YouTube -- Destroying $100s of Millions in Wealth at a Video Near You

Internet video viewing's vault to the mainstream continued virtually unabated throughout the summer -- despite vacations -- and YouTube is the primary beneficiary, serving up 42% of all videos viewed online in the U.S. in July according to comScore. YouTube users viewed 8.9 billion videos in July alone -- with total views up a massive 66% just since March! Viacom Digital's sites ranked a distant second at 3.8% of all total views -- and much-hyped Hulu ranked 5th overall with 2.1% of the overall market. (The average YouTube user views 74 videos per month, whereas the average Hulu user views only 12 videos per month; of course, Hulu videos are generally significantly "different" -- premier and longer form television content, as opposed to YouTube's dancing cats).

As my colleague Eric Quanstrom (VP Marketing & Strategy at Sorenson Media) points out, at its current pace, YouTube will cross 15 billion monthly views by year-end. And, perhaps even more amazing is that YouTube is now the second most used search engine, thereby giving Google an unbeatable 1-2 punch. Amazing news for Google, right? That's a massive amount of eyeballs against which to throw ads.

But, ultimately the only numbers that matter -- the ability to monetize -- just ain't happening yet as we all know. Instead, as Eric points out based on an analysis by Credit Suisse, YouTube takes in roughly only $20 million per month. And if you take this number and divide it by total views, that means that YouTube makes a paltry 1/5 of 1 cent (i.e., $.0022) for each view -- thereby bleeding cash to service the service. Credit Suisse estimates $470 million of blood -- in the red -- in 2009 alone.

Yet, Google management, of course, continues to believe (invest) that YouTube's 8.9 billion eyeballs are worth vastly more ultimately than virtually any other competing use of cash. And Quanstrom's conclusion? In his words, "this may very well be the most effective destruction of wealth (attention, business models, competitive resources) we've ever witnessed, ever. Completely fascinating."

Well, perhaps the biggest destruction of wealth is AIG and others of its ilk during the current economic melt-down. But, Quanstrom's point is well-taken, although Google undoubtedly has a master-plan ... they must, right?

(Although Twitter is doing its best do destroy that plan ... read this -- http://scobleizer.posterous.com/why-twitter-is-underhyped-and-is-probably-wor)

Developers -- Get a Bite Out of Apple's $2.4 Billion App Store Market

Yes, we all knew Apple's App Store is popular.

But, the size of that app market is mind-boggling -- $2.4 billion annually (according to AdMob, which serves ads to more than 7,000 mobile websites worldwide and 3,000 applications). The split is roughly $125 million per month for the iPhone and $75 million per month for the iPod Touch. And, 50% of iPhone users download at least one paid app per month -- while 40% of iPod Touch users download at least one paid app per month.

So, what's a developer to do to get noticed at this dance?

Read TechCrunch's words o' wisdom right here -- survival of the fittest ...

Counter-Point -- Andy Abramson Phones In on the Meaning of Google's Acquisition of On2 to Skype

A few days back, I wrote a post about Google's recent play to buy video codec provider On2 and the potential threat that poses to Skype. That post received lots of visibility because it was picked up by some financial message boards -- particularly by some On2 investors none-too-happy about the pending acquisition (there has been a lot of press about this shareholder discontent -- and the filing of actual litigation to block the deal).

To be clear, my fundamental point is that Google's move -- which still has a long way to go before the deal closes -- should be making a lot of folks very nervous, including Skype. My long-time compadre and VoIP/technology expert, Andy Abramson, chimes in on the more provocative scenario I paint by the On2 acquisition -- i.e., that Google theoretically could withhold from Skype (a direct competitor in the online communications world) critical voice communications technology. And, he brushes that possibility aside, concluding that Google has no interest getting into the patent licensing game.

I actually agree with Andy -- and my post was not meant to imply that I believed this more draconian scenario was the most likely. I too feel that Google is unlikely to play that direct and obvious predatory card (for anti-competitive reasons and Andy's reasons, among others). But that does not mean that Skype should not be "nervous" about that more extreme scenario or other less-than-palatable scenarios because no one really knows what Google's intentions are.

At a minimum, Google's actions, in this online communications context, demonstrate that it is committed to focusing additional significant resources on video chat via Google Talk and Gmail Chat. And, this alone should be a "wake up call" to Skype.

Note to Skype - Be Afraid, Very Afraid, of Google's Deal to Buy On2

Google recently rocked the Internet video world by announcing that it is buying video codec provider On2. Although the deal faces many hurdles -- including shareholder lawsuits -- it is expected to close later this year.

By M&A standards, the deal is not huge (especially for behemoth Google) -- just a bit over $100 million in stock. So, why so much water cooler talk about this one? Precisely because it is Google. And, precisely because Google's intentions with On2 and its video codec technologies theoretically could shake-up the ambitions, long-term strategies, and overall success of some of the biggest tech titans ... including Skype.

Here's why.

Skype video depends upon On2 video codec technology. And, video chat has now become standard communications equipment -- in fact, it has now become extremely strategic indeed (my own previous company, SightSpeed, was acquired by Logitech for this very reason -- and Logitech's new Vid service is built upon SightSpeed technology).

Then, there is Google. Google Talk and Gmail Chat also feature video chat, among other things.

Where am I going with this? Google competes directly with Skype -- and, if Google holds the keys to the video chat castle (i.e., On2's video technology), Google may choose not to open the doors to that castle for Skype. Google could theoretically simply choose not to license On2's video technology to Skype, in which case Skype would have some serious internal strategic chatting to do (although, Google's actions certainly would be challenged on anti-competitive grounds in a very big way).

Even if Google's intentions are not so draconian, Skype still faces a very formidable foe in Google Talk and Gmail Chat. And, On2 technology certainly could be front and center as the company expands its video chat ambitions. Skype Journal's Phil Wolff writes an informative piece about just these very issues.

So, just when Skype thought it was out of competitive threats and major strategic vulnerabilities, "they pull me back in" (thank you Al Pacino). Maybe Skype should have made a play for On2 ...

EXCLUSIVE Tech Exec Interview - Jeff Cavins, CEO of Fuze Box - "5 Questions"

Today marks a first for me and my long-running blog, for today I kick-off my first of what I expect to be a series of informal -- and exclusive -- Q&As/interviews with top digital media and tech executives. My goal is to keep these short -- "5 questions" to be exact -- informative and interesting, giving you information that you won't find anywhere else. Usually I will know the tech exec in the "hot seat", which is one of the benefits of having been in the digital media and tech world for a few years.

My inaugural Q&A today is with Jeff Cavins, CEO of Fuze Box (formerly CallWave) -- a company that describes itself as offering hi-def real-time collaboration solutions. I have known Jeff for years -- from my days at Musicmatch and his days at Loudeye. Jeff and his company were recently the focus of a very positive feature story from TechCrunch, in which Jeff discussed his business and the perils of being a public v. private company (since Jeff just recently took his formerly public company private).

In this debut Q&A, I ask Jeff more about this public/private issue that many of you face, as well as some of the other things that differentiate his company and make it and him "tick". Jeff gives more detail about his products and overall vision for the company -- including a discussion of a very cool new product called "Fuze Movie" that is geared to the movie industry.

There are no rules here ... I ask the questions ... the tech exec gives his or her answers ... uncut and unfiltered. Enjoy -- and let me know if you like my "Tech Exec Interview" series by commenting or sending me a direct message (I am also a frequent Tweeter). Please also let me know who else you would like to have in the hot seat -- and what questions you would like me to ask.

QUESTION 1 -- CSATHY: How does it feel to be a private company CEO again?

JEFF CAVINS: It was the right thing for the company. The beta/risk profile of this company was inappropriate for public shareholders and the benefits of being public (liquidity, stock as a tool for recruiting and currency for M&A), was not being enjoyed by the company. Yet the company was burdened with public company expenses including governance, audit, disclosures, etc. We are glad to build long term value rather than focuses on 90 day earnings expectations.

QUESTION 2 -- CSATHY: Did TechCrunch accurately depict the travails of being a public company CEO?

JEFF CAVINS: To some degree. The cost of being public ranges from $1.2M - $2M for companies of our size. That number was mis-reported and may have been a result of a typo or a bad phone connection. However, the Tech Crunch article was directionally accurate.

QUESTION 3 -- CSATHY: Your advice to any private company CEO who is considering going public?

JEFF CAVINS: Know your after market performance forecasts at every level of detail and know that you have all metrics met for at least eight quarters after you go public. If you have a growth business and you have expanding earnings, even on an EBITDA basis, you should be able to forecast out by eight quarters. Unfortunately, many view the IPO as the “liquidity event”, and that is a viewpoint for exiting investors. The IPO is a beginning, where you have cultivated and encouraged new investors who are not exiting… they are entering. The CEO has a fiduciary duty to these new investors and must ensure that they get a return on their investment. This requires that the company must have a solid track record of earnings and revenue growth and a CEO who can forecast and assure that level of performance going forward. An IPO is a great moment, however it must be followed by increased performance. A take private is not a moment, but a long and difficult process that I equate to having a Tattoo removed, layer by layer. It takes fortitude in management, good legal and banking relationships and a great board to remove a company from the public market. My advice on going public is "Go only knowing that you are going to win in the public markets over the long haul."

QUESTION 4 -- CSATHY: Jeff, what can you and your company do better than anyone else?

JEFF CAVINS: We have developed and deployed a SaaS platform for the collaboration and communication of visual content. On top of this platform, we have developed and commercially deployed 4 applications – Fuze Meeting, Fuze Messenger, Fuze Meeting for Mobile and Fuze Movie. Fuze Meeting is an online, browser based collaboration/meeting service that enables users to share office documents, images, photos Power Points, media, film, video at HD Resolutions. The service also integrates Telephony and a conferencing Bridge capability that “Fetches” attendees into meetings, thus all meetings start on time as there is no wait for people to dial in. The service is browser based so there is virtually no implementation costs or hurdles and it is highly secure, conforming to the newest technologies and policies in security. It is widely used by banks, Wall St. firms, SMB, Enterprises and end users. Fuze Messenger is an optimized messaging service that gives users IM at their mobile devices with federation to all popular IM Networks such as Google Chat, MSN Messenger, AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, etc. The IM’s that travel through our technology are safe and secure and are as well used by large, multi-national corporations due to the fact that we also extend Microsoft OCS to all mobile platforms such as RIM, iPhone, Nokia, Palm and Windows Mobile. We have over 1M users of this service world wide.

Fuze Meeting and Fuze Messenger are highly optimized for Mobile devices mentioned above. So in addition to online meetings in HD, we take that experience and deliver HD Meetings to mobile phones.

Fuze Movie is a “Pro-Apps” version of Fuze Meeting. It is very powerful and handles Film resolution collaboration in real time, where moderator and participants are in full sync and are able to annotate and markup film in real time and frame sync. Fuze Movie was used on last summer’s film “Traitor” and is being used on a big budget Warner Bros film for release after the holidays.

The online collaboration space is expected to grow to over $4.5B globally in the next few years. There are many who are underserved due to the limitations imposed by current online collaboration/meeting applications. Mostly because these applications were built in the 90’s and are client-server architecture in design. Web Service based applications will foster new growth in Collaboration services and end user adoption beyond the corporation. Social Media integration will make these service easier to use. Also, users have been constrained on visual fidelity. We have solved this and have recently entered the market with what is becoming a very popular solution.

We see are opportunity as very large, global in scope and importantly, the growing market of what is forecasted to be 6B mobile subscribers by the year 2013, is an important venue for our services.

QUESTION 5 -- CSATHY: What else do you find to be particularly interesting in and around the Internet video space?

JEFF CAVINS: We believe that the Internet is poorly suited, due to TCP/IP protocols, for the delivery of synchronized film content to millions of simultaneous and con-current viewers. However, our transport protocol enables us to deliver just that to hundreds of thousands of users who are collaborating on documents, images, photos, PowerPoints and Video. We think that the opportunities for digital distribution of film is a natural next step and that it offers an incremental channel for film makers and studios to reach an audience the is target platform oriented and mobile device centric.

BONUS QUESTION -- CSATHY: When you aren’t working, what do you like doing?

I serve on two boards, a Bio-Molecular Research company in San Diego, Fuze Box’s board and I invest in a couple of start ups, so business life is active. I enjoy my kids who are young adults now and we are very much into boating in the summer and skiing in the winter.

Rhapsody -- No Demand Music Streaming?

I have long been a fan of on demand music subscription streaming services like Rhapsody -- have been a paying customer for years, in fact (first with Musicmatch -- bought by Yahoo! -- service shut down and transferred to Yahoo! -- whose service was shut down and transferred to Rhapsody). Rhapsody gives its paying customers (monthly cost is roughly the same as buying one CD, which no one does anymore) the ability to stream any song, any album, any playlist from over 8 million tracks.

Contrast that with other music streaming services like Pandora, which doesn't give you your music on demand. Instead, it gives you more of a radio/random music listening experience -- although not completely random, because users can hone in on more relevant music by typing in favorite songs and bands. Pandora and others of that ilk can be "free", but are not really free because you must listen to ads -- frequently have monthly streaming limits -- and frequently have lower sound quality. To get rid of these "costs" of free, Pandora requires users to pay $36 per year ($3/month).

So, Rhapsody is far more powerful in many ways -- but, apparently requires too much work for most. Seems like most simply like to pick a few music parameters and have the service do the rest -- pick the songs -- rather than require you to actually pick the songs, the albums, the artists. This has always surprised me a bit, but I too have jumped on the Pandora bandwagon of late -- and now pay for both Rhapsody and Pandora.

And, while Pandora continues to gain momentum -- although I highly doubt the service is anything close to being profitable -- Rhapsody continues to lose converts, lose demand, and shed employees. TechCrunch reports that the joint venture (Real & MTV) just recently laid off nearly 10% of its employees and lost 50,000 subscribers (it now apparently has 750,000 paid subs).

The Power of "Boring" Recurring Toolbar Revenues and Yahoo's Settlement with DivX

You know those search boxes on the upper right-hand corner of virtually any major Internet site's home page? Those -- and frequently other related items in that top "bar" of those sites -- are called toolbars. And, Yahoo! is reported to be forking over approximately $9.5 million to DivX for allegedly breaching a 2-year deal with DivX to provide its toolbar to DivX's site.

What's this all about? Well, those boring old toolbars -- one of which you likely have on your own PC or Mac because you intentionally or (or, more frequently, inadvertently) installed it when you downloaded other software from the Internet -- generate exciting (and HIGHLY predictable) recurring revenues. This is especially true for companies -- such as DivX -- that receive lots of traffic to their website and lots of customers who download its products. In fact, typically, DivX generates a whopping $20+ million annually from toolbar revenues alone -- and for, essentially, doing nothing! From DivX's annual reports, this appears to represent about 20% or more of DivX's overall revenues (and second most important revenue stream -- second only to its core licensing business)!

Why? Because Internet search -- of course -- is highly lucrative (just ask Google). And, companies like DivX which give (or, at least try to give) toolbars to their customers in get a significant cut of every search made via that toolbar. That cut is generally higher than 50%! And, the not-so-boring beauty of toolbar revenues is that -- just like interest on money -- those revenues compound month over month. Look at it this way. Let's say 10 of my customers install a toolbar from my site this month. That means I get a cut of every search they make from that toolbar this month. But, then I get 10 new customers taking my toolbar next month -- that means that I now have 20 customers from whom I get a cut of every search for month 2 ... and so on ... and so on ... These ongoing monthly revenue streams are called "recurring" revenues -- and every company wants them!

My own previous company -- SightSpeed -- saw the beauty of this "boring" revenue stream ourselves -- revenues were meaningful immediately and were growing month-over-month significantly. And, these revenues were "easy" -- we didn't have to do anything -- our customers already were downloading our free software, so a high percentage of them would download our Ask toolbar at the same time. And, voila ... the magic begins!

For DivX, historically, toolbar revenues have been significant -- in fact, a major revenue stream -- as indicated above, a whopping $20+ million annually! So, when Yahoo! yanked its toolbars from DivX, DivX was not pleased. Hence the lawsuit ... and, hence the settlement.

And, for DivX, the beauty of this settlement is that DivX replaced Yahoo! with Google after the fall-out so has been collecting toolbar revenues throughout its dispute with Yahoo! So, in effect, the $9.5 million from Yahoo! can be seen as a nice little "bonus" on top of the already easy revenues resulting from its Google deal.

So, essentially ANY website with any meaningful traffic and with any free downloadable product is leaving easy money on the table by not having a toolbar deal. After all, you have every right to monetize your business ...

Not so boring after all, eh?

M&A IS Different Now -- iLike for $19-20 Million (Where Are the Zeroes)?

Yesterday, I blogged about MySpace's (News Corp's) acquisition of music social networking site iLike -- at the time, no price tag was connected to the deal. And, given iLike's popularity -- 55 million unique users -- I had anticipated a fairly healthy number for its founders, especially given the fact that a major media company was buying the site.

But, whoaaaaaaaaaaaa! According to both the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, iLike's price is a mere $19-20 million! And, this is after iLike investors -- including TicketMaster -- have pumped in $16.5 million (likely -- iLikely? -- leaving very little if anything to iLike's employees). That means that MySpace -- under new CEO Owen Van Natta -- exercised financial discipline and didn't get caught up in more typical "traditional media" behavior of throwing dollars at a deal. And, the final number -- without more zeroes attached to it -- certainly must indicate that mere popularity is not enough -- a company simply must be able to monetize its services and show good old-fashioned top line and bottom line growth to justify a healthy price tag and significant return for investors.

Champagne certainly still should flow to iLike's founders and employees. But, this deal perhaps indicates that a new financial sobriety is part of our new economic times ...

Digital Media M&A Heats Up -- MySpace Acquiring iLike

Breaking news -- MySpace is buying music social networking site iLike for an undisclosed amount of cash/stock. MySpace understands that it needs to continue to focus on music, since that has been the most promising part of its overall story, as the sheen has come off the rest of its biz (which now seems stale to most in light of the transcendence of Facebook and others).

Likely a great result for Hadi Partovi and his brother, who started iLike not so long ago in 2006. Hadi previously worked at Microsoft as the GM of MSN Entertainment Services -- and I interacted with him during my Musicmatch days. Good guy. Congratulations!

The M&A market continues to heat up as the global economic thaw (knock on wood!) continues ...

The Beatles -- Soon Finally Available Online? "Let It Be"

TechCrunch today speculates that The Beatles finally soon may be available for purchase online via iTunes.

If this is true -- which we may learn as soon as September 9th -- this would fill one of the most massive (and frustrating) holes in the digital music universe.

Given all the recent moves by the remaining Beatles to reach a new generation, I think it is highly likely that this speculation is true ... certainly, if not in September, soon. And, iTunes would be the logical choice ...

Businesses Rush to Online Video - And YouTube Ain't the Solution

Digital Media Buzz (DMB) recently published an article about the "corporate land rush" to online video -- and the unique power of video to engage with, and market/sell to, prospective customers. I have written about this previously as well -- and about the fact that, for 99% of businesses on the Internet, the relevant question is not about monetizing/selling the videos themselves (contrary to most of the focus in the press), but rather is about using online video to better market/sell your goods and services (i.e., build your business).

And, although YouTube is frequently used by businesses as their online vehicle, in the words of DMB, "there's a price to be paid" for that choice -- in other words, "free" is not really free (as I have also written before).

First, there is the fundamental issue of quality -- quality should be "job 1" for all businesses using online video as video quality is a direct reflection of your business; and, let's face it, YouTube ain't got it (compare videos on YouTube to videos encoded and published on our 360 video platform as an example).

Second, in the words of DMB, "every video seeded onto YouTube has the site's ubiquitous watermark stamped across the image." Moreover, "Until the YouTube juggernaut shifts course, companies needing control over their brands [which should be every company], the look and feel of their video players [again, everyone] ... must look to video hosting and distribution services outside the free video-sharing networks."

Quite simply, YouTube and other so-called "free" sites really are too costly to your business ...

DVD Burning Loses Big in Court - But What is the REAL Difference From Legal CD Burning?

Yesterday, Rob Glaser's Real lost a significant court battle against the major movie studios regarding its RealDVD DVD burning software. Specifically, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction banning the sale of RealDVD pending a court trial, which may start only in several months (in other words, the ban is now in effect for a long long time). This is a very big deal, because courts rarely issue preliminary injunctions (since they are not so "preliminary" after all -- they frequently kill enjoined products).

Yes, it is understandable that the movie studios don't want their DVD movies to be saved locally to consumers' hard drives -- let's face it, many copy and then distribute those movies to their friends, and so on, and so on ...

But, is this any different than what has been permitted to go on for years and years when it comes to music? No. The courts, for years, have permitted companies to sell software that gave consumers the ability to take their music CDs and burn them onto their local drives -- under the mantra of "fair use" (in other words, essentially for their personal use -- to archive it and to be able to consume their purchased tracks on other devices).

So, how can a court rationalize these two very different legal treatments of essentially the same issue? That is the intellectually perplexing aspect of the court's decision. The court's legal doctrine seems legally suspect -- movies are being treated differently than music simply because it is too late to regulate music and the genie is out of the bottle. Again, while I "get that" real world decision, I don't get how the courts can rationalize it.

The federal court that granted the studios' preliminary junction concluded:

"While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual's consumer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies."

Wow -- now THAT really makes sense, right? Consumers have the right to do it -- but, they legally can't get the tools they need to exercise that right? Right?

Quite frankly, I am not sure what the "right" answer is in all of these cases -- music or motion pictures. But the courts are flat out wrong.

And, at the end of the day, the genie already is out of the bottle and consumers are copying music, movies and more to their computers for all kinds of reasons -- many valid, many not. And that reality ultimately rules the day ...

500 Posts and Counting!

I have now reached a blogging milestone -- 500 posts -- for me, a big deal. I started a couple years back and have come to really enjoy my early (very early) mornings drinking my coffee and perusing the papers and blogs for one "juicy" digital media story that catches my eye -- and to add my own "two cents" on it. As regular readers know, I also have used my blog to give breaking news about my companies (I now also use Twitter to frequently give advance clues and notice of major company developments).

Okay, enough already ... onto #501, and it is a story of REAL interest to me ...

A Tale of Two Tech Deals -- FriendFeed & Frontier Airlines?????

Several acquisitions impacting tech titans were announced in the past couple days -- on Sunday, Publicis Groupe buying digital ad agency Razorfish from Microsoft, and yesterday, first, Facebook buying FriendFeed for nearly $50 million (in a very "folksy" Silicon Valley kind of way -- check out the pics here) ... and, second, Southwest Airlines making a bid to buy Frontier Airlines for $170 million.

Huh? What? What does Frontier Airlines have to do with anything?

Well, Southwest Airlines is THE airlines for tech types -- certainly on the West Coast. I take -- and have taken -- the Southwest "bus" for years flying from San Diego to the Bay Area to San Jose and all points beyond. If Southwest succeeds in its bid to buy Frontier Airlines, the tech exec will have even more bus routes to choose from ...

"Traditional" Ad Agencies -- Making Big Moves to Act Non-Traditionally

Yesterday, it was announced that tech behemoth Microsoft sold its online ad agency, Razorfish, to "traditional" ad agency behemoth Publicis Groupe (Saatchi & Saatchi) for $530 million cash. Microsoft had previously acquired Razorfish in 2007 as part of its overall acquisition of AQuantive for $6 billion.

Why?

For Microsoft, this latest move signals its continuing efforts to significantly cutback its efforts to sell advertising and focus more of its resources on core initiatives (yes, even Microsoft -- with its heaps of billions upon billions -- needs to focus!). Remember, the Redmond-based giant just recently partnered with Yahoo to power Yahoo search with Bing and will rely upon the Yahoo sales team to serve ads against Bing search results (in an attempt to more effectively compete with Google).

For Publicis Groupe, the agency understands that growth in Internet ad initiatives continues to accelerate in terms of importance -- including online video ads (which are still in their very early incarnations). And, the agency understands that it has fallen behind smaller and nimbler firms focused on online initiatives.

Razorfish -- founded in 1995 -- is one of the "grand-daddys" of the Internet/interactive advertising agency world. Publicis has acquired a marquee name with deep contacts. But will the "traditional" agency know what to do with it?

Bad Economy Or Just the Beginning? TV "Upfront" Ad Sales Way Down

It is that time of year when TV execs from the traditional major networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox) finalize bulk ad sales for the upcoming new fall TV season -- so-called "upfront" advertising commitments from the major ad agencies on behalf of their clients. And, the result? Drum-roll please ... the worst upfront results since 2001 -- both in terms of volume and overall ad revenues.

TV execs blame this on the bad economy. And, there certainly can be no doubt that the economy is significantly adversely impacting TV ad spends.

But, could there be more to it than that? Could it be that major advertisers are (finally?) reacting to the ever-increasing ratings slides at all of the traditional TV networks as consumers have more and more non-"traditional" entertainment choices (including watching their favorite TV shows on the Internet)?

The answer is a likely "yes" -- this year's results may not be the aberration that most believe they are. As I have written several times before, more and more TV programming will be consumed on the Internet -- and the traditional business models will need to adapt to this new reality.

And, that means, among other things, that the traditional upfront sales season will need to evolve into something not so traditional.

Developers Wanted! Sorenson Announces New FREE SDK for 360 (Beta)

It's about time ... developers asked for it, and they got it.

Today, my company, Sorenson Media, announces the availability (in beta) of an SDK for our Sorenson 360 video publishing platform (which we like to call our "video delivery network" or VDN). Now, developers can use their own media players -- or third party players -- and have the full quality, power and ease of our highly regarded new all-in-one video solution (that Dan Rayburn of Streaming Media recently called "a winner").

We also now have a new Professional Services Department to customize solutions for those of our customers who would rather leave the coding to us.

Because our SDK is in beta, we are limiting its availability for the time being. If interested, contact us at SDK@sorensonmedia.com or click here. And, stay tuned ... we are committed to bring developers more and more of the quality and power of what we do here at Sorenson Media.