange Switzerland continues its expansion into the Entertainment space.

1.2m Media jobs to be lost to piracy…and why Policy & Content Owners aren’t helping.

March 26, 2010 - 7 Responses

A study entitled “Building a Digital Economy: The Importance of Saving Jobs in the EU’s Creative Industries” was recently released by the International Chamber of Commerce, here in Europe. This study predicts losses due to piracy to reach as much as €240 billion in retail revenue and as many as 1.2 million jobs by 2015. The study reveals that the Media sector is already experiencing substantial losses. In 2008 the European creative industries most impacted by piracy (film, TV series, recorded music and software) experienced retail revenue losses of €10 billion and losses of more than 185,000 jobs due to piracy.

Scary figures and something to be concerned about.

However, what actually concerns me more are the points of view expressed in the press release that announces the study and suggests actions. The BASCAP’s suggested action to battling content piracy is made clear from the very beginning of the press release: “Strong EU legislation is required to tackle the problem of digital piracy and reverse current trends” and key members of the European Parliament are quick to endorse. For example Stephan Hughes (UK S&D) states: “I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to acknowledge piracy as a problem and to work towards strong IP enforcement to preserve European jobs.”

This made me reflect on how much trouble we may actually be in; not because the study is showing scary looking numbers that predict piracy ultimately killing the industry in which I work, but by the realization that those developing our policies here in Europe – those who are suppose to be making key decisions to support sustainable economic growth for the EU zone – actually don’t have a clue on how to tackle content piracy.

BASCAP stands for “Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy”, but there seems to be no “Business Action” in this ICC initiative at all. Instead, they are looking at policing the internet. The ICC, together with the European Parliament, is convinced that a tougher restriction on use of the internet and blocking of P2P file-sharing services will help combat piracy. The UNI-MEI (Union Network International – Media Entertainment Industries) supports “the Gallo report in its original form” and they “call the MEPs to reject all amendments that try to legalize file-sharing…”

Fine, I can understand their reaction and their position; there is much merit in ensuring that a legal infrastructure exists to effectively deal with serious cases of content piracy, but in all their efforts towards combating piracy (creation of special committees with really long names, conducting studies, holding many meetings, organizing conferences, etc.) the ICC and EU seem to be suggesting nothing from as a “Business” solution perspective. Hold on now…what was the name of that committee with “Business Action” in its name? Here’s a real question for the ICC and the EU: Wouldn’t it be more productive and effective for the BASCAP to dedicate its efforts in helping P2P file-sharing services transform themselves into businesses that actually produce taxable revenues for the industry and content rights licensing fees via new business models that charge users a very reasonable monthly subscription fee to use a better version of their existing file-sharing services, where the quality of content is ensured? I’m not going to discuss the plausibility of this “crazy” concept further, but there are many things that the media industry can learn from illegal digital content distribution services, because clearly these services are addressing most of the digital media consumer’s needs. Unfortunately, with probably one exception (iTunes), I wouldn’t state the same for legitimate services. Why this is the case, will become clearer later in my post.

The notion of understanding the advantages of illegal distribution services, and I will demonstrate how free content is not the key advantage, is something the BASCAP should be doing and it is an important step in combating piracy. Another key success factor in reducing content piracy is in better understanding the pirate’s psychology. There’s a very important question that the BASCAP has probably never asked itself: What drives the consumer to illegitimate content consumption? In fact, I would argue that the BASCAP, EU Parliament members, and other policy makers have no idea of what factors drive piracy and of what they are actually up against. Not to imply that I do, but it doesn’t take a PhD to search the web for blog and forum posts from the source of the problem, the digital media consumer, and generate a better understanding of the real issues facing the Media industry.  An educated opinion on a content pirate’s psychology and the factors that most likely drive it to consume and share entertainment illegally can be easily obtained. And I would argue that the first step in fighting piracy is to try to better understand “The Pirate” – Without this knowledge, how does the Media industry expect to win its battle against piracy?

There are many clues out there on what I like to call “Digital Pirate Psychology”, but let me begin by sampling material from an article I tweeted earlier this month, where an actual consumer states his reasons for turning to piracy. Meet “ManCat”, a 25-year-old software pirate. In reference to PC game content, ManCat states: “I’d buy more shit if the system wasn’t so stupid,” ManCat has been illegally downloading movies, music, and games for more than 10 years, claiming restrictive DRM policies are his primary motivation for theft. “If I download something legally from iTunes or Steam, I don’t have full control over my own purchase; I’m not allowed to transfer my music between machines or loan my game to a friend. Perversely, if I pirate a game or a movie I can do whatever I want with that file…I like buying games to play with friends and earn Achievements, so I only download cracked versions of single-player games with ridiculous DRM. The sooner they [game publishers] start respecting their fans, the sooner I’ll pay for Assassin’s Creed II” – Can some of the issues facing the Media industry be more obvious than this?

Okay, now let’s actually look at an expert Gamer’s blog…probably not a pirate, but someone who best represents the needs of the media industry’s key market segment. Meet Mr.Evans and here are some of his thoughts (full blog): “Valve [game publisher and owner of Steam, a digital games storefront] is showing that there’s a right way to offer digital distribution, and it’s working.  It’s valuable to the customer.  They promote games like World of Goo, Zeno Clash, and others that would have had a quick death at retail.  They’re working in the customer’s interests and not the company’s interests, and it’s benefiting the company…Companies really, really want consumers to adopt digital distribution since it’s in the companies’ best interest.  However, they refuse to lower prices on their games even though it’s cheaper to provide digital distribution than retail distribution”.

So what should these two samples from digital consumer thoughts be telling us about the potential psychology of the pirate? To me, a media professional with over 7 years of expertise in the digital space and a solid understanding of today’s entertainment distribution network, it’s plain and simple. The Content Pirate exists because:

  1. Strict DRM is often imposed on legally purchased content, limiting content use and flexibility…so, users look to other sources for their digital content, whilst others strive to just “beat the system”;
  2. There are few digital content storefronts out there and most are a bad and restrictive user experience…so, users look to other sources for their digital content;
  3. A consumer‘s willingness to pay for digital content is lower than that for a physical version, yet most content owners are not willing to lower digital format pricing points in an attempt to retain the perceived high brand value of their products…so, users look to other sources for their digital content;
  4. Policy makers & content owners are striving to a) eliminate distribution channels, such as P2P file-sharing services, that are most convenient to many digital media consumers and b) impose strict control over the internet…so, consumers who value the concept of the free Net fight back;

And this last point should be obvious to Mr. Hughes of the European Parliament and to the EURO-MEI (another of the many committees with really long names, and not to be confused with the UNI-MEI committee) even without doing their research. They should understand the implications and real risks of what they are suggesting. The more control and restrictions you impose, the more certain individuals will be inclined to resist and to make it their mission to undermine protective measures…and this applies to many of our content pirates. So no matter how many restrictions you impose, how strong you make your DRM, or what access you block, some pirates will always find a way to hack through. But worst of all – and here is the real problem – they will then make it their mission to share their breakthroughs with the community at large; all in the name of undermining efforts to “control” their actions. It’s not rocket science – Just simple psychology. Digital consumers should be driven away from piracy and encouraged to consume content legally, not blocked or policed by external bodies who do not understand their psychology and needs.

With the exception of this last point, it is my opinion that content owners are mostly to blame for the existence of piracy and they are not helping their situation by keeping digital product prices, minimum guaranteed fees payable by their distributors, and DRM standards so high. In the long run, this is negatively impacting the entire digital entertainment ecosystem resulting in a small number of legitimate digital storefronts, where content prices are too high, and where flexibility on content use is too limited. And this is helping to catalyze the rapid growth in content piracy.

Many would argue that digital pirates are mostly hiding behind “moral” outrage and the poor flexibility/quality of existing digital stores as an easy excuse to not pay for content, and this maybe a valid point in some cases, but I am arguing that piracy would be reduced by not only making content more widespread and easily accessible in digital format, via DRM free and user friendly services, but by also reasonably reducing the digital version pricing point with respect to that of the same product’s physical format. Additionally, if you read the numerous P2P file-sharing site forums available on the net, it is clear that the content distributed on these services is often not the best quality. So, there would be an added advantage to the digital media consumer to avoid illegal sources and to obtain their content from legal storefronts, where the quality of the content would be certified and ensured.

But don’t take it from me. If you are still not convinced with my reasoning and suggested solution to the piracy problem, take it from the most successful entertainment industry ever to hit the market…take it from the industry that drove the VHS, and later DVD, format revolution to mass market consumer stardom…take it from the adult entertainment industry. An interesting article reports on how this industry is exploiting free content sharing for its own commercial benefit. Here are some interesting quotes:

  • Mr. Hymes of AVNOnline, an adult content distributor, states that the salvation for the content industry “would come not from laws or lawsuits as much as from bits and bytes. Technology is going to solve the problem that technology has created,” he adds: “The people in this space are seeing it as an opportunity to change habits and to create new opportunities.”
  • Titan Media, an adult content owner, states that the company is coming to realize that “the key is to make a product available that’s reasonably priced and reasonably easy to obtain.”
  • And lastly, an entrepreneur from the industry believes that “Free is very anarchistic and hard to deal with, and you don’t know what you’re getting…Cheap is more convenient.”

The adult entertainment industry is therefore testimony to the success that such a strategy can have on reducing piracy and on increasing digital content revenues. By making content more easily available digitally, and at a cheaper price than physically, you stimulate its consumption, reduce your loses from illegal trafficking of content, and generate increased growth in digital revenues. This same notion could become the great hope of the mainstream entertainment industry. And it’s already working for the music industry. Besides the adult content industry, recent developments in digital music are a great example of how digital distribution should work: Low pricing points, user friendly storefronts, and more flexible DRM. Granted, there is a large difference between the pricing point of a music track and that of a movie, and the music industry is still losing millions a year to piracy, but it would have been much worse if they had stuck to the protective behaviour currently plaguing other mainstream entertainment industries. By embracing and facilitating the expansion of digital entertainment the music industry has tapped into a new source of revenue that is also rapidly growing. It has also reduced the number of consumers turning to piracy by delivering what the customer wants, and they have given the impression of listening to their key target segment.

If mainstream content owners, European Parliament, BASCAP, EURO-MEI, UNI-MEI, etc. would only invest more time in listening to, understanding, and addressing content pirates’ and digital media consumers’ points of view, then perhaps they will succeed in reducing the risk of a 1.2m job lose crisis apparently facing the Media industry in the near future. And in doing so, I believe that they will need to loosen their planned grip on the internet and P2P file-sharing services, reduce their content’s digital format pricing points, and liberate their content from restrictive DRM constraints. Only then will a money-making digital distribution ecosystem flourish with numerous legal options for consumers to get their content from. And only then will we be able to beat content piracy.

This Is It…why Michael Jackson could have been digital media’s biggest ambassador.

November 19, 2009 - 3 Responses

The other night, I let my girlfriend convince me to see Michael Jackson’s This Is It. Not that I don’t like Michael Jackson – he was definitely one of the most talented artists of our time – it’s just that I’m not a big fan of pop music. Anyway, towards the end of the film, where MJ performs his ballad against the depletion of our rainforests and then speaks about how he adamantly disapproves of the environmental disaster, it occurs to me that perhaps no one informed Michael of the large negative impact his music sales have also had on the environment. He is the biggest selling solo artist in history – Do you know how many environmentally unfriendly vinyl, CDs, and DVDs that equates to? I couldn’t find a straight answer on the web, but I’m sure that the actual figure is astounding. Some web sources have quoted 750 million, others 850 million, but the following website has a pretty detailed break down resulting in a much lower number. Let me be conservative about this and use the 335 million music album and 13 million DVD sales figures from this site, since we will use this later on for an important calculation. Now NOTE that these figures are as-at June 18th 2009 (less than 1 week from MJ’s death). In less than one month from his death, MJ’s music sold another 9 million CDs…now putting all that together, with the continued projected sales from his death, gives us a massive number of plastic and aluminum based manufactured products…and a big impact on the environment.

Now to the point of my first ever blog: Being so environmentally conscious as he seemed in This Is It, Michael Jackson may have been open to the idea of taking a different approach to selling his music…by making both the This Is It soundtrack and movie available exclusively in digital format would have helped him make a more positive impact on the environment, something he seemed to consider as very important. Just image: No production or distribution of millions of environmentally damaging CDs and DVDs, but only the encoding and transcoding of digital files for download directly to digital devices, which could then be burned onto a disk, if desired. For most people working in the film or music industry, this notion may seem absurd, but let’s just pretend, for the sake of my blog (and the environment), that MJ would have wanted it this way…let’s imagine Michael, so environmentally aware and passionate about making a difference, insist on the ‘digital only’ distribution clause in his revised contracts. Now before you think of ways to bash this blog, let’s go through some numbers and see how many football fields of rainforest Michael Jackson could have saved if he were still alive and a digital media ambassador…

The production of DVDs/CDs:

The inherent environmental cost of producing DVDs and CDs (disks) is something that most people don’t think about. Disks are made of plastic (polycarbonate to be precise), which should be obvious, but most people don’t know that they also have a layer of aluminium sputtered onto the surface. Not only is aluminium highly toxic to produce, it also uses a large amount of energy to manufacture. Add this to the inherent environmental issues of plastic, and you have a pretty lethal item on your hands that cannot even be recycled. However, the process of printing (or decorating) the disc is one that arguably has the most potential for environmental cost. There are various different processes for this, but all involve a great deal of waste and the flushing and disposal of environmentally damaging chemicals. There are environmentally more sound options, such as digital printing, but these are not viable for large volume production jobs – And Michael Jackson’s This Is It is definitely a large volume production job!

Let’s disregard the environmental issues from the printing process for the sake of simplicity and just look at the notion of ‘embodied energy’ required in production of blank disks. Embodied energy is defined as the available energy that was used in the work of making a product. By calculating how much embodied energy is used in producing a typical DVD/CD, not looking at the printing process, one can estimate the total energy usage from the This Is It release and from Michael Jackson’s total lifetime album sales. And with this, we can estimate how many football fields (or acres) of eliminated rainforest this embodied energy equates to.

The distribution of DVDs/CDs:

This is another important element that should be included in any estimation of the environmental effects caused by the sale of a manufactured product; however, for the sake of keeping things relatively simple, I have not included this factor in my calculations. But, I welcome any contributions that would help me generate this number.

Total sales forecast for the This Is It soundtrack and movie:

Let’s assume that This Is It, the soundtrack compilation, will sell 150% more than the 2003 compilation release of Number Ones (7 million world-wide), making the forecast 17.5 million units (over its longevity) – Again, open to any feedback on this assumption from those of you who know the music industry well. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Gfk data to get accurate global DVD sales figure, but let’s take Mamma Mia numbers for the US (6.5 million units from the-numbers.com), assume fewer European unit sales (4 million units) and let’s use a 2 million figure for the rest of the world. Equaling a total of 12.5 million units (over its longevity). Personally, I think that these are conservative estimates, but I’m open to other opinions and sources.

Estimated total embodied energy figure for the This Is It soundtrack and movie production:

From the internet, I’ve been able to gather the following information to help me with the calculation:

  • Average weight of a single DVD (with no booklet) = 120 grams.
  • Average weight of a single CD (with no booklet) = 100 grams.
  • Embodied energy cost for plastics is between 60 & 120 Mj/kg.
  • Embodied energy cost for aluminum is between 227 & 342 Mj/kg.

Assuming that one gram of aluminum is used for every CD/DVD and taking a conservative approach to the DVD/CD formats (i.e., assume only use of single DVD/CDs in sales numbers and no double unit collector editions), I’ve come up with the following conservative total embodied energy cost (not including booklet production and disk printing) for the production of DVDs and CDs:

  • 1 single CD unit: 9.3 Mj
  • 1 single DVD unit: 11 Mj

Using the above sales forecasts, I come up with the following total embodied energy costs for This Is It:

  • DVDs: 137.5m Mj
  • CDs: 162.8m Mj

Estimated number of football fields of rainforest that the This Is It release will cost our planet:

There are 300 tons of biomass per acre of tropical rainforest. Biomass is essentially biological material derived from living things, or recently living organisms such as wood, waste, and alcohol fuels. Let’s assume that 100% of all biomass within an acre of rainforest is derived from wood. I found a figure for the energy content of wood fuel (air dried with 20% moisture) on the internet of 15 Gj/ton. So, in one acre of rainforest, there are approximately 4500 Gj (or 4.5m Mj) of energy stored – consider this ‘natures’ embodied energy.

So, how many acres of rainforest would give us the combined total of 300.25m Mj of embodied energy (for DVD and CD production of This Is It)? A simple calculation yields 66.7 acres…which are approximately 74 football fields.

The production (NOTE: not including distribution) of the CDs/DVDs of the This Is It release will probably cost our planet the bare minimum equivalent of 74 football fields of tropical rainforest…now that’s a scary thought! An even scarier thought is what MJ’s music and DVD sales have already cost our planet. Take 74 football fields of rainforest and multiply that number by approximately 12 (see numbers from the 1st paragraph) and you get 888 football fields of rainforest…and this is not even considering the recent sales of Michael Jackson’s previous albums, since his death.

Conclusion:

I would like to believe that if Michael Jackson knew of his music’s carbon footprint and that it has already cost the planet the equivalent of the destruction of at least 888 football fields of rainforest (at a bare minimum), then he would have thought hard and well about the benefits of digital entertainment. I would hope that he would have embraced the opportunity to drastically reduce his environmental footprint, by probably about 74 football fields of rainforest, with the ‘digital only’ release of his next compilation and DVD; which would have been his big global come-back concert in London, but instead has become This Is It. If someone had convinced him about the environmental benefits of digital distribution, he may very well have endorsed digital entertainment to the best of his abilities, turning into one of digital media’s biggest ambassadors.  His managers and producers wouldn’t have been too happy about the idea (clearly reducing their prospective sales and revenue forecasts); however, these same managers and producers did add that heart warming bit at the end of the This Is It film where Michael states ‘We can change…we can change’ over and over again – Perhaps they can change as well.

The more opportunities we have to endorse digital as the real future of entertainment, the sooner we will educate consumers of the benefits and ease that digital distribution can offer them, and the sooner we will make a more positive impact on our environment. As digital media services grow in numbers and improve in their usability, then consumers and advocates of digital entertainment should also grow.  We need ambassadors to the cause – actors, musicians, corporations – who can help with the education process and turn the mass entertainment consumer into a progressive digital entertainment purchaser.

Help me recruit these ambassadors…tweet, forward, publish, etc., this blog and spread the word of the environmental benefits of digital.

‘This Is It’…our chance to make a difference!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.