目次

この調査レポートは、オンラインビデオ市場に影響を与える市場成長要因と阻害要因について調査しています。また、オンラインビデオ広告の形態についての評価と提言、今後5年間の予測も行っています。

Summary

As the audience of web video viewers continues to multiply, the prospects for video-related online advertising becomes more legitimate. And online video programmers are taking notice, striving to deliver a TV-like experience featuring high-value, prime-time linear video content but enhanced by what TDG calls quantum capabilities - that is, non-linear, on-demand, device-agnostic “anytime/anywhere” access in which the user exercises vast control over the experience. While early in the game, combining these new technological capabilities with existing advertising acumen has proven more difficult than many predicted.

This report (a) analyzes the drivers and inhibitors impacting the online video marketplace, (b) evaluates the various forms of online video-related advertising, (c) offers recommendations as to which type of advertising is best suited for specific types of online video content (e.g., user-generated or professional content), and (d) offers forecasts regarding online video ad-related revenue for the next five years.

Key Questions Answered in the Report

1. What are the different forms of online video-related advertisements?
2. Which forms of online video advertising are best suited for specific types of online video content (whether user generated or professional video?
3. How will these forms of advertising evolve over the next few years?
4. Which type of advertising will generate the most revenue over the next five years and why?
5. How will online video advertising mirror TV video advertising? How will it differ?
6. What are the keys to building a successful online TV business, either as a programmer or aggregator?
7. How will successful online TV businesses differ from traditional PayTV models?
8. What bottlenecks will online TV programmers have to face when it comes to acquiring top-quality content?
9. Why will UGV continue to struggle as an ad-based model?
10. When is the right time to enter the online TV programming marketplace?

From the Report

Today’s PayTV Operators (that is, cable, satellite, and more recently telcoTV providers) all have a similar model for generating revenue: they offer television content, highspeed Internet service, and (in some cases) phone service (residential or mobile) to subscribers in exchange for a monthly subscription fee. For the television delivery part of their business, PayTV Operators purchase distribution rights from TV Programmers to broadcast these programs for linear or on-demand delivery to subscribers. The exact terms of the license are negotiated between the PayTV Operator and the Cable Networks who, in most cases, receive a per-subscriber fee in exchange for granting the PayTV Operator certain distribution rights. The subscriber pays the Operator and in turn, the Operator pays the Programmer. This is pretty much how it has worked for decades, resulting in a well-established value chain and virtual monopolies for the various PayTV Operators.

This long-standing paradigm of linear TV delivery is now changing; the value chain is beginning to unravel. Today’s PayTV Operators ? whether they admit it or not ? now face a competitor which threatens the very roots of their revenue structure; a competitor with a very different business model, one no longer dependent on monthly subscription fees. The culprit? Internet-based video distributed directly to the TV (a.k.a. Broadband TV or BB-TV), a model whose economics are becoming more attractive each and every day. 

Signs of this impending change are numerous:

• New, more formidable Internet-based video aggregators, producers, and distributors are popping up at a steady rate. Though once confined to fledgling no-name start-ups offering older, low-value video content, today’s online video players feature the top names in media offering the latest in movies and TV programming;
• The majority, if not all, of these BB-TV players rely on advertising as their revenue generator, not monthly subscription fees; and
• An online TV distributor rarely relies on the PayTV Operator for distribution but instead bypasses these gatekeepers by going directly to the consumer over an open broadband connection (which is most often owned and managed, ironically, by the PayTV Operator).

A number of technological improvements are responsible for making this model particularly attractive, the most notable innovations being in video compression, improvements in last-mile bandwidth, and more cost-effective digital storage. In combination, these advances have helped stimulate the online video market and, consequently, empower new competitors to enter the video value chain, the barriers to which are at the lowest they’ve been in decades.

Several contextual factors are also helping to fuel the online video market, including:

• Major shifts in TV advertising dollars to online buys (just follow the dollars);
• The changing demographics of the linear television audience ? more of the 18-to-34 audience is being lost to “on demand” experiences, whether on the TV or PC;
• The ability of viewers to control their video experience in ways never before conceived; dictating when, where, and on what device they want to view their video (versus having a programmer determine this for them); and
• The rapid influx of viewer-created online video.

Consumers have long enjoyed continuous technical advancements that have improved their TV viewing experiences (e.g., the shift from black-and-white to color display, and the expansion in choice afforded by the introduction of cable PayTV offerings). Despite significant improvements in the quality of TV viewing ? or perhaps because of them ? consumers have given operators and programmers exclusive control over which content is viewed and when. 

With the introduction of the Digital Video Recorder (DVR), however, the traditional relationship between programmer and consumer ? that is, receiving “free” content in exchange for advertising ? has been disrupted by the DVR’s ability to fast-forward through unwanted programming and commercials, on demand. Consumers can now watch the programs they want on their schedule and without advertisements. As you might imagine, this has powerful consequences on the future of advertising (independent of whether the ads are actually skipped or not).

Three Key Findings

• Though User-Generated Video (UGV) will continue to account for almost one-half of online video streams, it will generate less than 5% of video-related ad revenue during the next five years.
• Conversely, though the number of professional videos may remain in the shadow of UGV, professional content will generate the vast majority of ad-related revenue during the next five years. 
• Online video-related ad revenue will grow from $590M in 2008 to $9.94B in 2013, a 17-fold increase in just five years.
  

TOP

Table of Contents

Executive Summary & Key Findings

1.0 Introduction

1.1 What Is (and Is Not) Covered in this Report
1.2 Video-Related Terminology and Definitions
1.3 Online Advertising Terminology and Definitions

2.0 Understanding Traditional and Emerging TV Models

2.1 “The Times, They are a Changing”
2.2 The Beneficiary? The Viewer
2.3 The Impact of Broadband Video on Ad Spending
2.4 How Will Today’s PayTV Operator Respond?
2.5 The Co-Dependent Operator/Programmer Relationship
2.6 The Big Four on the Move
2.7 The PayTV Operator’s Content Conundrum
2.8 Spoken for, but Available for Experiment
2.9 The Window of Opportunity Opens

3.0 Programming and Advertising for the Internet TV Audience

3.1 Know Thy User
3.2 Measure Thy User

4.0 Understanding & Selling Web Video Advertising

4.1 Defining “Digital Video Advertising”
4.2 Linear Video Ads: Pre-, Mid-, and Post-Rolls
4.3 Non-Linear Ads
4.3.1 Overlay Ads
4.3.2 In-Show Sponsorships
4.4 Branded Skins
4.5 Preferred Web Video Ad Formats
4.5.1 Among Marketers
4.5.2 For the Viewer
4.6 Example ? Hulu’s Ad Strategy

5.0 Current Activity in the Online TV Space

5.1 Overview
5.2 Case Study: Revision 3

6.0 The Future of Online Video Advertising ? The Next Five Years

6.1 The Challenges of Forecasting Online Video
6.2 Defining Content Categories
6.3 Key Assumptions
6.3.1 Annualizing Stream Counts
6.3.2 Distinguishing Ad-Insertable from “Other” Online Video Streams
6.3.3 User-Generated Online Video Content
6.3.4 Short-Clip Online Video Content
6.3.5 Long-Form Online Video Content
6.3.6 Number of Ad Units
6.3.7 CPMs
6.3.8 Sell-Thru Rates

7.0 Specific Forecasts

7.1 Online Video Streams thru 2013
7.1.1 Annual Video Stream Forecasts ? Total
7.1.2 Annual Video Stream Forecasts ? User-Generated Video (UGV)
7.1.3 Annual Video Stream Forecasts ? Professional Online Content
7.1.4 Streaming Video Content Mix: 2008 thru 2013
7.2 Online Digital Video Advertising Revenue
7.2.1 Annual Digital Video Advertising Revenues: 2008 thru 2013
7.2.2 Annual Digital Video Advertising Revenues - UGV
7.2.3 Annual Digital Video Advertising Revenues - Professional Content
7.2.4 Video Stream Ad Revenue Mix: 2008 thru 2013

8.0 Reflections and Recommendations

8.1 Entering the Internet TV Programming Market ? A Roadmap
8.2 Growing the Market

9.0 Attributions

Table of Figures 

Figure 1 IABs’ Conception of “Digital Video Advertising”
Figure 2 Illustration of Pre-Roll Ad
Figure 3 Illustration of Overlay Ad
Figure 4 Heavy.com’s Web Site
Figure 5 Hulu’s Ad Preference Selection Page
Figure 6 Revision3 Site
Figure 7 Average CPMs among Online Video Content Categories
Figure 8 Online Video Streams: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 9 UGV Online Video Streams: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 10 Short-Clip Online Video Streams: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 11 Long-Form Online Video Streams: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 12 “Other” Video Streams: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 13 Annual Online Video Streams by Category: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 14 Annual Advertising Revenue for Online Video: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 15 Annual Advertising Revenue for UGV: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 16 Annual Advertising Revenue for Short-Clip Content: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 17 Annual Advertising Revenue for Long-Form Content: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 18 Annual Ad-Related Revenue by Category: 2008 thru 2013
Figure 19 Streams versus Ad Revenue by Content Type - 2008
Figure 20 Streams versus Ad Revenue by Content Type - 2013

List of Tables

Table 1 Total Annual Stream by Video Category: 2008 thru 2013
Table 2 Total Annual Ad-Related Revenue by Video Category: 2008 thru 2013
Table 3 General Video-Related Terminology and Definitions
Table 4 Basic Advertising Terms and Definitions
Table 5 Online TV Companies, Content Models, Genres, Ads, and Fees