<< Back to all posts
Video ads or Paid content? Depends who’s asking…
Yonatan Sela 30 Jul 09
2 Comments
Web TV’s main source of revenues has been video adverting since day one. The vast majority of content owners, video aggregators (like Hulu) and web TV technology providers (like Brightcove) have structured their business model almost solely around video ads revenues. Ads revenues keep increasing, and in fact on a historic day in June, ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘CSI’ were even reported to get higher advertising rates on the web than on prime-time TV! It shouldn’t be surprising that broadcasters, publishers and aggregators of content continue to rely on video ads as their main revenue source.
Nevertheless, video ads are not where most of online video’s potential revenues await. In spite of the exceptional rates paid for ‘The Simpsons’, as a rule, video ads represent merely a small fraction of traditional broadcast’s ads revenues. Indeed, as eye-balls move from TV to PC these gaps will slowly shrink. Yet, the gaps are too big to cover for the tremendous costs associated with the production of premium content and its distribution, which is much less scalable than that of traditional broadcast. In addition, ads to content ratio is lower significantly lower on the web: online TV shows have 70%-90% less advertising minutes than broadcast. It follows that advertising will represent less than 1/4 (about 1.6 Billion) of $7 Billion in revenues from online video in the US by 2012 (according to UBS research, June 2009).
The model will have to evolve by factoring direct spending from the consumer, either in the form of subscription or à la carte. Personally, I believe the potential success of the pay per view model will rely particularly on full features and live sports events, simply because viewers don’t tend to pay on the web for other types of content. But I am a believer when it comes to subscription models, which are based on existing subscriptions to the operator. Subscription is an efficient way to charge for a wider variety of content, which may also include attractive sports events and movies, depending on the type of package chosen by the subscriber. I believe this is where the biggest revenue potential lays and gladly for network operators, especially those providing mobile or pay TV services, this is where they enjoy a huge advantage. In summary, in spite of video ads current dominance as a business model, paid content (in its various forms) will be the source for most of future online video revenues, and it’s up for grabs for mobile and pay TV operators more than anyone else. The next post will discuss some of the ways in which operators can leverage their current business in this context.
Posted in All posts, Broadband Video, Internet TV, Mobile, Monetization, Operators, Pay TV, TV Portal 2 Comments so far
Post a comment
<< Back to all posts


You mentioned above that “users don’t tend to pay on the web for other types of content” - what type of content are we willing to pay for? You described the advantages in a subsription model for operators, but who’s to make sure that us, the users, will actually buy these subsriptions and not download our content from illegal websites?
Anna,
I believe users will be willing to pay for premium content on the web mainly as an added value service to their pay TV subscription. This subscription will enable them to watch their pay TV package Everywhere, anytime, through any web enabled device (you can read more about it in my August 20th post). In my view, this content will be offered next to standard, ads supported content. Special type of content (sports events, new films etc) might be paid per view. So the idea is to have the ability to combine all models.