Simulmedia hopes to bring Internet-like targeting to the TV ad market by using set-top box data to identify shows that advertisers should run their spots against. The goal is to more effectively target ad spend in a market that is increasingly fragmented. Instead of just buying large audiences of viewers, the startup promises to reach more viewers for less money than through traditional TV ad buying. Early results have borne that out: Simulmedia claims that it can deliver more of a target audience for an average of 75 percent less than other networks.

The new round brings total financing raised to more than $27 million, and is notable for a few reasons: When Simulmedia raised its last round, it was still working with initial trial customers to show that the technology actually worked. Since then, the company has actually made its technology generally available, and has worked on more than 200 different media campaigns for 11 different media agencies and 24 different TV advertisers.

Simulmedia founder and CEO Dave Morgan — who previously founded Tacoda and Real Media — told me in a phone call that the funding would mostly be used to add more sales and support people, and to push out its data infrastructure. Morgan said the company was very close to being profitable, but was looking to stay ahead of customer demand as it ramps up.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications

Tango CTO Eric Setton told me in a phone conversation that the funding gives the startup a competitive advantage as the mobile video calling market heats up. More than that, however, getting a strategic investment from Qualcomm could help it improve its product. Since Qualcomm makes the chips used by mobile phone manufacturers, Tango has been working with it to optimize video delivery through its chat app.

Tango has quickly become one of the most popular options for multiplatform video chat on mobile devices. In the 18 months or so since launch, Tango has managed to attract more than 45 million users worldwide. And hey, those users are actually, uh, using the app: According Setton, 44 percent have used the app in the last 30 days, and about 10 percent use it every day. Altogether, the number of calls that Tango powers has doubled in just the last four months.

It’s also translating that usage into real revenue. In December, Tango rolled out new features that let users leave video messages for each other and also add animations to their calls. So far, “tens of millions” of users have used the new features. And surprisingly enough, it’s not just Asian superusers paying up to make their chats all cutesy: Setton told me that while about 50 percent of users are in the U.S., that market accounts for 80 percent of all revenues.

And so, with that in mind, Tango is also adding new premium features to the app to improve the experience and ramp up monetization. For instance, it already gave users the ability to leave video messages to one another — but that was a one-to-one experience. Now users can send a single video message to multiple contacts. And their contacts don’t even need to have Tango to view those messages — now they can be delivered by text and email and viewed on the web.

Tango is also adding new animations for users to choose from. In addition to driving revenue, its “Surprises” feature also increases engagement, leading users to increase call length by some 40 percent. It’s also created a storefront that it can update regularly, without having to release a whole new build of the app every time it wants to do so.

With a deeper war chest and even more monetization options, Tango hopes to take over the world. At least maybe give Skype a run for its money. Or something like that.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Analyzing the wearable computing market

How quickly things change

This was my fourth or fifth year in attendance, and in many ways, it was shockingly similar to the others I’ve attended. There was (again) a lot of talk but no real movement on stuff like mobile DTV and 3-D TV, as well as grudging acceptance among incumbent content creators that the Internet, mobile and tablets are platforms they need to play on, even if there’s no real money there.

But there was one thing that was very different, at least in the makeup of the show’s keynotes and “super sessions.” In attending a few of the higher-profile sessions, I got the feeling that this year’s NAB Show wasn’t actually about broadcast TV, at least not in the way that it’s sold or distributed. It was instead about the multiplatform piece, and seemed specifically to shine a light on those who were leading the charge in that arena. The only problem is that the creators and distributors it highlighted weren’t broadcasters, at least not in the traditional sense, but those mired in the online-only or online-first world.

While last year’s NAB show featured a keynote speech by CBS head honcho Les Moonves, there were no comparable heavy hitters from the TV world to give their vision for the future. Notably, the show seemed to cater instead to those who were interested in how streaming and multiplatform delivery were disrupting the traditional TV model. NAB brought in speakers like Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos, Machinima President Philip DeBevoise, Electus’ Ben Silverman and Revision3’s Jim Louderback, among others.

Even those speakers who are part of the traditional broadcast model seemed to be there not to talk about the business of TV, per se, but about distribution in the bold new multiplatform world. Hell, even Betty White — who we all know of because of her TV career, and who spoke at an early breakfast slot on Tuesday — has seen her career resurrected mostly because of a Super Bowl commercial that went viral online and made her part of the conversation again.

What is a broadcaster, anyway?

I wasn’t the only one who was confused by the whole thing. I facilitated a roundtable discussion for a group of attendees Wednesday morning, leading a wide-ranging talk about a number of topics facing content producers and distributors.

The makeup of the room was impressively diverse: There were attendees who were there at their first NAB show, and others who had been going for decades. There were some present who worked for PBS, others who produced news and other content for local affiliates, and a university professor who was there to comment on the way the behavior of college-aged viewers were changing. There were participants from the agency side, others who created apps, and still others working on new web-original projects. There was even a guy from Brazil who produces surfing shows for the web. He switched from TV distribution to streaming video more than a decade ago.

One of the folks there — whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten — summed up the feeling of the show pretty well: “How do we define a broadcaster?” he asked. “Is it someone who distributes content over the air? Is it someone who does over-the-air and cable and satellite? Is it someone who does that and also does delivery on the web and to other platforms, with a certain number of viewers?”

Barbarians at the gates

Considering who was speaking at this year’s show, I think there’s a clear answer to that: the definition needs to fall outside the traditional scope of the broadcasting industry and needs to include folks who are making content that doesn’t necessarily originate on TV. When Netflix introduces a slate of programming that includes shows from David Fincher, Kevin Spacey, Eli Roth and the return of Arrested Development, you can no longer define content as “premium“ just based upon whichever distribution platform it appeared on first.

I’ve always attended NAB with a view toward the digital future — and over the years, I’ve been frequently frustrated by how the industry doesn’t seem to “get it.” This is the first year where I’ve felt that the show and attendees were having real discussions about the future, the first time someone acknowledged that the big broadcast and cable networks weren’t the only ones who held the keys to the future of video.

But I wonder what that means for everyone else at the show, or, what the people who have been going to NAB for decades think about the barbarians at the gate that are taking up all their speaking slots and shaping the discussion. What does it mean when there are no real broadcast titans speaking at a show for and about broadcasters?

It probably means that the world is changing, and it could mean that smart content creators and distributors are doing everything in their power to stay ahead of that change. And maybe, just maybe, it means that the broadcasters at NAB could learn a lesson or two from those who are doing so, including the folks at Netflix, Machinima and Revision3.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

I got a chance to sit down with Cameron and Pace at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas this week, and asked about the future of 3-D in the home, how their effort is making 3-D accessible to other directors and production teams, and how the industry overcomes its chicken-and-egg problem: How do you get consumers interested in 3-D TV while getting broadcasters on board with shooting in 3-D?

GigaOM: So can you tell me how Cameron Pace Group came together? Why did you decide to productize this and make this available to other partners?

James Cameron: Vince and I worked together for the first time in 1988. We got together in 1999 to start building an HD and 3-D system. We went to Sony, Panavision and different partners… We made our first system in 2000, and we first started using it for documentary films, primarily. Vince started to pursue sports and music, that sort of thing in ’03, ’04. Then the movie stuff started to take off and we first served up the first features – they were the only features being done in 3-D.

It just snowballed from there. When I came off the end of Avatar, we decided to make it more of an official partnership and we announced that last year. But really, we’ve never been off-track from trying to grow the 3-D market and grow the technology.

Vince Pace: During that time, it wasn’t a commitment to do a film, but to create a filmmaker’s tool. It wasn’t focused on a singular need. From the very beginning of the relationship headed toward this, it was really about, ‘How do we provide this to the industry to get this resolved?”

James Cameron: I think it held us back for a while, because people thought I was building this for myself and it wasn’t really available. I was like, ‘No, no, no. We’re building this industry – it doesn’t help me to make a 3-D film if there are no 3-D theaters.’

The two of us can’t make enough content to twitch the needle. We’ve got to be the enablers for everybody else. We’ve got to put the tools in their hands. There are all these perceived barriers to entry for people that are established content makers looking to shift to 3-D. We’re not really interested in people who’ve only done 3-D and are trying to grow that. We want to go to the A-listers, the established people and get them to transform into 3-D makers as painlessly as possible.

GigaOM: Why are you so passionate about 3-D? What is it about the technology?

James Cameron: It’s so intuitively obvious to me that it’s the way entertainment needs to be consumed, that I’m almost shocked when I have to back up and explain it. I find it’s better to just say, ‘Come look at this – isn’t that cool?’ Because if you think it’s cool, chances are other people think it’s cool. So we just stumbled off and started doing it.

Well guess what, people did think it was cool, and the two highest-grossing films in history, both of them over $2 billion, are both 3-D films. Titanic just recently joined the club, but it just recently passed $2 billion as well as a result of that.

GigaOM: So tell me about that. I know so much of your focus has been on shooting in native 3-D and you’ve been critical of others who have shot in 2-D and then retrofit movies to be 3-D. Why do that with Titanic?

James Cameron: There are two very distinct categories there. There are movies that are done, and are out and we love them and we’d love to see them in 3-D and the only way to do that is to convert.

Then there are movies that are starting now, and they want it to be in 3-D, because they want the extra revenue. And the studios believe that these are tentpole movies–they’re big entertainment films and big effects films–so they should be in 3-D, but they’re not willing to do it right.

At that point, they’ve got a choice. They can shoot native, or they can shoot 2-D and convert. I’m adamantly against shooting in 2-D and converting. But I’m certainly very much in favor of converting films that are already done. You don’t have a choice on those. You don’t have a choice on Raging Bull or The Godfather. You have a choice with Spiderman 5.

I see the same dumbass decision being made over and over. They get to that precipice and it’s all too scary. It’s just all too hard. Well, the only reason it’s scary and hard is that they don’t understand it and they haven’t asked the right questions. Usually they’re so afraid of asking the right questions and looking like an idiot. Everyone’s afraid of looking like an idiot. That’s what it boils down to.

So you’ve got a director that’s directed 20 films and a producer that’s produced 40 films, and they don’t want to come in and be a dumbass and ask one stupid question. They’re going into a new area called 3-D. And then you have all these 3-D practitioners on the other side telling them that they don’t know anything about 3-D and they absolutely need 3-D experts to be there.

That’s why Vince and I have completely turned that around. We say, ‘You don’t have to know anything about 3-D. Just do what you do. Do what you do, and do it with our toolset, and you’re going to be fine.’ You can’t add value in one area and take it away in another. That’s what filmmakers are afraid of. They worry that they’re going to have to compromise their style to shoot in 3-D.

What I’m saying is, keep 100 percent of your style. Give up nothing. Add 3-D to it. And only add 3-D when it makes sense. If you don’t like it for a shot, or you don’t like it for a scene, you turn it down. 3-D is like music. You don’t run music wall-to-wall throughout a movie. You bring it in, you take it out. You are in control, as a filmmaker you are aesthetically in control.

GigaOM: When you look at the TV market – for theatrical it obviously makes sense. But you talk about the chicken-and-egg problem in the living room. There’s not enough content, but there’s also not enough people with 3DTVs. How do you solve that?

James Cameron: We’ve got another missing piece, which is – there’s only DirecTV and Comcast carrying 3-D and that’s only on a limited basis. The TV sets are well out there – there’s good penetration with the sets. And most people buying TVs are buying them with 3-D like it or not at this point.

I think that we’ve got to reach a certain level of the amount of content. And I also think it has to be about the type of content. Sports works because people tune in to watch the specific games that they want to see. I think scripted dramatic will work because people tune in to see the show that they want.

Personally, my theory is that network is not the answer to distribution. I think it’s going to be about tablets, and I think it’s going to be about streaming. I think it’s going to be all the other ways to get your 3-D because the network paradigm is too mired in the past. These guys just aren’t paying attention.

The other thing is that people are streaming their movies and television to a tablet, then it’s auto-stereoscopic. You don’t need glasses. So if you’re sitting on a bus, sitting on a plane, sitting in the park or in your room and you’re watching something on a single user screen and you don’t need glasses, you can toggle back and forth between 2-D and 3-D content, no problem.

GigaOM: From a network infrastructure perspective, is there enough bandwidth to support streaming 3-D?

James Cameron: There’s certainly no bandwidth issue. If you’re carrying an HD signal, you can carry a 3-D signal. They subdivide the 3-D picture into two half HD pictures to get recombined into a full 3-D stream. Ultimately we’d like to get to dual stream HD, just because it looks better. But we’d like to get to 4K, too. I think at the point where we move to 4K, we can do dual-stream HD.

I think the push to 4K will give us the bandwidth to do full, dual stream HD. We don’t need that right now. We have plenty of delivery systems right now that can carry an HD picture. If you can carry HD you can carry 3-D. Especially for smaller screens.

Where you really need full HD is delivery to theaters. The pay-per-view theater model really requires that, but it’s double the bandwidth. So we’re driving toward that. But it’s always 18 months away, as you know.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

On Tuesday, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos took the stage at the National Association of Broadcasters Show in Las Vegas to give a preview of the streaming service’s upcoming slate of original programming. It was an interesting moment. After all, here’s the guy who has spent the last several years making nice with cable and broadcast networks, writing big checks for their content. Now, he’s showing that Netflix is seeking to become a bit of a competitor with the very same networks and studios that it currently sources content from.

But if Netflix ends up competing for a greater share of viewers’ attention with its streaming offering, it’s only fair, Sarandos posited. After all, the increasing number of TV Everywhere apps and services are starting to encroach on its turf, he reminded the audience.

The early look at its foray into original content shows that Netflix’s future appears pretty promising Beyond Lilyhammer‘s quirky fish-out-of-water story of a New York City gangster who goes to Norway to enter the Witness Protection Program, Netflix has a slate of content that is star-packed. There’s House of Cards, the David Fincher-Kevin Spacey project that is based on a British novel and miniseries of the same name, appearing in early 2013. There’s Orange is the New Black, the story of one woman’s time in minimum-security prison, being spearheaded by Weeds creator Jenji Kohan. There’s the Eli Roth-led murder mystery Hemlock Grove, starring Famke Janssen. And, of course, there’s the long-awaited return of Arrested Development, five years after the series was cancelled by Fox.

Kohan, Roth, Janssen and a number of the members of the Arrested Development cast were there to tell the audience why they were excited about creating content for Netflix. For Kohan, the opportunity to work with Netflix was a way to show off a great new business model. And Roth talked about how Netflix gives him the freedom to create what will essentially be a long-form, 13-hour feature that will allow him to do what he does best — frighten people — and give his fans what they want and expect from him, something that might not be possible at a normal TV network.

The freedom to make interesting shows — without a network controlling the process or the output — seemed to be an underlying theme, though I don’t think anyone actually came out and said it. In that respect, Netflix could use its newcomer status as a way to recruit more talented content creators who are frustrated by the usual network system. That’s something HBO has long been applauded for — giving artists the creative freedom to build shows that wouldn’t necessarily play anywhere else.

Of course, it’s one thing to announce a bunch of star-studded shows. It’s a whole other thing to have them be good. Lilyhammer was an interesting starting point, but many who saw it seemed a little underwhelmed. And if House of Cards doesn’t hit it out of the park, serious questions could begin to emerge about Netflix’s ability to not just license shows that have already proven to be popular, but to create some of its own. And as the networks begin to increase the cost of the content that they license to Netflix, its future could very well depend on its ability to do that.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• What the shift to the cloud means for the future EPG
• Connected consumer third-quarter 2012

That plan is coming to fruition, as his startup is rebranding itself XDN — which stands for eXchange Delivery Network — and finally coming out of beta, with plans to offer content delivery services to anyone at a steep discount compared to providers like Akamai and Limelight. It also hopes to help network operators with unused resources to make a little extra cash by hooking into its federated CDN.

Lyon, who is the co-founder and  former CTO of BitGravity, believes that the way that the Internet works today is broken. After all, the whole reason that CDNs like Akamai, Limelight and BitGravity exist is because the broader World Wide Web is inefficient as a best-effort way of getting a piece of digital content from one place to another. To combat that inefficiency, CDNs have poured billions of dollars into building infrastructure and software for routing content over their own networks.

But CDN networks, and the software they run, is proprietary. And oh, you have to pay for access to take advantage of those express lanes.

With that in mind, Lyon and his team built software that network operators can deploy on their own networks, allowing them to roll their own CDNs. By then tying those networks together, XDN can use excess network capacity in a massively distributed way.

It’s like creating an Akamai-like network, but without having to actually invest in the data center hardware or bandwidth necessary to do so. Instead, XDN relies on network resources from third parties to make things work. And since it didn’t need to commit massive amounts in network infrastructure, XDN can offer cut-rate prices to customers delivering content over its CDN.

What do the network operators get out of it? Well, they get better delivery of their own content throughout the XDN network. More importantly, though, infrastructure providers make money off their excess capacity. They get a share of the revenues, based on the amount of content delivered over the network.

In other words, customers pay less. Infrastructure providers monetize unused network resources. XDN offers global, competitive CDN services. Everyone wins.

It’s still early, but the startup is getting some traction: XDN has signed up 14 providers and already offers services to more than 30 CDN customers. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company has 20 employees, and raised a $6.6 million Series A financing round in April 2010 from Canaan Partners and Storm Ventures in April.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Q3: OpenStack and flash step into the spotlight
• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum
• How tomorrow’s mobile-centric data centers will look

Viewers stick around through mid-roll ads about 87 percent of the time, Adobe tells us in its 2012 Digital Video Advertising Report. That compares to a 67 percent completion rate for pre-rolls, and a 50 percent completion rate for post-rolls.

It all seems like a “no duh” statistic once you think about it: Instead of inserting a long-ass and disruptive ad before a piece of content, you get the viewer hooked, get him really into what he’s watching and then — BAM! — serve up a mid-roll ad. Scratch that. Serve up a bunch of mid-roll ads.

What’s he gonna do? Give up and stop watching?

No! He’s gonna grit his teeth and watch your crappy ad (or, more likely, switch tabs and check his email really fast) and then continue on with whatever show or movie he was into once it’s over. Win! Viewer stays engaged, (maybe) watches an ad so your advertisers are happy, you get paid. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And it gets even better when you put that stuff on a mobile device, with mid-rolls jumping to a 94 percent completion rate. Because Jesus, if you’re so into a piece of content that you just have to watch it on a tiny screen, chances are you’re not going anywhere when that ad shows up. And live viewing beats the hell out of on-demand viewing in terms of completion rates, because, well, it’s live: Ads in live video get watched a whopping 85 percent of the time, compared to 69 percent for VOD content.

Anyways, so where did Adobe get all this research anyhow, and what’s the purpose behind telling us all about it? Well, the software company behind Flash got the data from recently acquired Auditude, and is using these findings to help promote that deal. Auditude is now part of Adobe’s “Project Primetime” — basically what it’s calling its multiplatform monetization solution. The idea is that with Project Primetime you have a single product for distributing and monetizing all your video views on any number of devices.

Now isn’t that swell? Just don’t screw it up by running too many pre-roll ads.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Keirsten Balukas.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• OTT technologies and strategies for broadcasters

Here’s a handy quote attributed to Path founder Dave Morin:

“We are delighted to announce that last week we closed a significant round of funding with a new set of investor partners. It is important to us to work with investment partners who share common values around quality and building for the long term. Our “Path” has only just begun, and we are looking forward to continuing to bring world-class design and simplicity to the world of mobile personal networking.”

And here’s a link to the blog post by Redpoint announcing why it led the investment in Path. Among other reasons, it was because the firm was “struck by the combination of audacious vision, intellect, product sense, leadership, humor and modesty of Dave Morin and the design brilliance that Dustin Mierau brings to Path.”

News about the funding round was first reported by TechCrunch a month ago, with Business Insider nailing details about Redpoint leading the investment. And the whole thing resurfaced again earlier Monday in a report from AllThingsD.

I’m terribly happy for Dave Morin and co.: After all, Path is one of the few apps that I use every day and keep on the home screen of my iPhone. But Om has a bit more tempered view of Path’s potential success. Check out his story on why Path is no Instagram here.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Podcast: Mobile winners and losers in 2012 and what to expect in 2013
• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• LTE-Advanced: what it is and isn’t

When it came to go to any of those places or do any of those things, I’d have to open the Yelp link, find the place on a map and then chart my journey to and from and try to figure out where else I wanted to go while I was out. It wasn’t very intuitive. But, silly boy that I am, when a friend of mine asked me about places to hang out in Austin when he moved there, I sent the same goddamn list, with my own additions and annotations. And he has since passed it on to his friends who have been visiting.

I refer to this anecdote because, in the year or so since I had this experience, not much has changed. The way we provide location-based recommendations to friends and the way that they parse those recommendation is still a not very pretty process.

Which is why Urbantag is worth a look. The app allows you to curate and build lists of your favorite, and then share them with friends, either online or on your iPhone. They can then create their own lists or provide input to your own, giving recommendations for where to go or where not to go. It’s kind of like Pinterest, but for real-world places.

Take, for instance, this awesome list of beer spots — in San Francisco and beyond. In Urbantag, all of the places are located on a map, and the tips and photos provided give you a good idea of what they’re getting into before they go. There’s no fussing around bouncing from Yelp link to Yelp link to decide on a place.

More importantly, there’s a community aspect to the app, allowing people to follow each other’s lists and discover new recommendations from other people in the network. Urbantag is trying to build an editorially curated group of “tastemakers” who provide recommendations in a number of categories like food and fashion in major cities. But if you’re more interested in your own social circle, you can also connect with Facebook and Twitter to see your friends’ list of where to go — or where not to go.

Of course, there are other apps, like Foursquare, which help you keep track of where you’ve gone. Foursquare also lets users create lists and make notes and provide recommendations, but it’s not the primary use case (and in my experience, very few people actually use those tools). And it’s getting more into the social discovery game, with the ‘Explore’ tab to help recommend new places to users. That’s helpful, but if you just want to start creating and sharing lists with friends, Urbantag is probably the better way to do it.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics
• The 2013 task management tools market

That’s changed, thanks to a new mobile website that Uber has launched at m.uber.com. According to a company blog post, the startup says the mobile Web site is aimed at allowing Blackberry and Windows Phone owners to use the service, which will help expand its potential user base. Not everyone has an iPhone or Android smartphone, after all — even though it sure does feel that way in San Francisco.

The mobile Web interface tries to keep the same simplicity that Uber has for its apps — once users sign in, they need only specify a location to be picked up and then the service tells them how far away they are from nearest driver. It doesn’t have the graphical map that lets you track a car’s movement, but it’s a pretty easy way for the low-tech set to ride in style. It also let users save locations for later so that they don’t have to re-enter common addresses all the time.

The addition of a mobile web option comes as Uber is rapidly expanding around the world: This year it plans to add 15 to 20 new cities where its service will be available. Those plans come on the heels of a big $32 million round of financing that the company closed last December.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to deliver the next-generation web experience
• How tomorrow’s mobile-centric data centers will look
• Podcast: Mobile winners and losers in 2012 and what to expect in 2013