YouTube announced today that it is in talks with the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League to show live, streaming games on its site. According to Gautam Anand, Google’s Director of Content Partnerships for Asia Pacific, Google is in talks with “most pro sports leagues” including the NBA and NHL, and European soccer leagues.
I have always thought that live sports / events (e.g. Grammys) might be TV's saviour. Live events, such as the games from professional sports leagues and other major one off events like the Grammy Awards, seem to account for so much of TV's viewership in the world today. Social media has been added to the mix as there is also much Twitter and Facebook activity around live events.
A direct indicator of this is the increased in revenue for this year's Grammy Awards. (See report here). It shows that the Grammys is delivering the audience the brands want to get in front of, and the brands are willing to pay for it. Another indicator of the sheer popularity of TV for sports was an observation I made during the 2010 FIFA World Cup. During the course of the tournament, I noticed that World Cup Football related topics accounted for 7 of the top 10 trending topics on Twitter globally. If sports and live events are so critical to TV in such a tangible way, what is likely to happen if YouTube closes this deal with the major sporting leagues? What do you think?
How will it impact the Caribbean? Our big ticket events stream via the internet. The International Soca Monarch in Trinidad and Tobago is one event that has worked hard on broadcasting their event live to the mass market around the world. Could this move end up being beneficial to Caribbean media and independent producers, by offering us more possibilities to broadcast our events to our people around the world? Will the business model that YouTube and Google build around live events help us to monetize our content better?
Corey Graham 2.0
YouTube did stream some of the IPL cricket matches and I believe they got a decent audience. In terms of securing rights to big leagues like the NBA, MLB and EPL, I still don’t think it would mean the end of tv as we know it just yet.
My reasoning is that people still want to watch on their tv, not on their computer so YouTube/Google would have to make it much easier for people to access the live content via devices like Apple TV, Roku, Boxee and their own GoogleTV before the masses start approaching tv differently.
Added to that is the geographical restrictions that would be put in place to block certain countries from having access.
On top of that, I believe that the ads of them getting a deal right now re very low because cable companies are extremely concerned about cord-cutting so I expect them to play hardball when it comes to rights.
The leagues need eyeballs for sponsors and advertisers so guaranteeing millions of households is something Google cannot do yet.
As for the Caribbean, I was able to watch the U-17 match with Jamaica vs. Honduras yesterday on ESPN3.com but not on television. That was great for people in the USA that wanted to see the match and shows the potential for regional content reaching a wider audience.
However, there is the issue of rights and blocking access in certain countries again. Hulu.com is a great site but it is not available outside the USA. Similarly, Netflix online streaming would be loved by many other countries but is not available in most countries.
As premium content moves online, it is being locked within geographical borders and the masses are not about to use IP masks to be able to access that content when it is still on their tv.
YouTube did stream some of the IPL cricket matches and I believe they got a decent audience. In terms of securing rights to big leagues like the NBA, MLB and EPL, I still don’t think it would mean the end of tv as we know it just yet.
My reasoning is that people still want to watch on their tv, not on their computer so YouTube/Google would have to make it much easier for people to access the live content via devices like Apple TV, Roku, Boxee and their own GoogleTV before the masses start approaching tv differently.
Added to that is the geographical restrictions that would be put in place to block certain countries from having access.
On top of that, I believe that the ads of them getting a deal right now re very low because cable companies are extremely concerned about cord-cutting so I expect them to play hardball when it comes to rights.
The leagues need eyeballs for sponsors and advertisers so guaranteeing millions of households is something Google cannot do yet.
As for the Caribbean, I was able to watch the U-17 match with Jamaica vs. Honduras yesterday on ESPN3.com but not on television. That was great for people in the USA that wanted to see the match and shows the potential for regional content reaching a wider audience.
However, there is the issue of rights and blocking access in certain countries again. Hulu.com is a great site but it is not available outside the USA. Similarly, Netflix online streaming would be loved by many other countries but is not available in most countries.
As premium content moves online, it is being locked within geographical borders and the masses are not about to use IP masks to be able to access that content when it is still on their tv.
Sorry for the delayed Response. I was not 100 % for a few days.
You make some very good points, I do think the key challenge is in creating the environment where persons can access content no matter where they are geographically.
YouTube/Google has been able to create that model which allows them to easily monetise content all over the world. All the other players haven’t done so.
So if we agree that the cable companies have too much to lose and the lack of installations of good ‘internet’ TV devices are going to be the key hurdles to the ‘death of tv as we know it’.
Can Youtube/Google make a compelling argument that they are developing a new business for this content to extending the league’s audience into new markets around the world?
Also can Youtube/Google tell content producers like espn3.com. We can make this marginal content more successful for you?
Will these kinds of deals be more practical for Google/Youtube to cut and prove themselves?
Very interesting point made here Corey about the way Grammys are utilising the social media, I had also mentioned the same in my presentation, I concur it will eventually have an impact on tv because now u can watch tv with out watching tv,example my sons like family guy, but they hardly watch it on tv they watch it on line
(1) “YouTube/Google has been able to create that model which allows them to easily monetise content all over the world. All the other players haven’t done so.”
Yes BUT content outside of the major markets is BARELY making any money via the YouTube/Google monetization options due to lack of uptake by local advertisers in those geographic areas. I make this statement based on my experience as a YouTube partner with a number of channels under our control.
(2) As for “extending the league’s audience into new markets around the world?”
That is not true at all. The EPL, NBA and most professional sports leagues can be seen in almost every country in the world thanks to the popularity of the sports.
Cable companies all over the world carry ESPN, Sky Sports or Fox Soccer Channel in some shape or form so the audience is already quite massive for these leagues.
Yes, there are people currently not watching who would watch if the games moved online. However, there are others who would NOT watch online if it was no longer available on TV and more importantly, the online audience most likely would pay less or expect it for free.
An audience is only as valuable as the money they generate and cable subscribers are more valuable than ad-supported subscribers (otherwise EPL games would be carried by free-to-air channels, not cable channels).
(3) Can Youtube/Google tell content producers like espn3.com. We can make this marginal content more successful for you?
I would say no. A YouTube/ESPN3 partnership is highly unlikely since they compete but Google certainly could try to make the case that outside of the US Google can help make some money for ESPN online.
2 problems immediately come to mind though:
– Espn3 is free and primarily serves as an extra reason for cable customers to make sure they have Espn in their subscription plan. It was never created to make money from advertising, that is bonus, it is supposed to drive uptake of ESPN in homes. Google cannot help with that revenue model.
– Espn does not have worldwide rights to much of the content it shows. For ESPN to purchase the global rights, they would have to be quite confident that the returns from Google’s advertising would be more than enough to reap a profit. I don’t think Google can guarantee that level of profits to get global rights to any major sporting event.
(4) The deals that will be most practical for YouTube/Google will be ones that generate profits for content owners whose content is being shown in less developed markets.
If I can’t make enough money from making my videos available in certain markets online to make a profit then I won’t bother. I will seek out other distribution options.
At the end of the day I believe that regular tv will be alive and well in the developing world (most of the countries in the world) for a long time due to the monetization issue.
It will also be the norm in the USA as long as people require another device in the living room and the profits are too meagre.
There is a reason why in order to watch ESPN on my Xbox I have to have ESPN with my cable company and can’t simply stream it for free. Will they introduce a paid subscription option on Xbox? I hope so but the cable companies would be VERY angry and that is who ESPN makes their money from.
It only gets worse now that Comcast owns NBC who happens to have the rights to certain sports content.
David, I am appreciating the time you are taking to update me and the readers about the TV industry in general.
I am actually going to try to send this out to my TV / audio visual contacts so they can benefit from the discussion.
As we are discussing the future of TV, something to introduce into the discussion would be the changing technology in the living room.
There is a product invented by a Bajan which allows you to interact with internet video in almost the same way you would a regular TV broadcast. http://www.net2vu.com
The question is, with an evolving tv experience, and the easy to create new channels by streaming them via the internet. Will the local advertisers outside of the US be more willing to explore google’s advertising solutions?
Those geographical restrictions are easily the most frustrating thing about watching content online.
Yeah the reason for the restrictions is because there is no way for the content providers to make money from their content. If they could make $ from the caribbean they would show it. Caribbean Advertisers are slow to move online with pay per click tools like google adwords etc.
I will say one thing we have to remember TV is TV and in is current form not interactive. Internet Media is interactive and that is where the technology is headed, viewers have controls and manipulate the content to produce their own creative versions, “TV” can not do that at present.
Therefore an “episode” can be a mash up of chat logs, documents, files, add-ons, photographs; a mash-up af different media i giving a very dynamic content of indeterminate length and methods of expression. The way we use this in R & D units, monetised systems and dissemination is still a pioneering process so “TV” still has a little time.
We must however, learn and understand the principles of the past to make progress in our future and the caribbean is still not up to scratch yet on the “Broadcast Model” but I think we are getting there. I close by saying, we had better get up to scratch soon though because with the advent of mobile technology and faster and faster data networks a mobile device is no longer that it is a “PERSON” and the same way we ignored globalisation if we choose to ignore this fact and not put our headed together and start producing for such platforms we will be a like the tree in the forrest that falls with no one around!
Andrew what do you think is needed to encourage the caribbean to move into the new world faster, and embrace the technologies.
—
Sent from my BlackBerry®
Corey Graham 2.0
http://profile.coreykgraham.me
Needed? They have all the encouragement they need “Survival” look at the past year dear say the last few month most of the big monopoly companies BL&P, Cable & Wireless (LIME), Warrens Motors. They have come to reap the benefits of what they sowed and ultimate demise because there was no competition they did’t think it relavant/profitable to increase efficiency and progress or upgrade their business assets and because of globalisation they could not sustain business and were bought out.
If we do not invest in robotics, computerized automation and energy efficient energy systems it will be more of the same companies will demise based on global competition (with the advent of internet and mobile techs).
When you say A you must say B look at the companies that are staying relavant Williams Group, Digicel or even the Simpson Group. They expanded first laterally (businesses with similarities) and not look at their vertical investments; robotics, oil, energy efficiency and cheap air travel (RED JET). One does not have to wonder why they are surviving, They have built a strong base, they are not complacent and they are strategic and invest/upgrade in the right things at the right time and not always looking for short term profits but sacrificing a little so you can survive to fight another day
Yes…and many content providers in the US don’t consider our markets large enough when they look at population and per capita income too.
That is why we get lumped into Latin America.
You make some interesting statements and ask some great questions. Here are my thoughts:
(1) “YouTube/Google has been able to create that model which allows them to easily monetise content all over the world. All the other players haven’t done so.”
Yes BUT content outside of the major markets is BARELY making any money via the YouTube/Google monetization options due to lack of uptake by local advertisers in those geographic areas. I make this statement based on my experience as a YouTube partner with a number of channels under our control.
(2) As for “extending the league’s audience into new markets around the world?”
That is not true at all. The EPL, NBA and most professional sports leagues can be seen in almost every country in the world thanks to the popularity of the sports.
Cable companies all over the world carry ESPN, Sky Sports or Fox Soccer Channel in some shape or form so the audience is already quite massive for these leagues.
Yes, there are people currently not watching who would watch if the games moved online. However, there are others who would NOT watch online if it was no longer available on TV and more importantly, the online audience most likely would pay less or expect it for free.
An audience is only as valuable as the money they generate and cable subscribers are more valuable than ad-supported subscribers (otherwise EPL games would be carried by free-to-air channels, not cable channels).
(3) Can Youtube/Google tell content producers like espn3.com. We can make this marginal content more successful for you?
I would say no. A YouTube/ESPN3 partnership is highly unlikely since they compete but Google certainly could try to make the case that outside of the US Google can help make some money for ESPN online.
2 problems immediately come to mind though:
– Espn3 is free and primarily serves as an extra reason for cable customers to make sure they have Espn in their subscription plan. It was never created to make money from advertising, that is bonus, it is supposed to drive uptake of ESPN in homes. Google cannot help with that revenue model.
– Espn does not have worldwide rights to much of the content it shows. For ESPN to purchase the global rights, they would have to be quite confident that the returns from Google’s advertising would be more than enough to reap a profit. I don’t think Google can guarantee that level of profits to get global rights to any major sporting event.
(4) The deals that will be most practical for YouTube/Google will be ones that generate profits for content owners whose content is being shown in less developed markets.
If I can’t make enough money from making my videos available in certain markets online to make a profit then I won’t bother. I will seek out other distribution options.
At the end of the day I believe that regular tv will be alive and well in the developing world (most of the countries in the world) for a long time due to the monetization issue.
It will also be the norm in the USA as long as people require another device in the living room and the profits are too meagre.
There is a reason why in order to watch ESPN on my Xbox I have to have ESPN with my cable company and can’t simply stream it for free. Will they introduce a paid subscription option on Xbox? I hope so but the cable companies would be VERY angry and that is who ESPN makes their money from.
It only gets worse now that Comcast owns NBC who happens to have the rights to certain sports content.