Comments on: What if Redstone ‘Googled’ Murdoch?

By: semantic horizons » What if Redstone ¡ÆGoogled¡Ç Murdoch?

semantic horizons » What if Redstone ¡ÆGoogled¡Ç Murdoch? — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:40:48 +0000

[...] GigaOM By partnering with Redstone, Google gains access to MTV, Comedy Central, and other Viacom content that is perfectly suited for experimentation around new distribution and discovery models, which could lead to breakthroughs in how to connect the right people with the right video content ? and how to actually make money doing it. Viacom¡Çs brands are strongest with the Digital Generation, who are at the vanguard of new video consumption habits, AND Viacom¡Çs content works exceeding well in the short, humorous, viral ¡Èclip¡É format that has driven the explosive growth of online video. [...]

By: Eddie LeBreton

Eddie LeBreton — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:36:44 +0000

First a minor point: I don't think you can have an argument about distribution networks without including Joost in the conversation, especially in this context because of their Viacom affiliation. They've yet to make a lot of noise, but you can not argue with the management track record, so they should ALWAYS be in the conversation.

Now a major point: Until now, I've thought that CBS had the best model, as they plan to place their content on nearly every monetize-able platform. To them it doesn't matter who wins.

BUT, then what value does CBS add for the content producers that actually create their programming? If the networks are not concerned about content creation (as you say), what's to stop the producers of CSI or Survivor from signing deals directly with Joost or GooTube or Yahoo or whoever? What value would CBS add by buying the content from the production companies and reselling it to the content delivery networks via advertising income? Is a CBS "badge of quality" worth the reduced income to producers? Probably not. Can CBS create a defensible strategy out of this content "branding" when they have no control over distribution. I doubt it. Clearly these economics will shift once all video content is delivered online. Perhaps HD distribution via cable networks will keep them in the running for a little longer, but that will only last until fiber roll-outs allow for an HD Joost or GooTube. Unfortunately, I think we'll see more deals like ESPN 360, which blocks ISPs from accessing their service unless they pay a fee, to supplement their lost distribution revenue. And this leads to the even tricker subject of Net Neutrality, which will only be fixed in Washington. Perhaps that is the defensible strategy: come under the CBS umbrella and we'll manage your payments from the ISPs (really the distribution networks that matter most).

But I'm rambling now. But in the end, while the CBS initiative looked like a good deal initially, it's now appears to be more akin to paralysis by analysis.

By: Jeremy Pepper

Jeremy Pepper — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:15:14 +0000

You bring up MTV and Comedy Central do resonate, but the real crown jewels in the Viacom crown are Nick and Nick Jr.

And, by building loyalty through those channels and sites, Viacom is building a brand loyalty to the current generation of media consumers.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:33:26 +0000

I disagree totally with the statement that “distribution is all that matters”. In the world of Web 2.0, it doesn’t matter at all. Much of YouTube’s traffic comes from embeds in other people’s blogs. YouTube becomes only a hosting platform for video in this context and doesn’t bring anything more to the table that Viacom can do by offering embeds from its own website. And Viacom can still leverage Google to their benefit without a deal like you described because Google is still – and I would argue will continue to be – an agnostic search engine. If this distribution you are speaking of is listing in the search engine, I think they already have that.

By: infinite dreams (alpha) » De echt belangrijke TV deals

infinite dreams (alpha) » De echt belangrijke TV deals — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:52:45 +0000

[...] Met als strijdende soldaten: NBC Universal, Time Warner en FOX. Aan de andere kant een kamp geleid door Redstone die zijn pionnen Viacom en CBS aan het uitzetten [...]

By: Jacomo

Jacomo — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:51:49 +0000

It is all about who owns and operates the Last Mile, the Content Data Farms and can provide QoS and deliver latency free very high speed data (IP) services.
As a regional service provider, all I see is Video/Audio and P2P services bringing the Best Effort Internet to its knees along with many Core backbones.
What this means near term is those who own the Content, operate the big data centers, connect the Data centers (via Fiber) to each other and the Last Mile Service providers (who own the customers),will rule this Content/Applications business.
Google is (not so silently) building just such a Nationwide distribution network and is only missing one piece and that is Fiber connection agreements with the Local Service Providers nationwide.
This will eventually allow our customers Audio/Video/VoiceIP/Gaming and Hosted applications via a latency free symmetrical network.

Jacomo

By: Prashanth Pappu

Prashanth Pappu — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:18:56 +0000

Viacom doesn't have to do a u-turn and become friends again with Google because it wants to stick to Mr. Murdoch. It could probably do both by aligning with joost etc.

Google hardly has a footprint in the video content delivery business but for the user generated videos on youtube. So, what exactly is google bringing to the table anyway? Whatever the objectives are, I for one (purely for entertainment reasons) want to see Google completely outfoxed in the video content delivery business.

By: Alaskan Carnivore

Alaskan Carnivore — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:35:08 +0000

re: "big media companies are aligning themselves around video distribution and not video content creation — distribution is all that matters"

Bingo!

Which makes me wonder why http://Myspace.com/fox still will not let you watch any Fox TV shows if you have a Vista machine. Still! Nada, nojoy. And no fix in site..?

What about all the kids out there with brand new Best Buy Vista laptops who are plugging them in and hitting a brick wall when they want to watch latest episode of Bones. ugh...

Maybe Linux and Apple are to actually be the tier1 FoxSpace distribution partners? Or maybe someone is playing a little game of chicken??

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:58:52 +0000

"Goo-Tube"- I'm sorry, am I on BlogMaverick all of a sudden?

By: Shad Q

Shad Q — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:06:40 +0000

Where is user generated content in all of this mess? Is there anyone out there attempting to protect and properly distribute the creative video content that is produced by average users?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:10:00 +0000

Sloppy analysis. Redstone/Viacom spun off CBS (along with MTV) as an independent company roughly a year ago.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:43:05 +0000

One has also been thinking about Google's foray into Internet Radio. Given the RIAA hike in Internet Radio Royalties, only a Google with its ad-serving capabilities (now including DoubleClick) can bail out guys like Live365 or Pandora ... buy simply buying them out.

Of course, I am a huge Google fan.

By: smith

smith — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:20:05 +0000

That profits matter. That may have been the case for several years after the dot-com explosion, but venture capitalists are hungry for deals now. And, in light of recent high-priced acquisitions (for example, Skype), it makes more sense for startups to lose money and go for growth--not build a stable, profitable business

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:03:40 +0000

Another great article. But with Google having by far the strongest video search technology (I can only assume) and Viacom having only the same advantage as any other traditional media conglomerate (creation? some distribution?), wouldn’t Google come out way better than Viacom in any deal between them? If that’s the case — video search technology being the/a big winner — then Viacom has to decide to swallow its pride and side with their traditional enemies in order to do well in the new media world. OTOH, overall a good bargaining for the company.