How to make a college basketball fan very, very happy

A year ago I wrote a frustrated critique of the CBS television network's online coverage of the US national college basketball tournament, which we fans affectionately call "March Madness" even though half of it happens in April (link).

In the tournament, which includes 65 teams, there are often four games underway at the same time, and they start at around 9 am on the west coast. It's an orgy of basketball, but often a painful and frustrating orgy because inevitably your team ends up playing during work hours, or its game isn't even carried on local TV.

Enter CBS, which for the last two years has streamed video of the games over the web. I was furious last year when one of my team's games was blacked out on the web stream. CBS cut off access to it online because it was also being broadcast on local TV; contract problems between the local stations and the network prohibited streaming a local game. As I pointed out in my post, the time you most want to watch the web stream is when you can't access a TV. So CBS was preventing the most important use of its web coverage.

I was pretty steamed. I wrote at the time:

This mess is typical of the foolishness that often happens when old line media companies try to deal with the Internet. They spend millions setting up an elaborate technological tour de force but neglect to take care of the basics, like letting fans actually watch the games they want to see, and making sure all the features work. The lesson: The product you deliver through a website isn't a bunch of HTML and Java code, it's a solution to the problem of a user. Unless all of the elements of that solution line up properly, your product is a failure.

Okay, fast forward a year. Now it's March Madness season again, and this time I have to give CBS credit. They have lined up all the elements of the solution, and they've created a terrific product for their users.

Every game is being streamed live, with no blackouts and no exceptions. The video is a little grainy, but very acceptable when you see it in motion.



Look at the live feed of scores below the video window. You can switch instantly to any game where the score looks interesting. Plus, after the game is over you can go back and watch highlights, or even re-stream the whole game if you want to.

One of the annoying things about watching the tournament on TV is that the network cuts away from one game to give updates on others. So if your team gets a good-sized lead, the announcers will say "let's go to New York" and all of a sudden you're watching Gonzaga play Cornell. When you're watching the web stream, the announcers still say, "let's go to New York," but then they don't go anywhere.

It all gives wonderful empowerment to the viewer. Tonight I could watch USC choke like a dog with a bad hunk of meat in its game with Kansas State, and then pop out to catch Belmont almost upset Duke. CBS showed me the score and time remaining for each game, and I could decide what I wanted to watch.

There's also the obligatory boss button, which displays an amusing fake spreadsheet.



Not that I'd ever need it. Nope, no watching games during work for me. Unh-uh, we're far too busy.

Did I mention that the CEO of Rubicon reads my blog? Hi, Nilofer.

The business side of me admires what CBS has done with its advertising in its tournament coverage. Take a look:



This is what happens whenever there's a timeout in the game. The ad panel on the right is coordinated with the ads that you see in the video stream at left. So companies can make click-through offers or give more details on the things they're advertising. In this case there's a free sample offer.

The whole coverage of the tournament is free; apparently the ads are paying for everything. I hope CBS is making a bundle, because the feed on the web isn't just convenient -- due to the extra control it gives me, watching the tournament on the web is better than watching it live on TV. This is the first time I've ever said that about the web version of a broadcast television show. I feel like I've gotten a little glimpse of the future of video, and I really like it.

O'Reilly Web 2.0 Summit: No Cave of Wonders

There is so much happening in the Web world that I went into this year's annual O'Reilly Web 2.0 event hoping it would be like Aladdin's Cave of Wonders--full of bright shiny new companies that did amazing things, each more enticing than the last.

Instead, the conference was more like a United Nations conference, full of important people talking about important issues, but not a lot of surprise or dazzlement. The name "summit" really does fit. That’s not the fault of the folks at O'Reilly; their conference has just grown in stature so much that it attracts CEOs from huge companies as speakers. By definition those people are very careful about what they say, and don't make major announcement at an industry conference.

So while it was interesting to see people like the CEO of AT&T, we didn't necessarily learn a lot. But there were a couple of highlights worth passing along…

The full article is on the Rubicon Consulting web site, here. There's no registration required. From a mobile perspective, the highlight (or lowlight) is a quote from VC Ram Shriram on what a mobile software company has to do in order to get funded.

Mobile video: Is there a there there?

[Reposted due to a correction. Sorry if you get this twice on your feed.]

I recently I spent a couple of days at the Global Mobility Roundtable, an annual conference that brings together mobile-related academics and a selection of people from the mobile industry. This year's conference was in Los Angeles, so it also drew a number of attendees and speakers from the major entertainment firms. It turned into a kind of a mobile meets entertainment event, and the results were interesting. Mostly, they underlined how far we still need to go in bridging the gaps between the tech industry, mobile, and entertainment.

There's a lot of information to cover, so I'm breaking this post into two parts: mobile video in this part, and in part two the status of mobile data in general and the relationship between Hollywood and the operators.


Is there a pony in the stable? If so, it's a very small pony.*

There was a lot of disagreement about whether mobile video will take off, which may be just as well because the economics of it are seriously dodgy. It's not certain that users really want it, no one knows whether the revenue will come from sponsors or from user fees, and even if video does take off, it's not at all clear that the mobile operators can deliver it without bankrupting themselves.

Other than that, the prospects look great.

One panelist compared the situation in mobile video to a company running a health club: they want to sell a lot of memberships, but they don't want anyone to actually use the facility.

The information below is drawn from a series of different sessions I attended. I've mashed them together so I could organize the information by topic. All quotes are as accurate as I could make them. They are definitely correct as to message, but I probably missed a few words here and there.


Who wants mobile video? A segment of the market.

There are plenty of people in the industry who are enthusiastic about mobile video. One presenter quoted Rob Hyatt, executive director of mobile content at Cingular, as saying, "Watching video on cell phones could eventually easily surpass [demand for games, ringtones, and wallpapers], to reach 100% of the population." That's pretty remarkable, since even SMS doesn't reach 100% of the mobile population yet. (You can find the original quote from BusinessWeek here).

Telephia, a mobile industry research firm, reported that revenue from mobile video is growing rapidly, from $35m in Q3 2006 to $146m in Q1 2007. In that same period, the number of mobile subscribers in the US using video services grew from 5.7 million to 8.4 million (for comparison, there are 77 million MMS users and 148 million SMS users). The Telephia numbers imply that revenue per video user has grown from $2 per month to $5.80. Unfortunately, they didn't give any details on which particular services are growing.

The base is still very small, so it's dangerous to extrapolate from those numbers. But they're definitely hopeful. A number of other speakers were much less optimistic, though.

At the conference, USC presented the results of the sixth annual Worldwide Mobile Data Services study. It showed that about 30% of 18-24 year olds and 20% of 25-34 year olds in the US felt that video downloads to mobiles were an important feature, about the same percentage as wanted games on their mobiles. That's nice, but not the universal usage that Cingular talked about.

Sanjay Pothen, CEO of Pliq (a mobile video production company), claimed that 44% of mobile users are interested in mobile video -- but only 4% are willing to pay for it. That's the typical pattern for mobile data features -- most people don't want them if they have to pay anything for them.

Frank Chindamo, CEO of Fun Little Movies, which produces short video for Sprint, asked the audience how many people in the audience had Sprint phones. About five people raised their hands. "If you all subscribe, that will double our revenue for next month," he joked. [For the record, Frank asked me to make clear that he was only joking; he says he's actually quite happy with the Sprint relationship.]

Is the glass half full or half empty? As I've said before, I think there's abundant evidence that the market for all mobile data products is highly segmented, and we need to learn to make money from products that appeal to ten or fifteen percent of the users. I heard nothing at the conference to change that view.

But overall demand for mobile video is just the beginning of the story...


What sort of video will people watch on mobiles?

This one is still very much undecided. The usual assumption is that because short video is popular on the Web, it'll also be popular on mobiles. For example, Funny Little Movies is creating original short animated films for mobiles. (The place is run by a USC film professor who has his students create a lot of the content.)

Pothen of Pliq said the ideal sort of video for mobile is neither short individual clips (like YouTube) or long-form video (like a TV show), but chunked content -- an engaging story told in two-minute segments. He said excerpts from reality shows can work well -- highlights from America Idol, for instance. But original content seems to be his main target: soap operas, telenovelas, and cooking for young women, comedies and dramas for young men. The goal is to get people hooked by an ongoing story so they'll keep coming back to watch every segment.

Derek Brose, SVP of business development for Paramount Digital, was also excited about short video. He said the company is cutting all its movies into clips of different lengths, for various mobile usages. Two second clips -- something like Harrison Ford saying, "trust me" -- are for embedding in an MMS message. Twenty second clips are for use in ringtones. Two minute clips are for streaming your favorite scene from a movie. Paramount's goal is to teach consumers a variety of different things that they can do with mobile video.

But some people were skeptical about the prospects for short video on mobiles. Bill Sanders, VP of mobile programming at Sony Pictures, said that in Japan people are watching broadcast TV shows on their mobiles rather than short video streamed over 3G. He said 3G in Japan is great for certain kinds of applications, such as e-wallet. But he said data is priced so high that streaming video barely exists on 3G at all.

"The only thing you find in 3G is porn, because it's the only form of video where people will pay $10 for three minutes of content." --Bill Sanders, Sony

USC's mobile survey also strongly implied that the biggest demand is for broadcast TV. More than 40% of users said they thought that was the most interesting type of video for a mobile, compared to about 20% for short video.

David Tilson of Case Western University supported that view. He said that in a UK test of DVB-H (a broadcast video standard for mobiles), users watched three hours a week of television on their mobiles, with viewing concentrated in the lunch break and commute hours. That's very intriguing, because it implies that mobile video might add new television viewers at times when people don't usually watch TV. Unfortunately, the users were not charged anything in the test, so it's very hard to tell how much usage mobile TV would get if operators started charging for it.

I have no clue what the answer is on this question. People may say they prefer broadcast television just because that's what they're used to. Their actual purchase behavior might be very different. I think price will make a huge difference in adoption, which brings us to the next subject...


Who will pay for mobile video?

You've got two choices -- users pay, or advertisers pay. There are good arguments on both sides.

Sanjay Pothen of Pliq made an interesting case for having the advertisers pay. Since his company is involved in that business, his argument was not a surprise, but it was still interesting.

Pothen claims that neither paid nor ad-supported video are taking off today in the mobile world. As I noted above, he said few users are willing to pay for video, which stops the user-funded scenario right there. But ad-supported video is also problematic on both PCs and mobiles because users are not very tolerant of watching even a short commercial in order to see a two minute video. So what Pliq does is build the sponsor into the video itself, through placement and other promotion within the video.

Pothen said advertisers are willing to pay significant sponsorship fees for these videos. He wouldn't go into details on his financials, but someone I talked to privately said the revenue can be dollars per viewer for a three-minute video. That's impressive, and far more than you could charge a viewer for a few minutes of video.

Unfortunately, Pothen said, the operators want to take 50% of the revenue from these videos. He said that's not acceptable, that the revenue split should be more like 20% of revenue to the operator. "If we work in collaboration and the walled garden is down, we're willing to create original content (for mobiles)....We can drive mass adoption." But he said that won't happen in the current revenue situation.

My take: I don't think it has to be one or the other. Apple's selling a lot of video downloads to iPods, and that won't just dry up. But I think it's going to be very hard to make paid downloads the leading mobile video product, because they'll be competing with free video from places like YouTube, and because ad-supported TV teaches people to expect their television for free. Besides, if advertisers really are willing to pay dollars per viewer, there's no need to make people pay.

The revenue split is an ongoing problem in every mobile data category. There's no immediate solution, at least in the US. I think we're stuck in a chicken and egg situation in which the revenue split discourages the kind of programming investment that might drive a lot of usage, thereby justifying a more generous split.

That may be just as well, though, because video might break the mobile networks if it did take off.


Can mobile video be delivered?

This was the most disturbing topic of all. Even if we can find the right users, the right product, and the right pricing scheme, most of today's 3G networks are not well suited to delivering video.

Tilson of Case Western quoted some very sobering statistics on the economics of mobile video. He said one megabyte of data delivered as SMS messages yields £268 of revenue to an operator in the UK. That same megabyte delivered as video yields 20 pence of revenue, roughly 1/1000 the revenue. Of course, a single user of video is much more likely to consume a meg of data than is an SMS user, so the billing per user might still be fairly good. But video quickly exceeds the capacity of a typical 3G data network. He said no more than six viewers per cell can watch video at one time, and if 40% of users on a typical 3G system watched six minutes of video a day, they would saturate the entire network.

Hardly the basis for achieving Cingular's dream of 100% viewership.

Some of the operators at the conference confirmed this perspective. Francois Thenoz, Director of Strategic Marketing at Orange, said it takes seven minutes to download a 60-90 second video clip on a standard 3G network. 3G "evolved" takes 90 seconds (so you can just about stream in real time). The CDMA 1X network I use to connect my notebook PC is a lot faster, but GSM is the standard for most of the world, so his point was that in most places the wireless network simply isn't ready for video.

Higher-capacity networks are in development, of course. But Tilson said that in the UK, spectrum for a DVB-H wireless video system won't be available until 2102 at the earliest. That implies that for the next five years, mobile video in the UK is more of a science experiment than a serious commercial project.

In the US, the functional equivalent of DVB-H is MediaFlo, which is already deployed in Verizon's VCast system. MediaFlo transmits video one way, using a separate wireless signal, so it gets around the network saturation problems you get in 3G. Similar systems are already being used in Japan and Korea, and reportedly account for most of the mobile video usage there.

A drawback of the broadcast technologies is that they're not streamed on demand. You watch whatever's been programmed at that time. It's like a cable television system, but with far fewer channels. Tilson said one driver of mobile video usage is the availability of a lot of different programming, so limits on the number of channels might eventually restrict usage.

The other challenge for broadcast systems like MediaFlo is that they compete with people using SlingBox or similar products to retransmit their home cable television signals to their mobile devices. "Why get HBO Mobile when you can already get HBO home slinged to your phone?" asked Sanders of Sony. He pointed out that the Three network in the UK is bundling Sling services with its flat-rate 3G service offering.

"Three is like an airline that just bought a bunch of 777s and now they're flying with a bunch of empty seats," replied Brose of Paramount. He claimed that Three has to be betting that video usage will grow slowly enough that faster data networks will be available before the usage of video saturates the network.


The "encoding nightmare"

Then there's the question of standards. Unlike the PC, there aren't one or two video standards for mobiles. Because of the huge array of different screen sizes and software environments, a company that wants to stream video to mobiles supposedly needs to encode it in up to 150 different formats (seriously, that's the figure I was given by a couple of people). An executive I talked to called this the "encoding nightmare." Some companies are starting to offer server appliances that encode the video in real-time from one or a few base formats. But this adds expense to the business model, and real-time encoding is not as high-quality as pre-encoded video, especially if you're trying to compress the video heavily -- which is exactly what operators need to do in order to conserve bandwidth.


What does it all mean?

I think there's a role for mobile video, but considering the limits on user interest, and the huge technical and business challenges, it's not going to be the great horizontal application that drives the mobile data market. At best, it'll be a nice add-on for entertainment-focused users who want video in addition to their MP3s and games.

_______________
*This is a reference to an old joke about a boy who desperately wanted a pony. One day he saw a stable stall full of manure, and began furiously shoveling it out. "What are you doing?" his parents asked. "Well," the boy replied, "with all this manure, I figure there has to be a pony in here somewhere."

How to really piss off a college basketball fan

One of the stranger rituals of American sports is the country's affection for the annual college basketball championship tournament. Why this country is so obsessive about college basketball and football, when every other college sport is completely ignored, is a mystery that the nation's greatest sociologists and standup comedians have never been able to explain.

But there it is. If your alma mater's basketball team is participating in "March Madness," as we call it, it's mandatory to watch the games on TV. Unless, of course, you have to take your son to a futsal game.

Futsal is a separate story in itself, basically the bastard spawn of soccer (what the rest of the world calls football) and basketball. In the US it's about a million times more obscure than college basketball, but my son likes it and his team had a game scheduled for the exact same time as my college was playing in the tournament. So I did the dad thing and drove him to the game.

But I also did the Silicon Valley dad thing and took my notebook computer with me. The high school where the game was played has a fully open WiFi network, and I had registered to receive a live streaming video feed of the basketball tournament from the CBS television network. Finally, a practical use for Web video!

So I sat down in the gymnasium, started up my notebook, logged into the network, went to the CBS website, and selected my team's game. Excitement building, I clicked on "Watch now," waited a few seconds for the feed to buffer, and...



In case you can't read it, the message said I was "prevented from accessing this game due to local blackout restrictions."

Bastards!

Here is the deal, CBS. If I had access to a TV, do you think I'd be trying to watch your crummy, pixelated, low-res, business card sized video feed? The only people interested in watching online video of a sports event are those who have no access to a television. There is absolutely zero chance of cannibalization of the TV station's audience.

Besides, think about it for a minute. Who are the people most likely to want to watch that feed? People in the school's home town who can't get to a TV. But that's exactly where the game is certain to be blacked out. So CBS has created an incredibly elaborate system to systematically tease and frustrate its most enthusiastic customers. You can't see the game you really care about, but you're welcome to watch the games that are meaningless to you.

The word for this, folks, is "perverse."

I know why CBS did the blackout. Its contracts with local broadcast stations prohibit it from streaming games they're airing. CBS had the same problem with last year's tournament -- meaning they have had more than a year to fix this thing, and failed to do so. Instead, CBS and its local stations are once again missing a great chance to build customer loyalty and develop a nice online business.

I did try out an interesting feature that CBS allowed me to access, called a "glog" (I guess that stands for game blog). It's basically written commentary on the game, streamed live. Unfortunately, if you look closely at the first and last comments below, you'll see that the commentary got caught in a loop and repeated endlessly. I was confused when the teams started running the same plays over and over.



This mess is typical of the foolishness that often happens when old line companies try to deal with the Internet. They spend millions setting up an elaborate technological tour de force but neglect to take care of the basics, like letting fans actually watch the games they want to see, and making sure all the features work.

The lesson: The product you deliver through a website isn't a bunch of HTML and Java code, it's a solution to the problem of a user. Unless all of the elements of that solution line up properly, your product is a failure.

I know CBS's online coverage isn't a total waste; some people do get to some games they want. But if you'd like a taste of what CBS is doing to a lot of fans, check out this message board where fans of Georgetown University tried to figure out how to access the online feed. It's pitiful.

As for me, I was reduced to watching the scoreboard thing you see below, and waiting for it to refresh every 15 seconds or so.



A hundred and sixty years of telecommunication progress, and I'm reduced to watching a basketball game by telegraph.

PS: My son's team lost, although he did score a booming goal from beyond halfcourt. He's always wanted to do that.