TubeMogul is one of the many services that makes video publishing (and mainly, syndication) manageable. Put simply, instead of having to upload your videos to numerous distributors’ websites one by one, TubeMogul allows you to upload via their interface and syndicate across a wider number of sites.
Like many intuitive services, there is always room for improvement, but unlike others, TubeMogul seems to work diligently to improve its core offerings all the while it has pushed the envelope to make things easier for content producers, including WatchMojo.com. Mind you, we’re probably in a category of our own, what with:
- 5,000 videos on our site, of which “only”
- 1,000 - 2,000 are syndicated across
- 100+ distribution partners.
This was confirmed today, when much to my surprise, WatchMojo.com ranked 6th on the the TubeMogul 40: the 40 largest content owners amongst the 30,000 who deploy TubeMogul transcoding and syndication services.
TubeMogul’s Set of Obstacles
From our first syndication efforts in 2006, we were always looking at scaling. But when we first came across TubeMogul in 2007, it was love at first sight. Ever since, I’ve been intrigued by the company’s services, but always envisioned a few obstacles, namely:
#1- how to get more distributors on board, who initially might have wanted/preferred a direct relationship with content owners
#2- how to get more content owners to use them, particularly traditional media companies reluctant to give up all that data
#3- how to differentiate itself and be more than an under-the-hood service that could always be replaced by something faster, quicker, bigger.
There’s a Japanese saying that says “where some see threats, others see opportunity.” TubeMogul and WatchMojo.com seem to buy into the adage.
#1 - The Not-So Fragmented Video Distribution Market
YouTube is commanding a greater and greater percent of market share in the video space. But on the flip side, new distribution partners pop up every day.
As counter-intuitive as it might sound, there are dimishing returns to incremental distribution.
If YouTube eventually has over 80% market share, do you really need to be elsewhere? Moreover, do you want to be? As a content producer, you ask yourself:
- why bother putting your video on a 100th site if said site generates 100 views per day for you?
- relative to the distributor, who is helping who?
Definitely, once online video advertising revenues grows from $1.25B in the US this year to $7.1B in 2012, it will make sense to syndicate blindly, but until then, you are better off protecting your library as not to dilute its value.
With relatively little quality content libraries available but an over-abundance of distribution points vying to become the third player in the marketplace after YouTube and MySpace TV, it is imperative for these distributors get as much content as they can, and this is how TubeMogul has parlayed the current environment to address obstacle #1: getting distribution partners to sign on.
Don’t get me wrong, I am sure today TubeMogul can and very well might be charging some distributors to join, there is, after all, a cost to including a new partner. Mind you, doing that opens the door for a new challenger.
On our end: we could easily be doing 20M streams a month, but that requires”giving the content away” with no consideration for revenues or profit. For us, it’s not as important to generate more streams as it is important to generate sustainable streams, and profitable streams…
But regardless of our strategy, TubeMogul has proven an ability to remain one step ahead of our needs, and when they were one step behind, they were modest enough to ask for advice… recognizing that we were one of their “highest maintenance” content provider partners (this, arguably, is the only time when it’s a compliment to say that and one feels happy to hear it).To their credit, TubeMogul have used the resources of their recent funding from Howard Lindzon’s Knight’s Bridge Capital Partners (Lindzon founded the CBS-acquired Wallstrip) to increase reliability. They’ve also very conservatively treaded into new territory without dropping the ball on their core offering.
#2 - Should Online Video Revenues Really Be Advertising Based?
TubeMogul is an interesting startup for a second reason, again, specifically because online video advertising revenues have been disappointing for all companies other than the major TV-centric media companies who are in-market with video advertisers.While many video startups have bet heavily on becoming video ad networks and had to restart their business plans (example: Video Egg, EveryZing/Podzinger, Brightcove, etc.), TubeMogul has become a clearinghouse, connecting advertisers with their publishers by leveraging their data and serving as a conduit between advertisers and the content libraries they serve.
This way, TubeMogul has been able to overcome obstacle #2: where otherwise a content producer might be hesitant to allow TubeMogul to access all of their video consumption data, by opening up their library to TubeMogul, the content owner allows TubeMogul to serve as a gateway to advertisers who might ask it for data. In this vein, TubeMogul is not an ad agency per se (it would create conflicts, anyway), but more of a comScore, Nielsen, Hitwise or Quantcast, that advertisers turn to for data on which they make purchasing decisions.
#3 - What Should TubeMogul Do?
Last year, VidMeter/VidMetrix was scooped up last year by Visible Measures [see our post], leaving TubeMogul as a lead M&A target.
With Founder/CEO of NetRatings Dave Toth on its board, you can connect the dots and presume that TubeMogul’s exit has been telegraphed to Nielsen NetRatings, but what with this being an otherwise market driven exercise, don’t be surprised if the occasionally-vilified comScore or TNS make a run for the company (who recently acquired Compete.com, founded by Bill Gross, who also incubated Overture/GoTo.com, the true pioneer of the pay-per-click model that Google borrowed and scaled).
Frankly, as TV-centric, traditional media companies search for ways to navigate online, a case can be technically made for CBS, NBC, ABC or even FOX to look at the company.
- CBS would make a lot of sense, it acquired Wallstrip and Howard Lindzon remains involved with the project. TubeMogul would also fit well with Last.fm in the broader discovery / recommendation space. Moreover, if you look at CBSAudienceNetwork.com, I can’t help but think that that is TubeMogul’s API at work (though I am guessing here).
- With Disney and NBC, it’s less likely, while with FOX, TubeMogul would be a great fit with MySpace’s Strategic Data Corp., the acquisition News Corp. did to bolster its inventory across MySpace and the unit now headed by Adam Bain… admittedly, this is far more of a stretch than CBS, and the traditional measurement services who would be able to leverage TubeMogul best.
Last but not least: an ad agency, namely WPP, who last year acquired 247RealMedia, would also prove interesting, especially if it seeks to develop the advertising route some more.
Of course, it can remain independent and in the meantime develop in a few areas. What are those?
Oh, look, thanks to TubeMogul, the clips have been uploaded… I can head out and enjoy the evening.
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterTwitter accepted some money from Spark Capital and Jeff Bezos. The latter is interested because long ago I wrote that Twitter was far more of an e-commerce play than an ad play… but given the $150B US / $500B global advertising market, everyone and their cousin wants to have an advertising-based business model… which explains why most companies tend to rewrite their business plans of late (in other words: they have no business having an ad model, but I digress).
Anyway, I think this is the first step towards Amazon.com buying Twitter… it just makes more sense to use something like Twitter in a commercial capacity than a communications capacity, which is odd because Twitter now bills itself as a “communications utility”. Whatever floats their boat…
Today, the vanity crowd uses Twitter in the way that they do, in 5 years - if Twitter is around - it will be used as a commercial platform. Mark my words.
JC Penney is getting a lot of mileage - without asking for it - for an ad that a third party created for the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes. Here’s something Saatchi wants everyone to know:
“Saatchi & Saatchi has a long history of producing principled and respectful advertising for JCPenney and its entire client roster. The Speed Dressing TV commercial, which was submitted to the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes, was created by a third party vendor without JCPenney’s knowledge or consent. It was produced and released to the public without any knowledge or prior approval from JCPenney. Saatchi & Saatchi did not enter the spot and deeply regrets the message this ad presents. Saatchi & Saatchi apologizes to JCPenney, its associates and its customers. The commercial is being removed from public circulation.”
Maybe I am missing something, but this should have been created under the form of a parody. We’ve done comedy skits using Hellman’s Mayo and 2000 Flushes.
We could have gotten away with both uses of their trademark, but we played it safe. Anyway, enjoy the ads, I like them both quite a bit:
From SAI, interviewing former Advertising.com founder Scott Ferber, who has now funded Tidal TV, a new competitor to Joost, Hulu et al.
SAI: How much time do you think you have to sign deals, get customers and build scale?
Ferber: The next six months are important for us. If we get another slug of money and more content, then we’re a player. This is what we’ve done with limited assets. We’ve been open for six weeks and we just started marketing. We are getting thousands of new users a month with no advertising.
Newsflash: $15M is limited assets these days.
One thing Scott is right on:
“deal-making is only getting tougher — he says content owners want guaranteed money with their customary ad splits.”
Yep, you better believe that… and not many content owners will have enough leverage to command guarantees. I’ve outlined the different models of revenue for online video, and I’ve explained why there is such a thing as diminishing returns with incremental distribution.
As a content producer, I love seeing more distributors getting into the space, especially when they’re launched by accomplished media and advertising guys like Ferber, but you know the saying: previous performance does not guarantee future success…
More:
- Advertising vs. Licensing Revenue Models for Video Content Owners
- Successful Revenue Models for Video Content Libraries
- Does the Law of Diminishing Return Apply to The Theory of Content is King?
Disclosure: WatchMojo.com provides content to Joost, Hulu et al.
