For a while, some believed that the Web and social networks would limit the amount of time people spend consuming video content. But Nielsen's latest A2/M2 Three Screen Report has found that people are actually consuming content on more platforms, thanks to digital video recorders and the Web.
According to the report, which looks at content viewing on television, the Web, and several other platforms, online-video viewing was up a whopping 34.9 percent in the third quarter. DVR use was up 21.1 percent, the study found. Surprisingly, 99 percent of video content that's watched in the U.S. is done on a television. So, while Web use is on the rise, it still has a long way to go before the television is supplanted as the "go-to" for consuming video content.
Nielsen shows off video viewing by demographic.
(Credit: Nielsen)Nielsen also looked at how much time the average American spends consuming video content on their TVs, from the Web, or via mobile devices. The company found that the average person watched 31 hours of television per week during the third quarter of 2009. Just 31 of those minutes were spent in playback mode on their DVRs.
Web use, while higher than it has been, was still much lower than television use. Nielsen said that the average consumer spent four hours on the Internet during the third quarter. That user watched an average of 22 minutes of online video per week. Meanwhile, mobile-video consumption was lagging far behind in the third quarter, accounting for just 3 minutes per week of the user's time. Unsurprising to some, teens watched the most video content on their mobile phones, averaging seven hours of mobile-video consumption per month.
A few other interesting tidbits of information: TV viewing followed closely with age. Those aged 65 and older watched an average of 43 hours of television each week, while the average person between the ages of 18 and 24 watched 22 hours of television each week. Respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 watched the most video content online, averaging 35 minutes per week.
Click here to see the full Nielsen study.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
YouTube, which is already trying out the movie rental business, wants to get into TV, too.
Google's video site has been trying to convince the TV industry to let it stream individual shows for a fee, multiple sources tell me.
YouTube already lets users watch a smattering of TV shows for free, with advertising. Now it envisions something similar to what Apple and Amazon already offer: First-run shows, without commercials, for $1.99 an episode, available the day after they air on broadcast or cable.
Sources say the site's negotiations with the networks and studios that own the shows are preliminary. But both sides seem optimistic, since models for such deals already exist. No comment from YouTube.
The biggest stumbling block may be consumers. That's because Google is talking about streaming the shows, instead of letting consumers download them to their computers, as both Apple and Amazon do. But the networks and studios, who control pricing, will want to sell the streamed shows at the same price as downloads--they fear that offering them at a different price will force them to go back and rework their existing deals.
Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem, and cite studies that show that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that's a tough sell.
It's also possible that YouTube may skirt the issue by launching a TV rental business without the big hits that Apple and Amazon offer. One possibility: It could start by moving immediately to long and mid-"tail" shows and videos that aren't available other places, and don't have to match existing prices.
No matter how it does it, YouTube is likely to be just one of several outlets trying to get consumers to pay for TV on the Web in 2010.
Among others: In addition to its a la carte offering, Apple is trying to create a monthly subscription service. Hulu, the free TV site co-owned by News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, is expected to launch a subscription service of its own. And cable operators like Comcast will be launching different versions of "TV Everywhere" services, which give subscribers expanded access to online shows.
TV executives are generally enthusiastic about all of the above, since they are meant to create additional revenue streams without threatening the industry's existing business. That is: They're supposed to protect it from the digital disruption that has ravaged music, newspapers, etc.
But while Web users have an insatiable appetite for video, they've yet to demonstrate much interest in paying for it. If any of this is going to work, that will have to change.
Story Copyright (c) 2009 AllThingsD. All rights reserved.
Additional stories from AllThingsD
Maybe Rupert Murdoch was serious about wanting to go without Google.
Murdoch's News Corp. has initiated discussions with Microsoft over a plan to have the media company's Web content essentially delisted from the world's largest search engine, according to a report Sunday in the Financial Times that cited a person familiar with the situation. Microsoft, which owns rival search engine Bing, has also reportedly approached other media giants about having their content removed from Google search results as well.
Microsoft representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The two companies have been linked discussing a Web-search partnership in the past. During Microsoft's failed bid for Yahoo in 2008, the tech giant was reportedly in "serious" talks with News Corp. to make a joint bid for Yahoo.
Murdoch, the chairman of a newspaper, TV, and Internet empire that includes The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, 20th Century Fox, Fox News, and Hulu, warned earlier this month that his sites may soon disappear from the search engine's listings. Murdoch accused search giants of "stealing" his company's content during a recent interview with Sky News Australia. When he was asked why he just doesn't pull his Web sites from Google's search results, he said: "I think we will. But that's when we start charging."
Murdoch and other News Corp. execs have said that they intend to charge readers and viewers for access to the company's content, forsaking the ad revenue model.
For several months, executives at some of the nation's most influential news sources, including The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, have been blaming Google and similar Web services for at least some of their deepening financial troubles.
Google sells ads tied to the news blurbs it "scrapes" from news sites. It links back to the Web sites from which it acquired the content but doesn't share ad revenue with them.
"Publishers put their content on the Web because they want it to be found," Google said in a statement earlier this month. "Very few choose not to include their material in Google News and Web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we don't."
Critics of the media companies' bashing Google point out that if media companies were serious about not being indexed by search engines, they could accomplish the feat on their own by adding a robots.txt file to the root of their Web site containing a simple code that would prevent bots from indexing their pages.
In preparation for its upcoming spin-off from parent company Time Warner, AOL has named nine members to its board of directors--and from what it sounds like, more additions to the board could be coming.
The current lineup includes former Amazon Chief Information Officer Richard Dalzell, Plainfield Asset Management partner Karen Dykstra, financial services exec William Hambrecht, Paley Center for Media Director Patricia Mitchell, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, former CBS Chief Financial Officer Fredric Reynolds, former Procter & Gamble exec James Stengel, and ex-William Morris Agency CEO James Wiatt.
"AOL is very fortunate to have an exceptional group of proven leaders to serve on our board of directors," CEO Tim Armstrong, who took over the reins of the company this spring, said in a release. "AOL is on a mission to help create the future of media and content and the AOL board will play a central part in helping us focus the strategy and also operate the company with the highest ethical standards."
The majority of the board members don't hail from Armstrong's own Silicon Valley turf: the CEO served as Google's director of sales up until his hire at AOL. But most of them are veterans of traditional media, which presumably will give the onetime dial-up king an advantage as it attempts to shape itself into a digital-content power player--at least on the surface.
(Disclosure: One of AOL's new board members has a past affiliation with CBS Corp., which publishes CNET News.)
LOS ANGELES--The six largest Hollywood film studios are apparently dissatisfied with the way their trade group has waged war on illegal file sharing. CNET News has learned that at least three leaders of its antipiracy operations have been fired.
Among the three who were quietly ushered out of their posts at the Motion Picture Association of America three weeks ago was Greg Goeckner, the MPAA's general counsel. The others were the MPAA's director of worldwide antipiracy operations and its deputy director of Internet antipiracy. Goeckner will remain with the MPAA until the end of the year.
Other MPAA staffers were let go as part of a dramatic restructuring of the piracy-fighting operations, which included dropping the word "antipiracy" in favor of the term "content protection."
According to two sources in the film industry, the MPAA's antipiracy leadership had failed to impress studio executives, some of whom were concerned that the unit lacked aggressiveness. The reshuffling at the highest levels of the MPAA's antipiracy efforts will undoubtedly be seen as a black eye for MPAA CEO Dan Glickman.
An MPAA spokeswoman declined to comment on the firings but said that Daniel Mandil, an MPAA senior executive vice president, has been named general counsel and chief of content protection. He will oversee the association's combined legal and antipiracy efforts.
The shifts come as the sharing of movie files continues to creep toward mainstream adoption. In the past, digital copies of movies were too big to transmit easily on the Internet, but file-sharing technologies are improving, and sending large movie files is becoming easier.
Hollywood fears that the pirating of movies will become as common as the illicit sharing of music files. Studio insiders say they know that the answer isn't lawsuits but the hope is that Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, and other bandwidth providers will help them thwart file sharing at the network level. So far, though, the music and film industries have failed to get the major ISPs very involved.
As for Glickman, the whispers from studio execs for over year is that the former U.S. secretary of agriculture (under former President Bill Clinton) hasn't been very effective since taking over at the MPAA in 2004. One source said that Glickman won't make it to the end of his contract, which runs out in September 2010.
The MPAA denied an impending early departure for the executive.
"This week Dan Glickman met with several of the MPAA member company studio executives, as he often does," said Angela Martinez, an MPAA spokeswoman. "During those meetings he reconfirmed his plans to continue in his role as chairman and CEO through the remainder of his contract. They welcomed that commitment and expressed their continued confidence in him."
AOL CEO and former Google sales exec Tim Armstrong.
(Credit: Google)We get it, Tim Armstrong. We know the still relatively new AOL CEO is all about reinventing the once-mighty online access company into a digital publishing powerhouse. But that didn't stop him from really hammering the point home at The Atlantic's First Draft of History conference on Thursday morning.
"What is the future of the company?" Armstrong, who previously served as a high-profile sales executive at Google, said in his talk, which was streamed live online. "If I had to describe it in one word, I think it's content, and I think it's content because there's an opportunity to marry what the content's already done with what the content can do."
One of his goals at AOL, he said, is to evolve and simplify the display advertising industry in a manner inspired by the success of search advertising. "When you have millions of advertisers that can sign up online in 10 minutes and run a global search campaign," he explained, "the same thing needs to be brought to display."
Armstrong has reason to believe in content. AOL acquired a solid portfolio of blogs when it purchased publishing network Weblogs Inc. in 2005, and the titles it's launched since then have largely been well-received--even though Armstrong promptly did away with the "MediaGlow" branding that had been established for the company's content division soon into his reign as CEO.
AOL has reach: 100 million visitors in the U.S., and 275 million globally. It'll soon be wholly independent from parent company Time Warner. Plus, the traditional print publishing industry is so beleaguered that it's about time a digital power stepped up to the plate.
But there are still plenty of issues at stake. Armstrong said that the ultimate answer to one of the biggest controversies in new-media publishing--do you charge for it or not?--will be that the Web will gravitate toward a mix of free, ad-supported content and paid offerings.
"I think consumers are smart. I think that if the content is really good, people will pay for it," he said. "I do think there's cases where I think if you can add enough value to content, people are going to pay for it. I think The Wall Street Journal's a good example of this."
Meanwhile, Armstrong expects the digital advertising industry to continue to mature, despite the fact that revenue has still been dampened by the recession. "When I came from Google to AOL the first meeting that I did was in Baltimore, at our Advertising.com (offices)," he related, referring to the ad network that AOL acquired in 2004. "One of the employees said, 'How many ad campaigns do you think we should be running?' and I said, I don't know, 500,000, and the audience went blank."
He continued, "The number was a few thousand, and for me that was shocking because I came from a place where we went from having a few hundred customers to having a million customers. And why hasn't AOL thought in that direction and that scale?"
Part of achieving that scale, he explained, involves getting pretty deep into local advertising markets, something that AOL sees as an untapped resource for both audiences and ad dollars. At the Atlantic event, he showed off some visuals from Patch, the local-news start-up that he invested in prior to his arrival at AOL; AOL ultimately acquired it. The start-up is currently restricted to about a dozen towns, mostly in New Jersey, but a gradual expansion is on the road map.
"In the town we're covering every single thing that a consumer in that town should be concerned about," Armstrong said of Patch, which employs a professional journalist in each town as well as aggregates local news from other sources. "The thing you don't see from the surface here is (that) we built a massive structured database underneath this. We've digitized the entire town."
The Internet offers everything from searching to shopping to social networking, but Net users still spend most of their time on plain old content sites, according to a survey from the Online Publishers Association.
In the latest installment from its monthly Internet Activity Index, the OPA reported that Internet users are now spending 42 percent of their time online using content sites, more than any other category. That figure represents a 24 percent jump from 2003 when Net users spent 34 percent of their time on content sites.
Content sites include those that offer news, information, and entertainment, such as NYTimes.com, ESPN.com, MapQuest.com, and Edmunds.com.
Analyzing five different categories--commerce, communications, community, content, and search--the OPA also found that people are gravitating to community sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, at the expense of communication sites or software that provide just e-mail or instant messaging.
"In 2008, we introduced the Community category based on the emergence and popularity of sites like Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn," Pam Horan, president of the OPA, said in a statement. "These new sites have had significant impact on the Communications category, which saw a 41 percent decline, due to the fact consumers are using Community sites where they can conduct these same activities more efficiently."
Among the other categories, people spend 5 percent of their time on search sites, up slightly from 3 percent in 2003, and 13 percent of their time at commerce sites, down from 16 percent five years ago.
The OPA also tracked how much time per month, on average, that people spend in a particular category. Net users will stay almost 7 hours at a content site, around 3 hours at a community site, and just under an hour at a search site.
Launched in 2003, the Internet Activity Index is conducted and compiled by Nielsen Online and posted online each month at the OPA Web site.
PASADENA, Calif.--Disney CEO Robert Iger said he appreciates the fact that his company helped pioneer user-generated video with "America's Funniest Home Videos," but acknowledges he missed a big opportunity.
"Unfortunately, I didn't come up with YouTube," Iger said Wednesday during the opening interview at Fortune's Brainstorm: Tech conference here. Although it has yet to be profitable, he noted that those who created the site did sell it for a "chunk of change."
Fortune's Richard Siklos interviews Disney CEO Robert Iger as the Brainstorm:Tech conference kicks off in Pasadena, Calif., Wednesday.
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET)But, Iger insisted that free content isn't going to be the only game in town.
"People are willing to pay for quality," he said. "They are willing to pay for choice. They are willing to pay for convenience."
He noted that people still pay $5 an hour to go to the movies, 75 cents an hour to read books and magazines, 50 cents an hour to watch cable, but just 25 cents an hour to use the Internet, in terms of the amount they pay their Internet service provider.
"There's plenty of room for people to spend more money on for things they are doing online," Iger said. "I think it is wrong to assume that because there is a lot on the Internet that is free that it is going to be impossible to monetize" content.
Iger acknowledged that the company still makes far less online than it does from traditional broadcast means.
"We're not monetizing as much as we do in our traditional business," he said. "It's very early in the timeline. I think there is going to be ample opportunity to improve monetization from advertising online."
When moderator Richard Siklos pointed out that he had a fairly optimistic take on things, Iger noted that's part of his job.
"If you are trying to lead anybody, you better be an optimist," he said. "Not too many people follow pessimists."
He said his job as CEO is to make sure everyone at his company has one hand in the present and one hand in the future--essentially aware of where his bread is buttered but also with an eye toward where that next meal is coming from.
As for privacy concerns, he notes that most of the issues come from "older people," saying that when he talks to his daughters they show little concern for those issues.
"I've learned more about my daughters on Facebook than I did when I was raising them," Iger said.
It's here, sort of. Several months after the big announcement that content from Disney's ABC Entertainment division would be coming to Hulu, the entertainment conglomerate's shows have started arriving.
The primetime drama "Grey's Anatomy" debuted on the video hub Monday, and more shows will roll out over the next two weeks.
These include, according to Hulu, consistent hits like "Desperate Housewives" and "Scrubs," along with more recent additions to the network such as "I Survived A Japanese Game Show."
Disney joined Hulu in April, giving it a joint stake in the company alongside NBC Universal, News Corp., and investor Providence Equity Partners. Shows from ABC as well as ABC-owned cable channels like SoapNet and ABC Family are on the way, along with movies from Disney (though no titles have been made available yet).
Would-be Hulu rival Joost closed its consumer video service last month after its peer-to-peer technology failed to make up for its tepid content offering.
My big question: When will we see episodes of my favorite ABC show, "Lost," on Hulu? I've e-mailed a company representative to find out.
Update 6:20 a.m. Thursday: To include more background on new witness.
RealNetworks introduced a new witness in the RealDVD case on Wednesday, a move that comes late in the court proceedings that could decide the software's fate.
Real is locked in a court battle with the major movie studios over RealDVD, a software that enables owners to copy DVDs and store them to a hard drive. The Motion Picture Association of America filed suit against Real last fall, accusing the company of violating copyright law and breach of contract. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel could rule on whether to remove a ban on the sale of RealDVD as early as Thursday.
Real on Wednesday filed with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California a written declaration from Peter Biddle, an Intel executive who had dealings with the movie industry over a decade ago while employed for Microsoft. He disputes Hollywood's claims that the industry included in a license for its DVD-encryption technology a ban on copying DVDs while in a computer hard drive.
Real argues that because it possesses a license to use CSS and because the license doesn't prohibit the copying of DVDs in all cases, Real isn't guilty of breaching its contract.
What Biddle focuses on in his statement is the license for DVD Content Scramble System (CSS), the encryption technology designed to prevent copying of DVDs. Companies need the license to make DVD players. In his declaration, Biddle says that he was part of the "standards-setting" group that helped draft the CSS license between 1996 and 1998. According to court documents, he has not been compensated by Real. It is not yet clear whether Patel will allow Biddle to testify in court.
He confirmed that the film industry was initially against allowing the copying of DVDs under any circumstances. But he said eventually the studios relaxed their position.
Real says it couldn't find Peter Biddle until May 6th. Perhaps it should have tried simple Google search.
(Credit: LinkedIn)"I repeatedly explained that such a prohibition would be extremely difficult to implement," said Biddle in his declaration, recalling what he said during negotiations on what language the CSS license should include. "Because computer and software products rapidly evolve, the CSS license was designed to enable computer manufacturers to have significant freedom."
He says it was never agreed to that the CSS license would ban all copying.
Marsha King, a retired vice president at Warner Bros., testified during the hearing that the entire reason for the CSS license was to prevent consumers from creating copies.
"The studios were adamant that no copy be placed on the (computer) hard drive," King told the court. "The only thing we authorized was playback of the movies...no copies were to be made...it was a mantra."
In the past week, Real has introduced Biddle and filed new allegations against the film industry, accusing them of antitrust violations. The question is whether these moves are just 12th-hour legal wrangling or will have legitimate impact on the case.
In a letter to Patel, Real's attorneys said that they were unable to locate Biddle until May 6, and weren't clear about what he would testify to until Wednesday. This makes little sense as Biddle, the man behind Microsoft's BitLocker technology and Darknet, is pretty high profile and a Google search quickly reveals he is Director of the Google Program Office at Intel and lives in the Seattle area.
Patel is scheduled to hear closing arguments on Thursday morning. There's no telling when she will issue a decision, but she has a history of ruling from the bench.
