If you can’t join them: beat them.

Or at least scare them to death. Look at Google’s funny presentation of an interactive TV research paper. The gist: in a perfect world, iTV would be an ubiquos reality, any marketeer’s dream and the perfect pasttime for many a people who’s idea of entertainment isn’t watching a PC scanning itself for viruses. But as we all know, the world is far from perfect (Global Warming, Cialis spam, Cherry Coke – just to mention a few). So since one and a half decades and for the next foreseeable time, iTV can consistently be described as the future of tv (and future it stays).

The reasons are plenty: a hodgepodge of industry interests and players is frequently churning out standards which are practically nowhere deployed (MHP). The computing power of the targeted hardware (A.K.A. settop boxes) is dwarfed by any 10 Dollar wristwatch from a street vendor in Paraguay. And most walled garden of the operators aren’t landscaped after the hanging gardens of Semiramis, but obviuosly more likely with the desert Gobi in mind.

Yes, it’s a mess. But who’s better equipped to fix up a mess than Google? After all, they brought (some) order to the web (which is after all the mother of all messes). Introducing Google TV. Or at least a paper called Social- and Interactive-Television Applications Based on Real-Time Ambient-Audio Identification.

In a nutshell, the idea goes like that. Many people watch tv and surf the web at the same time. Combining those experiences in a somehow converged appliance is still a pipe dream. Connecting PC and STB is mostly not an option. Making people doubleclick to switch a program is the not-so-elegant status quo: first change the channel on the remote control, than switch web sites.

Google’s approach is somehow between big brotherish and ingenious. The only thing you need is a PC with a microphone and a tiny piece of software. The mike listens into the room, the app samples and irreversibly compresses the viewer’s ambient audio to summary statistics. These statistics are streamed from the viewer’s personal computer to the audio-database server for identification of the background audio (e.g., ‘Seinfeld’ episode 6101, minute 3:03). Meaning: transmitted won’t be your stupid talk about nuking your next door neighbor, but just the audio fingerprint of the background noise formerly known as television (and if 10 minutes after you talked about nuking your neighbor 20 square jawed hulks with blackened faces politely knock on your door, you’ll know that somebody has put a trojan onto your system).

Far fetched? Audio fingerprinting is already here. UK-based Shazam recognizes music you play to it, same goes for Fraunhofer Institut’s AudioID. This solution is quite elegant. You get rid of most of the existing complexities, don’t have to care about channel numbers, locations, distribution networks or else. You’re back to the program itself (which even could be a DVD you watch and Google TV will tell you that there’s a guy watching the same movie over and over just like you and you can start to talk, chat or whatever about your mutual obsession).

The paper describes four different types of applications: Personalized Information Layers, Ad-hoc Peer Communities, Real-Time Popularity Ratings, and Video “Bookmarks”. The impact on advertising is partially addressed, too. Well, networks, be aware. Will Google harvest the info clouds surrounding any piece of programming and at the same deliver targeted ads, based on context and consumer behavior (and thereby taking away your bread and butter)? Most likely, not. Even if Don’t piggyback isn’t totally covered by the famous Don’t be evil. But wait for those kind of apps and ads to show up combined with IPTV offerings. Additional lines of contextual content, combined with AdSense for IPTV. To be watched either picture in picture or on a second screen (PC, handset, …).

More to read: Official Google Research Blog: Interactive TV: Conference and Best Paper,
and Chris Riley: Clues on Google TV?

Addendum: The more I think about it, the more obvious it is. The mad professors at the Googleplex are good for many far fetched ideas. But let’s put it like that: the audio part is such an obvious privacy nightmare scenario, that they can’t be serious about it. No way. So we have to divide the paper in two parts. The relevant part for Google is the iTV-backend, with the app and ad serving.
But would have anybody in the whole world noticed just another iTV paper without the harebrained audio scheme attached? Right. And here we go. One paper. And Google positions itself as an interesting player in the TV/iTV market.

Get That Movie. Now.

On Ars Technica, Andres Bylund is giving us a real treat: Blockbusted! Movie rentals of today—and tomorrow compares the different means of renting a movie (at least, if you’re US-based; but most things ring quite true for the rest of the western world, too).
It’s a nice round-up. There’s definitely nothing wrong with it, but it’s a bit misleading, too. Because Bylund is comparing Apples to Oranges, and throws in some Bananas, too. The only thing WalMart, Blockbuster, Netflix et al. do have in common is movies. Which is a bit like pedestrians, trucks and a Porsche sharing just one thing: sometimes, you find them on a road. It’s good, but not good enough.

It’s a way of thinking coming straight out of a product world. But the important thing we need to apply is the use case, and the values behind it. In the as-of-today-world, comparing WalMart (DVD buy) and Blockbuster (DVD rental) doesn’t make too much sense. Not, because of WalMart’s target group. It’s just that people, who buy DVDs almost never rent. And vice versa.

I liked the comparison between Blockbuster and the local rental store, and how the latter did carve out its niche. But Neflix is a completely different beast. Not like hey let’s get a beer and rent a movie. It’s more like HBO without a schedule and some preselective choice (I might like to watch this or that movie later this month).

So what about VoD and downloads? Those two could be closely related. But don’t have to. Look at iTunes, as an example. it’s hyperconvenient, the store entrance is always right in front of your PC. You buy your song, you download it, you (kinda) own it. But it’s a dematerialized product. iTunes gift certificates range probably even lower than mail ordering a bunch of flowers. Uhm, thanks for not completetly forgetting my birthday.

Never forget: the physical world has its treats, too. Will VoD replace local rentals? Could be, should be and in all likelihood sooner or later it will dwarf the storebased rental business. But please don’t leave too much nacho crumbles in the matter transmitter.

Addendum: The NY Times on What Netflix Could Teach Hollywood

Which tells partly the tale from the long tail – but gives you a good idea in what kind of business Netflix really is: Out of the 60,000 titles in Netflix’s inventory, I ask, how many do you think are rented at least once on a typical day?

The most common answers have been around 1,000, which sounds reasonable enough. Americans tend to flock to the same small group of movies, just as they flock to the same candy bars and cars, right?

Well, the actual answer is 35,000 to 40,000. That’s right: every day, almost two of every three movies ever put onto DVD are rented by a Netflix customer. “Americans’ tastes are really broad,” says Reed Hastings, Netflix’s chief executive. So, while the studios spend their energy promoting bland blockbusters aimed at everyone, Netflix has been catering to what people really want — and helping to keep Hollywood profitable in the process.

Five million families now have Netflix accounts, and the company has basically reinvented the concept of a quick-turnaround mail-order business.

The changing media business model

Forrester’s Charlene Li wraps up a panel she led on The changing media business model. I’m probably overreacting here a bit, as the idea of panels like that usually is to scare the s**t out of the incumbents to generate some fresh consulting business (hehe). And with most of the things she’s mentioning in here post, I would agree 100%. But then I read this paragraph, which I find a bit misleading.
Media companies in the past derived their value from either: 1) their distribution channel; or 2) the content they created. I believe that in the future media companies will generate the bulk of their value from serving their ability to aggregate and serve audiences better than the competition.

Well, some media companies already do that. As an example: It’s the core asset of any tv network. Owning a distribution channel is important; the channel we’re running reaches about 1.2 million German households; nice to start with, but the real battle is definitely somewhere else. In digital tv, network capacity is already almost a commodity And with IPTV, it definitely is.
So it just might be, that some top tier production houses will join the ranks of aggregators. If your brand, derived from relentless on air promotion (AKA scheduled programming on a major network), is strong enough, you’ll now have the chance become your own audience aggregator.

Unfortunately, the big question ist still lumbering: even if you aggregate a sizeable audience, how are you going to convert eyeballs into revenue? Look at YouTube. Billions are watching. But where’s the scalable business model? AdSense as the poor man’s answer for media sales can’t be taken serious as a solution. And cutting some special deals with some media houses makes good PR, takes a lot of time and probably barely covers the legal cost of reviewing the contracts.

Thing is: your business model depends on your place in the media value chain. In b2c it’s either product sales or ad sales. In b2b it’s either product sales or selling services.

Where would you place, for example, digg? Again, AdSense is nice, but. Now let’s look for an equivalent in traditional media.
How about this (I’m not sure whether Kevin likes this comparison): a TV Guide for the techno-cognoscenti audience, based on a recommendation engine, which tracks certain explicit behaviours?

Now, let’s look at the TV Guide model: b2c product sales (the printed guide), ad sales (the printed guide, the web, tv), b2b services (tv guide on screen), b2b product sales (EPG data) and so on and so on.
A great company, an undisputed global market leader in it’s field. But still: just an aggregator of meta data to tv content. The real business lies somewhere else.

So let’s be careful: most of the stuff we’re talking here about is meta content. Important, yes. And, combined with the (technical) cost of production and distribution being in free fall, good for quite some tectonic movements.

But let’s be reasonable: Give me a camcorder and iMovie and a broadband connection, and I will compete with “Americas Funniest Home Videos”. But I take any bet that nobody reading this comment will be a able to produce a full season of “Desperate Housewifes” in his past time.

So back to Charlene Li: The goal of the panel: to give “traditional media” attendees an idea of how new technologies are changing the way consumers interact with media. Yup. Makes more sense. The panel on the changing media business model is postponed.
Via RSS Blogger

Will YouTube save the old tube?

On GigaOM, Robert Young makes some bold predictions. According to his post Back to the Future… for Broadcast TV, from the disruptive forces of the Internet, the TV landscape is about to experience another tectonic shift. Just like multichannel cable drove viewers from the big networks to the cable channels, netbased on demand services will take their slice out of the multichannel viewing time. In just about five years, it is likely that most of the hundreds of channels we get today via our cable & satellite subscriptions will disappear and there will be only 10 to 20 “broadcast channels” left standing. Because niche cable networks, many of which are barely treading water now, cannot afford to lose viewers for their linear/broadcast channels.

Really? Here’s why not. Cable is not broadcast. If you look at the balance sheets of those tiny cable channels, it really depends on when they did launch. As a rule of thumb: the older the network, the higher it’s share from the subscriber fees. Which means: real viewership is important. But not that important. As ad revenues are dwarfed by the fees you get from the program packages the MSOs are selling.

And even for the MSOs, the real viewership of those channels is not the top priority. As they differentiate between reasons to subscribe (does anybody watch The Learning Channel?) and reasons to stay (the stuff people watch but would never tell theirs mothers about it).

And, not to forget: watching tv is about generation La-Z-Boy. It took about 20 years to convert network-tv viewers into multichannel zappers. So give me a good reason why they should convert completely in a snap from Seinfeld-rerun watching masses (all expenses covered) into proud decision makers, plowing through the abysses of a plethora of on demand programming, they might even have to pay for (yikes)?#

Of course, all networks, big and small, have to make their decisions on how to thrive and survive in an on demand world. What kind of rights to acquire, what kind of supplementary distribution platforms to choose.

But for smaller cable networks, the imminent threat isn’t the stuff on the Veohs, YouTubes, and the likes. The real threat ist à la carte programming. And the marketing invests which would come with it. That’s why an everything’s-on-demand-over-the-net-tv with a gazillion channels is a no go business district.
And mind that. Right now, YouTube et al mean great business – if you run Akamai or Limelight. But not, if you run a content comapny (not counting free promotion). And not even, if you run YouTube.

Via Digitaler Film

Quaero? Good question.

French mega-blogger Loic Le Meur is making a point. He sees 10 reasons why the French search engine will fail. If you’re not in the loop: Quaero is a very French search engine project, with some kind of a German appendix. It’s (jointly?) run (?) by nimble startups like France Télécom, Thomson, Siemens AG and Thales. The basic idea seems to be transfer about 250 Million Euros in governement funding into the koffers of companies who will not even notice this windfall whilst delivering after five years of major league researching a multimedia search engine, which at least will be able to deliver what BBN’s Podzinger can deliver right now (audio to text) and then some.

But let’s get back to Loic’s points:

1- Can’t spell it.
Stupid names are not a problem. (QED: Colloquially, a sap is a weak or gullible person. Also known as dupe; see confidence trick.) Not owning the domain, either (prevents you from trying to trademark the hard to spell project name).

2- Centralized.
There are no centralized projects on the web that succeed. I know what you mean. But, of course, some exceptions do apply. Most notably: Google, Yahoo, eBay …

3- Secret versus beta.
Somtimes, I think, it’s time for web based beta blockers. Because mostly it’s smoke screening. Look at Google. Services like Froogle are/deserve to be in endless beta. But the secret project (world domination by abducting top software engineers into the Googleplex, introducing them to a 2 month brainwash and then …) is still, well: secret. I guess.

4- No buzz, no adoption.
Wait, Loic. We’re talking 5 year plans here. Quaero doesn’t need any buzz right now (well, we’re buzzing here …) as there’s not even a need yet for a domain for the service we cannot spell as the real product is only supposed to be ready in about 5 years.

5- A galaxy of actors who compete to get the subventions and don’t get much noticed for their latest web innovations
Yes, now it’s getting scary. It’s a powerful roster of partners. But if you want to build the prototype of the car for the mid 21st century, you probably wouldn’t start with talks to Nestlé.

6- Not really international.
‘scuse me. How about Google, Yahoo and the likes? Setting up a sales office in Hamburg, Paris or Munich doesn’t make you an international company. And not being really international is obviuosly not a recipe for disaster.

7- A neverending story.
Quaero has been announced as a 5 years project when Google is only barely 8 years old, where will Google be in 5 years when Quaero is finally launched ?
See. It’s not neverending. The life expectancy is exactly five years.

8- Not enough euros.
Outsmarting beats outspending. (Correction: would beat.) In it’s humble beginnings, Google didn’t bath in billions. So in theory, Quaero should have a chance.

9- Subventions euros are not worth venture capital euros.
Uhm, the source of the money is not the problem (in Latin: non olet). The question is: where to put it. VCs and the government share one thing: they’re all about other people’s money. But any VC betting 250 Million EUR to seed a company trying to beat a superrich global market leader with an unproven concept would immediately be awarded with the Nick Leeson Medal in gold.

10- Google is a thousand startups
[…] How many european startups could the Government help launch if these 250 M€ were invested in them ?

And that’s the point. Instead of playing the hare and the hedgehog, they launched a hare-brained single shot.
Why not open source Quaero and engage all individuals who would like to challenge Google’s position ? If the aim is to have an alternative and successful search engine, that it probably the way to go. It’s certainly not by trying to create centralized “multi-heads missiles” in a decentralized World where building communities matter more than the Country they originated from.

Exactly. Or why not seed 250+ search start-ups whilst offering the current Quaero partner a purchase option. Because, it’s a bit like Loic’s ten points. Most of the arguments are somewhat offleading (sez me). But in the end, he delivers his shot.

TV – all Ad-Free, A-La-Carte?

There’s a new (?) meme on the block: ad-based tv is/should be dead. The future of tv is ad-free, no-tier, and totally à la carte. Listen to Steve Rubel of Micro Persuasion fame: As the technology gets more sophisticated and the generation that grew up with the Internet , iPods and always on connections become adults, I see a day coming when a lot of TV content will a) be paid for and b) consumed ad-free. Nice try. But, guess what: a) is already here and b) is highly unlikely to happen.

The fundamental misunderstanding starts with the words as the technology gets more sophisticated. Of course, technology is crucial. But at this point, usage patterns and applied business models are more important.
a) is easy. It’s called pay per tier, and is basically the pretty successful formula which has propelled US-based cable networks from MTV to CNN to Discovery into the global top position regarding multichannel tv. The basic math behind it: a multichannel operator sells easy to understand program packages to the consumer. The programmer gets a certain portion of the subscriber fee and decides by gut and market research in what programs to invest. So why not breaking it down into selling separate pieces of content?
Let’s make a sidestep. In the Boston Globe, Alex Beam toots almost the same horn (at least, according to Steve). Remind me again: Why am I paying $50 a month for services I don’t want? Oh, that’s right. Because the cable TV monopolists say I have to.

The basic principle of a successful multichannel tv environment is simple. Networks are packaging shows into a channel. Cable operators are packaging channels into tiers. According to Beam, selling tiers is just a greedy, oversimplistic one size fits all approach. According to Rubel, selling ad space is just an annoying habit of channels inc., to be broken by the powers of technology. Vivat, à la carte.

Beam proposes. I pay to get 80 channels, about 20 of which I actually want to watch. Hey, Mr. Comcast, let’s make a deal. I’ll pay you, say, $25 a month, and you beam me the 20 stations that I want to watch. Makes a fiver for the connection and one Dollar per channel each. Sounds good, true and populistic. But, unfortunately, not feasible. Ask Mark Cuban. He did the math (trust him, not me: I’m just running my micro tv network somewhere in old Europe – he’s a selfmade billionaire). The big difference is, that in an à la carte world, the cost of reaching an audience is outrageous.

And it’s not just the price tag. Because of the cost of reaching an audience, à la carte  programming favors inherently the big, the established, the incumbents. Mark’s example is the movie market. Look at which content rises to the top in terms of revenues from consumers and visibility. The content from the biggest companies who have spent the most money to market.

OK, you might say. Unbundling tiers might not be that great an idea. But the unbundling of channels into separately sold pieces of content is a technological given. Everybody builds it. So it has to come, it’s already happening.

According to Steve, in the future – as technology progresses – you will have to pay for the best programming, even if it’s carried by ABC, NBC, Fox or CBS. These shows will be sold a-la-carte, as subscriptions or in packages and they will all be delivered over the Internet protocol. Nice try. But technology’s just one (important) piece of the puzzle.

To quote myself (sometimes, I like that): can $1.99 downloads substitute broadcast tv? Only if you’re a Hollywood producer. Or could you imagine every tv household shelling out $200 a month at least just for watching tv content (and that number’s not even based upon the real tv usage hours)? So even in a virtually broadcast-free world, we’ll have to look for ad support. Otherwise, people will have to find themselves some new (and cheap) hobbies pretty soon.

So one thing is the business model applied to usage patterns. You can’t beat free beer with almost free beer. But free beer and premium imported Pilsener can peacefully coexist. Because they’re catering to different markets.

Would you pay for a download of Jerry Springer? Nobody would. Those who watch, can’t afford. Those who could afford, don’t watch. Would you pay for a download of Desperate Housewifes – if it would have never been aired on network tv? Most likely: not. Because you would never ever heard about it (if somebody didn’t spend some gazillions on marketing). Because it would never ever had been produced (if somebody didn’t wager some gazillions on production).

Placeshifting vs. Mobile Video Services

What’s placeshifting? Services like Slingbox or Orb use your broadband internet connection at home to stream your favorite shows to your PDA, your handset or laptop. If you like the idea, it’s highly likely that you’re not working for a mobile network operator.

MocoNews ha a nice wrap up of a report by ABI. Of course, the handest only moble video offerings aren’t that versatile, compared to Orb’s multidevice approach. But rebroadcasting regular tv shows to a handset is a rather futile approach anyway. First thing: screen resolution and real estate. We’re moving to HDTV in the living room. But you’ll never carry mobile phone with a 60″ screen.

So esentially the fun starts with made for mobile content and services. Looking at the different, German production companies and carriers already produce some stuff, which partially is made for miobile only consumption, partially as some kind of augmented tv service – depending in the time of the day.

In the long run, augmented television services and some time critical content will be the only stuff which will be broadcasted in a traditional way. Everything else will be pushed to devices for local caching. Because storage prices (with virually unlimited production capacities behind) will fall always much faster than bandwith, which is restricted by its spectrum limitations.

Via unmediated

Good moves, bad moves

There’s a good exchange going on between John Hagel and Umair Haque and a couple of other guys. By putting Lost and Desperate Housewives, is ABC/Disney close to finding the holy grail of digital distribution (as Fred Wilson seems to believe) – or is making exactly the wrong move.
So what’s happening here? With putting some successful shows online, Disney as a copyright holder is most likely generating some additional pocket money. That’s just fine.

Same for ABC as the traditional distributor (AKA tv network): some incremental income from some top shows. Makes sense, too.

Of course, Disney/ABC won’t get any multiples in valuation out of that. Producing content isn’t a scalable business model. Bundling, or – as Umair likes to call it: rebundling is. Rebundling is where value capture will happen – at communities, reconstructors, markets, networks – that direct people’s attention to individualized ‘casts. This is where branding will be reborn – and where advertising is already being disrupted, ripped apart, and reborn (viz, Google, PPC, pay per call, etc)
Yes, right. Google’s a good example. It’s an ad sales giant with an attached search engine. Which is either a good example that directing people’s attention to individualized ‘casts is either a phantastic business. Or a nice way of telling you that the value creation spot at this end of the value chain is already taken. (It’s getting scary if you look at MySpace. More users than a medium sized country, more pageviews than sand on mars. And Appalachian thrift store-CPMs. Is there a cure for this? That’s going to be an interesting question for News Corp.)

Hagel’s approach is a bit more sober. Now, there is nothing wrong with remaining a product business in the media industry. If you come up with compelling and engaging products (content), you will still own a profitable business. You may even attract a loyal audience. But the challenge will be to build a scalable and sustainable business. In a world of intensifying competition and proliferating options, that is going to get harder and harder. In most cases, audience “loyalty” is only as good as the most recent product issued.

In contrast, audience relationship businesses take these proliferating content options as an opportunity, rather than a challenge. The more options there are, the more value that can be created by organizing, packaging, presenting and adding to these options for specific audiences. It’s a completely different mindset, skill set, culture and economics.

Straight consultant thinking. But in any product business, loyalty is tied to your most recent product. It’s more a question of product life cycles. Designing and producing a car is a 25 years effort (including the after sales market). Media is about 5 minutes of fame. That’s why brands like Oldsmobile can experience quarter of a century long near death experiences. Media products die much quicker (anybody remembers The Sweet?).
Audience relationship is definitely a right angle. And from a consistency of performance perspective, the quantity of options to be matched with a as big as possible consumer base makes perfect sense. But the real power
of media and media production is the chance of hitting upon the perpetuum mobile of inherent brand building.

No media buying involved. You ARE the media (at least, if you keep all those necessary rights, handle distribution well …) In those cases, audience relationship building isn’t about matching and hedging. It’s about product-defined relationships, delivering emotional frameworks for people to live with.

Mobile video: yes. Mobile TV: hmm?

Cellphone companies like Sprint, Verizon Wireless ad Vodafone, have been aggressively promoting mobile video services, which cost an average of $10.70 a month for access to sports, news and weather clips. More than a quarter of cellphones now in use can play such videos. But only 1 percent of wireless subscribers are using their phones to watch them, according to a recent survey by the NPD Group, a market research firm.

The good news is: No problem, probably about the same amount of people talk on a regular basis to their tv sets. Which might not qualify as making a phone call. But watching a sports event on matchbox sized screen ain’t television either …

No, really: broadcasting to handsets via mobile phone networks is a weird idea anyway. It’s either a failure – or punished with network congestion. Mobile broadcasting via DVB-H or DMB makes at least some technological sense. But building the infrastructure is scariliy expensive.

Mobile media is personal media: portable radios are on the shelves since more than 40 years. But Walkmen and iPod are dominating the streets for a reason, not dirt cheap FM receivers. Data storage is getting less and less expensive. And that at much quicker pace than bandwith pricing. So yes, mobile video is a runner. But mobile tv – a bummer.

Via NY Times

Is IPTV TV or … ?

Is IPTV real TV or something else? If you think, that’s a highly hypothetical question, you’re not following in the recent dealings and wheelings of Deutsche Telekom and DFL, the German Soccer League.

The dry facts. DFL sold the Pay TV and Free TV rights to the German Soccer League for a whopping 220 Million Euros per season to Arena, a subsidiary of a larger German MSO. Pay TV provider Premiere, for the last umpteenth years the single source of major league live soccer, got snubbed (and a decent rubbing on the stock market).

Meanwhile, Deutsche Telekom got an other asset from DFL. The Internet rights. So far, so good. But now it seems, DFL oversold a bit. Arena is claiming to have some IPTV rights, too – as long as they just stream their productions. And at the same time, Deutsche Telekom seems to have some plans with Premiere. Which, depending on the exegesis of the contracts, might reach pretty far. Just imagine something like an encrypted IP datastream, broadcasted via satellite to a tv settop box.
Seems like, DFL underestimated the power of the IP protocol. Obviously, DT wasn’t interested in paying 45 Million Euros for some PC based geek TV. What they’re already selling is a 49 Euro settop box for bringing IP-based VoD movies onto your tv set. The next step (coming this fall and this soccer season) is some real IPTV, based upon Microsoft’s tv foundation. Essentially, it’s a virtual overbuild (if you’re a cable MSO). Essentially, its tv++ (if you’re interested in the tv dimension of the technology). Essentially, it’s a heavyweight’s muscle play. In Europe, for defending the voice and high speed data access market. (For US carriers, it’s about securing voice and gaining on data.)

For rights holders, this means interesting times. Because new money is flooding into the market. But be aware. First thing: For the telco giants, premium content is merely a marketing expense, not a crucial business affair. A couple of years ago, the music industry saw mobile operators as the digital white knight. Until they realized something quite frightening: the EBITDA of a carrier like Vodafone equals the annual turnover of the wole global music industry. Ooops.
And as the DFL example shows: going digital means, that your traditional licensing models are going down the drain. Selling tv and online rights doesn’t make any sense anymore, if your tv has online access. We’ll have to find different ways to differentiate. Screen resolution might be a way to go here.

Via FTD Bundesliga schürt Ärger der Telekom