Podcast Episode 38 is live! This week we breakdown Fubo’s decision to close and exit the Sportsbook market along with DAZN’s comments that betting within streaming services isn’t a reality in the next few years. We also highlight some new sports viewership numbers from NBC Sports and NFL; cover some recent pay TV losses by pay TV providers; detail Apple’s new Apple TV boxes and discuss the NBA’s new app that has 12-seconds of latency. Finally, while almost no video vendors are profitable, let alone seeing a positive return on their stock price over the past 12-18 months, we detail the numbers that make Harmonic the exception. Thanks to this week’s podcast sponsor, Agora.

Companies, and services mentioned: Netflix, NBC Sports, Apple TV, Harmonic, Vimeo, NBA, NFL+, MLB, Amazon Prime Video, Verizon, DAZN, Fubo, Disney.

Podcast Episode 37 is live! This week we breakdown Netflix’s soon to be released AVOD offering and the fact that the video quality is limited to 720p with no ability for downloads. Are consumers willing to sacrifice video quality for price? Will the streaming industry need to re-think how they define video “quality” if consumers are willing to accept 720p as “good enough”? We also discuss Netflix’s measurement deals announced with Nielsen, BRB, IAS and DoubleVerify and what this means for advertisers. We also cover what some of the largest live streaming events on the Internet have generated from a viewership standpoint.

Companies, and services mentioned: Netflix, Peacock TV, Nielsen, DoubleVerify, Beamr, Roku, Apple TV, Disney+, BBC, Integral Ad Science, NBC Sports, Amazon Prime Video, Riot Games, Akamai, IPL. Thanks to this week’s podcast sponsor, Agora.

Companies, and services mentioned: Netflix, Peacock TV, Nielsen, DoubleVerify, Beamr, Roku, Apple TV, Disney+, BBC, Integral Ad Science, NBC Sports, Amazon Prime Video, Riot Games, Akamai, IPL.

Podcast Episode 36 is live! This week we breakdown Nielsen’s confusing streaming rankings, which aren’t accurately comparing shows based on the same metrics. We also highlight Peacock’s latest paid sub numbers (15 million); Google’s expanded cloud deal with MLB; Mux’s recent round of layoffs; Vizio’s FAST ad revenue and Roku’s removal of all SDK1 channels. We also discuss how many companies hiring for new positions are not doing a good job following up, list jobs no longer open and need to do a better job of putting people first. Thanks to this week’s podcast sponsor, Agora.

Companies, and services mentioned: Peacock, Comcast, HBO Max, Amazon Prime Video, MLB, Google Cloud, Nielsen, Netflix, Disney+, PlayStation 5, ByteDance, Vizio, Roku, Amazon, eBay, Mux.

In 2017, Roku said that SDK1 channels would be depreciated but no firm date was announced and there was no further communication until last month with the Roku OS 11.5 roll out. (release notes) On September 12th, Roku removed all SDK1 channels and deleted them from devices and their developer portal. Concerning is the loss of the installs and loss of ability to upgrade code base. It’s just gone.

I’ve been told that Roku’s Partner Success Managers are pointing to the Scenegraph SDK and stating that was the method to update. But there is no update path since all the channels have been removed from all devices and the developer portal. Even the link to the post about the SDK change has now been deleted from Roku’s website and the blog post gives a 404 error.

Roku says, “channels that still had these sunset components as of August 22nd were disabled and removed from the Roku Channel Store. These channels can no longer be installed or launched unless they were migrated to SDK2”. So unless developers already migrated to SDK2, there is no longer any way to update.

Roku developers have noticed 2 SDK1 channels that are unpublished and in the “Beta” state but it’s unclear what that means. Some developers say between all their channels, they have millions of cumulative installs. I’ve reached out to Roku for explanation and have not gotten any response. If someone from Roku wants to reply in the comments, please do so. You have some developers rightfully asking questions and looking for answers. I can’t find any thread on Roku’s developer blog that provides any more details.

It’s being reported across Twitter and LinkedIn that Mux did a recent round of layoffs of 20% of the company, or about 40 employees. (As of publishing, the company hasn’t replied to my inquiry) The company raised two rounds of funding in less than a year including $37M in a Series C round in 2020 and $105M in D Round in 2021. Too many streaming media vendors raised money during the pandemic thinking the growth of video consumption during that time would be the new norm, but that wasn’t reality. I still don’t know why companies had this line of thought since we all knew people would not stay inside their homes forever.

With Mux’s latest round of funding the company said they wanted to use the money to grow from 80 to 200 employees and they ramped up headcount. But like many other vendors, Mux had to pull back and do layoffs to cut costs. The valuation of companies like Mux, Vimeo, Hopin and others didn’t make sense at the time of their latest raise and companies set improper expectations with investors. During the height of covid and raising money, some streaming vendors were valued at 20x-70x revenue in their last round of funding. Just because a company can get that valuation, doesn’t mean they should take it or that it is good for their business. With big funding, comes big expectations.

I simply don’t understand why so many vendors are unrealistic when it comes to the true size of the market they are in and didn’t set proper expectations with investors. Doing so would allow them more time to organically grow their business in a more sustainable way without having to make big drastic changes when the growth doesn’t come. The moment a company takes hundred(s) of millions of dollars in funding, investors expect a level of growth that streaming vendors simply can’t match in the time frame investors expect.

Layoffs aren’t good, but if it helps re-set vendors and investors expectations on the proper TAMs (Total Addressable Market) and realistic rate of growth, then in the long run, this is a good thing.

IMAX has announced their acquisition of Ontario based SSIMWAVE, which licenses their AI-driven video quality technology to media and entertainment companies that includes Disney, Paramount Global, and Warner Bros. Discovery. IMAX is paying $18.5 million in cash and $2.5 million in stock for SSIMWAVE with additional earnout consideration of $4 million, subject to achieving certain operating performance and financial objectives.

To date, SSIMWAVE had raised just a few million dollars (under $5 million) and funded their entire operations based on the contracts they signed in the market. The company employees 40 people and the CEO tells me all employees including the current management team at SSIMWAVE will stay on with the acquisition. SSIMWAVE will be a fully owned subsidiary of IMAX but will keep operating independently and falls under IMAX Enhanced division.

This is an interesting acquisition for IMAX and a great fit for SSIMWAVE since IMAX has recently begun working on what they are informally calling IMAX 3.0. Their goal is to expand beyond film exhibition and add a regular slate of concerts, stand-up comedy performances and sporting events. The company also launched a major streaming partnership with Disney+ in Q4 of last year and created a series of exclusive events connecting theatrical and streaming. As part of that relationship, Disney has enhanced variations of select streaming titles on Disney+. The titles feature an expanded aspect ratio of 1.90:1 and allows viewers to see up to 26% more of the original image.

This is a great tie up for both companies since they are both focused on video quality. IMAX is all about the user experience within a theatre and it’s why consumers pay more for a ticket in IMAX. Using SSIMWAVE’s technology and expertise, IMAX wants to take that same approach with the use experience and bring a specific level of video quality to consumers at home. I’m excited to see what an enhanced video quality experience looks like within the home.

[Updated 3:27pm] Amazon has put out a release saying they averaged 15.3 million viewers across all platforms for their first exclusive TNF game. Their number, which is different from Nielsen’s, includes set-top boxes, connected TVs, web and mobile, as well as Twitch, local over-the-air stations, out-of-home viewing, and NFL+.

[Updated 11:33am] The 13 million figure includes local over-the-air simulcasts in the home markets. Excluding those simulcasts — around 602,000 viewers on LA FOX affiliate KTTV and 555,000 on KC NBC affiliate KSHB — Amazon Prime alone averaged in the neighborhood of 11.8 million.

[Updated 11:12am] CNBC is reporting that “according to Nielsen”, Amazon averaged 13 million viewers based on data released by the company. As of now, there is no press release on the wire or on Nielsen’s website yet.

[Updated 10:14am] Shortly after posting, I see one article is reporting the number is 13 million viewers, with the source being Nielsen, but I don’t see any official release from Nielsen as of yet. I see a second article saying the number was over 15 million viewers, also attributed to Nielsen, so lots of conflicting numbers. I’ll update this post if/when Nielsen puts out a release.

———————————————

Multiple advertisers tell me Amazon had between 10 million and 11 million total “viewers” for their NFL Thursday Night Football game on September 15th, with the actual number being closer to 10.5 million. A week after the game, Amazon and Nielsen still haven’t put out any numbers, which is odd. Leading up to the game, the media reported that Amazon was telling advertisers they were targeting 12.5 million viewers. If both of the numbers being reported are accurate, Amazon fell a little short of their goal. Amazon has been quoted as saying that their “audience numbers exceeded all of our expectations for viewership,” but we don’t know what their expectations were. If they were 12.5 million viewers, then the 10 million – 11 million number sounds low. [Updated: The numbers are low as Nielsen says the number is 13 million “average” viewers.]

Another key point is that the term viewer is vague, so without knowing how Nielsen and Amazon define what a viewer is, there’s no way to know what the true reach of the audience was. If a user streamed the game at kickoff time and then left, only to come back later to the game, were they counted as a single viewer or two viewers? Also, of the total number of viewers that were counted, how many were unique? And how is Nielsen counting multiple people in the room watching from a single device on a large screen?

We also don’t know what type of engagement Amazon saw during the game since the live stream was embedded on the home page of Amazon.com. If a user was on the website to search or buy something, but never made the video window larger, or clicked within the video window at all, were they considered a viewer? And, to be counted as a viewer, did the video stream have to play for a minimum amount of time? I don’t expect Amazon and Nielsen to give out many details, but knowing the number of unique viewers, average viewing time per user, number of simultaneous viewers (not just Average Minute Audience) and breakdown of viewers on large versus small screens is needed to judge the success.

On the tech side, from what I saw personally and was reported to me by other viewers, the lowest bitrate looked to be about 5.5Mbps and the highest around 7.5Mbps. So that would put the average bitrate delivered at around 6Mbps. For those like myself that were experiencing delivery problems, I didn’t see any issue with the multiple CDNs I saw Amazon using. All issues seemed to be with some ISPs and in particular, Comcast. I don’t know what the root cause of the ISP issue(s) were, but for all the talk within the industry of live events being “limited” by CDN capacity, the problem on QoE was once again down at the last mile level, not the CDNs.

The media has reported that based on an internal email Amazon sent out that Amazon, “saw the biggest three hours for U.S. Prime sign ups ever in the history of Amazon.” We don’t know exactly how many signups Amazon got and the key metric to watch is how many stay on after the 30-day free trial ends. For some NFL fans like myself that only watch one team, there is no reason to pay for a Prime account past the 30-day free trial if your favorite team doesn’t play more than once on TNF, or at all. For instance, the Giants are never on the TNF schedule and the Jets only play once on Thursday.

During the game I saw people on Twitter talking about how they shared their login with others so it would be interesting to know the total number of Prime accounts that were used to stream the game. It won’t be a 1:1 ratio of accounts to viewers, so the number of Prime accounts used would have to be less than 10 million, if the 10-11 million viewership number is right.

It’s interesting to see how Amazon isn’t acknowledging any of the technical issues in how they talk about the event. In their email to employees, Amazon references the, “stellar production of the game, to the quality of the stream customers watched at home.” We don’t know the exact number of viewers that had problems with the video and audio, but it was not isolated. Amazon’s President and CEO pushed out a Tweet during the game and was quickly met with 194 comments from viewers complaining about the quality of the video and/or audio. Across social, there was thousands of negative comments on the quality of the stream with viewers experiencing technical issues. Amazon should just address the issues some viewers had and talk about how they plan to improve upon them for the next game.

I’m sure some will say this was Amazon’s first TNF game this year so it is expected to get better over time, which very well could happen. But they are missing the point. Unlike other sports like MLB that have been streaming for 20 years, historically the NFL has always been a sport that most viewers have watched via cable or satellite. It works every time, with nearly the exact same quality no matter the city you are in. The cable company controls the set-top-box you are getting the video from and the pipe it’s coming across. The experience a viewer has is not based on their technical setup and it always works. It’s easy to use.

Streaming is the exact opposite and “maybe” you can have a good experience, or maybe not. In some cases, Amazon might control the hardware device, but they don’t control the last mile and can’t force ISPs to do what they want. Amazon can produce the best quality video possible, but once it hits the ISP, the success or failure of the stream is now in another company’s hands. Streaming can’t replace live cable TV as a distribution medium with the same reliability, scalability and stability. This is the same with any streaming service not being delivered by a cable operator and as a result, for the first time, the NFL is making fans wonder as they go to watch their favorite team “if” the video will even work. That’s not something NFL fans have had to wonder about in the past – until now.