ALERT! Kangaroo on the Rampage

So a while back I was moaning, sorry, commenting about how in this wondrous age of Video on Demand I had to download so many program’s to watch my regular UK TV shows (iPlayer, 4oD, Joost, Babelgum). I commented how it’s like having to have a different set top box for each channel, which was unsustainable.

Now we are about to see disruptive Digital, disrupted, oddly enough by the old skool ‘traditional media’ with the official announcement of project ‘Kangaroo’. Nice summary here from the Guardian, but essentially it’s the BBC and Channel 4 dumping (sorry, building on the success of) their current (Kontiki based) players, and joined by ITV who had been using an ‘in-browser’ player.

Now this is massive, it’s an ‘iPod’ moment for TV in the UK market. Kangaroo is already being compared to Freeview in its capability to cut through to a being a fairly instant mass market proposition. It will have all your favourite shows and soap operas – it will have such a massive position in the marketplace other (mass market) rights holders from US Studios, through to indie production companies, to ‘new’ players in the market (such as newspaper’s who make video content) will all want to be represented on this platform.

I have 0% doubt in the success of Kangaroo as it will have the content... and not just in a ‘name the 3 hit shows we have’ and expect people to use our service way, it will have the vast bulk of hit UK TV shows/brands and I expect a lot of the international ones. I wonder whether Hulu will snowball like Kangaroo to dominate the US market as much.

The service will no doubt hit some bumps, but ultimately the nature of the content will mean it will prevail.

Some bumps that immediately come to mind include:

- The ISP’s moaning about the P2P networking clogging up their systems (and I expect it will be P2P)

- The BBC Trust wrestling with the restrictions they’ve imposed on the iPlayer, probably after public confusion when ITV allow series stacking of shows like Emmerdale, but the BBC won’t allow you to stack (series record) Eastenders. (The BBC Trust put some fairly random restrictions it to supposedly stop the BBC stifling the commercial market)

- TV Broadcasters and Rights Holders having to bring their Rights issues more into line across the market place

- Working out ‘comparable’ price points and attitude to how to include advertising

- Ofcom reaching out to regulate ‘NuTV’ after the next ‘phone-in’ type scandal

Some other questions raised straight away are what about Five, Sky, what about Endemol and Fremantle and their respective strategies. What about then for that matter, Nickelodeon, what about Information TV and movies 24??

Will Kangaroo be an open access system, or a way of the incumbents and big players protecting their dominant position from news smaller players?

Kangaroo is no doubt fantastic news for the average viewer who just wants their favourite shows.

I don’t see this being a problem for the social networks per say as their nascent media services and shows would be complementary – and I’m sure deals would be done to encourage the average Bebo or FaceBook user to go to Kangaroo and download the latest episode of the Mighty Boosh or Entourage.

I don’t think the situation is so clear for the likes of Joost or Babelgum who, in the UK at least are seeing their first mover advantage slip away.

More on this tomorrow.

Hyper local globalisation: In the Starting Blocks

Today’s post is prompted by my recent romp around NBC, Universal, and Fox ‘professional’ web video content site, Hulu. From what I could tell it looks lovely, but after 5 minutes of clicking around I realised whilst the site let me join, it won’t let me actually use the service and watch a show.

I have a deep appreciation of international rights issues, and no matter what your future business plan might be (and I admit this is a beta site), how hard can it be to have a disclaimer at the front saying that this is a US only site and content can’t be viewed outside the country. Showtime for years won’t even let you take a good look round their website if your non-US based.

This, in fairness, seems to be a common problem with sites that show ‘real’ TV shows. Pretty much all the sites will let you access their library catalogue, but only let you watch what is cleared for your territory (which quite often is not a lot if you are non-US). That’s outstandingly sloppy and short sited – it just makes me think they don’t understand how to respect their audience.

My simple request would be - if you have the technology to track IP addresses and work out where in the world I am, and therefore not play me an episode of Bionic Woman – why don’t you just use that technology to dynamically only serve me the content I can access. If you think about the functionality when you start building a website it’s a fairly easy thing to do.

This really opens up the discussions about brands and regionalisation (not just in terms of countries and regions, but also cities and towns). It’s something TV, and especially multi-channel brands have been dealing with since the early 90s and now that the web is video heavy finding a fine line between sites localised to maximise footfall, featuring cost efficient quality ‘networked’ programming, but dealing with rights issues as that networked content is also sold to 3^rd parties for the numbers to stack up.

That’s a big question, and I’ll be exploring the area in future posts.

Web 3.0, the new TV Networks

Today I'm picking up and exploring a topic I've touched on before; what will be the shape of TV Networks in years to come.

Now I'm not pretending to have the answers, I'm just looking around and seeing what might happen. I do believe that wherever we'll be in 10 years, it'll be a mixed bag of options with the definition of a TV Network stretched out - maybe we should really start talking about 'TV Networks' as brands rather than platforms.

So today we have the likes of ITV, BBC, NBC, Fox which are mainly on TV, but also have some life as 'web TV networks' too. I still expect these kind of players to be the big boys for the foreseeable future. But just as happened with Fox in the States, or Sky in the UK, there is a distinct likelihood that a new player will come along that is so significant it'll shift the entire industry landscape.

Moving forward, I'm writing today for 2 reasons. One was the official Viral Charts number 1 video which had Eric Schmidt of Google describing what is web 3.0. In (mediaguardian style) summary, he's saying that "that Web 3.0 will be seen as applications.... will run on any device - PC or mobile, applications are fast and customisable, distributed virally through social networks and email..."

Now we've also just had the announcement Skype has added a new bit of functionality, video sharing via its phone software. Today you can share the kind of cute clips with your friends you'd expect to see on You Tube. Now when you factor in that the original 'Team Skype' (who still have an involvement with that business) are now the brains behind Joost, the idea of sharing a new episode of your favourite TV show with a friend, and that show getting 'ratings' by being virally spread through friends of friends via social networks doesn't seem like such a big step at all.

I've already talked about 'Is Bebo the new ITV...' on previous posts, following on from their première of the online interactive drama mystery 'Kate Modern. We have organisations like Vuguru backed by Disney man Michael Eisner specialising in web only video content. We have all the video entertainment platforms like Joost, iPlayer and Veoh garnering content and experience with longform TV shows on the web. We have the huge viral potential of social networks like Facebook and Bebo; I doubt there is one person on the open platform of facebook who hasn't had an attempt of a Vampire bite, or had a cream pie thrown at them.

All in all, my conclusion. Current TV networks will remain big, if not as big production companies like Endemol with big brands will be even bigger than they are today.

The likes of Joost and Babelgum will bubble and grow slowly for a few more years. As I've mentioned before, the biggest stumbling block I see with these web TV services is that most people won't want to download and 'run' potentially several of these kinds of programs from everyone like the BBC and Channel 4 through to several new players, each with a few shows that you fancy watching.

However, bearing other Microsoft developments in mind, I see the equivalent of your cable box or TV becoming your personalised iGoogle home page, or more likely your facebook, Bebo or even My Space profile, each having 'TV widgets' you've chosen, or the web company has chosen to allow on its network. These widgets will in effect be Joost, iPlayer or Babelgum - the complex viewing and library programs today run as stand alone applications.

They'll email you with suggestions of shows, your friends will tell you about shows they've loved - and you can either watch the whole show on the service (with adverts), or be shown a clip and be sent off to the 'broadcasters' station or application.

Five years from now we may have production company Vuguru premiering the first web only 'TV format' that has 50 Million 'views'. In 2017 the big hit show, the 'Heroes' of its year may well be premiered on Facebook, get 100 Million views globally in a week, with that audience returning as each weekly episodes are first 'aired'... and don't even get me started on non-linear formats and shows.

Happy summer weekend my readers.

Laptop TV - The Unscientific Reviews

Following on from my previous posts, today I’ve decided to do a totally unscientific and random comparative test of some of the higher profile (longform) TV on over Broadband to your PC providers. I’ve not done services such as BT Vision or Tiscali that stream to your TV as that’s a different kind of service, and errr, I don’t have them at home or office.

So, the rules are I’m ignoring any outside knowledge I have about upcoming content deals or other business info. I’m acting as a straight Regular Joe consumer, and talking about my experience as a user, today the 16^th July. I also have to put my hand up and say I have a low boredom threshold, but then so do many consumers.

This is a longer than usual post (but still amusing), so take this slowly ….

Sky Anytime:

Yay! It loaded from my desktop. Being a user of this service since its launch it’s the one I’m most familiar with. I’ve had times when I couldn’t get it to work, only to eventually bother to call up and find out that as they upgraded I needed to uninstall, and re-install. Not great, but at least the supporting website has now been upgraded, and it’s the most consumer and content focused of the bunch.

Today it’s asked me to upgrade after I finally remembered my password (which is hard to set up via their preferred route of iTV). Whilst that chugs along I have to say this is the most accomplished service as it’s less of a ‘marker of what we want to be doing’ but an actual useable service for current Sky subscribers.

Ok, it can’t tell I’m online so I’ve had to close the program and reload the upgrade again. Not smooth.

Jumping forward, the service loads quickly and is very accomplished. It’s a very visual interface, pretty instinctive to use and it’s showing me TV guide style pictures and reviews of quality content in premium movies, entertainment, sport and lifestyle. It feel’s ‘scheduled’ in terms of offering a broad, but not never-ending list of content, with top 10’s and recommended content.

I’ve got nothing saved in my library to watch, my previous downloads were all over 28 days old and had expired. I have a choice of much content, all covered by my current Sky Subscription, topped up by some ‘Box Office’ premieres. Today I’ve noticed ‘buy to own’ has become an option.

I’ve chosen to download a recent hit movie, You, Me & Dupree which I know from experience will download in 4 hours or so – and it’ll be with a high quality picture too, so I’ll be able to watch it tonight in bed. My only frustration is getting used to the navigation with the lack of a back button.

An accomplished service, and I do actually use Sky Anytime ‘for real’ rather than looking at it for work research.

Joost

This is the one from the founders of Skype and has been receiving massive publicity. I have no doubt it has a very technical accomplished back-end, but today I don’t care about that.

I’ve double-clicked on my desktop icon.. It’s tells me I ‘MUST UPGRADE’, but unfortunately doesn’t give me a link direct to the download page. The accompanying website is very much, ‘we’re this technical solution, take a look’. Fairly minimal mentions of content (ie, why I’ts worth downloading) so as a casual surfer I may not be excited enough to download the service. It is still a very Beta service to be fair, but this start does indicate that this is a technical solution rather that being a sexy content aggregator. For me, the technology is the means to an end, not the solution.

Now the interface is sexy, but I have to say it doesn’t feel instinctive. I feel like I want my laptop to have a touch-screen to make it work.

Its gone full screen and I’ve had to stop my other work on the laptop whilst it downloads/does something. It gives me a black screen and I’ve had to scramble around to try and make the menu bar ‘appear’ so that I can minimise the screen and type this. The sound is cutting in and out on some promo video that self launched. Clicked on ‘Joost suggests’ but ‘that channel is unavailable right now’.

The menu to choose shows isn’t at all instinctive, offers very small jpegs, and no real description of the content of a show. It has some recognisable brand names, but no big hit shows. The video stream keeps stopping and starting so I’ve decided to try and make the menu bar appear again so I can try and find the off button.

Joost has nice technology at work no doubt , but it still doesn’t work. As viewer it neither has the content or the functionality that makes me want to come back.

I would suggest that they go back and try:

a/ Not to try and change a laptop/PC into a TV, when it’s a PC- and you want to use it as a PC too (maybe a choice of interafaces/defaults depending on how/where you are watching).

b/ Put more of a disclaimer that it’s a Beta service when its so flakey

c/ Consider that they need to be act more as a platform and entertainment provider, like Sky Digital, rather than a technology service .

Veoh

Unlike the other services, this one is fairly aimed at the US market, and that clarity of (achievable) purpose is fairly indicative of well thought through functionality throughout the service.

Double clicking on my desktop icon I get an iTunes style box with my ‘playlist’ (empty though). D’oh! Clicking on the tabs (I like - navigation I’m used to from the rest of the world) I can chose from channels or search. ‘Channels’ brings up some US Networks and the kind of channels you expect across any EPG.

No pictures or channel description, in fact this whole design is very Powerpoint circa 1999.

That said, the channels are fairly obvious ‘Fox’, ‘Cycle Network’ etc and the service is fast and clear to use, if lacking in info. I’d say a strong start (but a start) rather than a false start. The show menu is a little confusing, but the player is just like a Quicktime or Windows Media Player one. Instinctive and it loads quickly, but with VHS type pixely pictures. Ok for a You Tube experience, but maybe less good for a movie.

Ok, I don’t seem to be allowed to view any of the decent content as a non-US viewer but this looks like it might develop into something useable, at least for the US audience. It does simple things, simply, but it works.

Babelgum

Another double click on my desktop - another request to update software. It seems a lot of these services are very much in development and will update every week or two. These early launches may have been done to appease investors and impress potential distributors, but they are also putting their brands out to the public with products that are nowhere near ‘ready’.

As the content pick on this service is ‘Jesus Children of America’ lets leave that to one side and assume it’ll get better.

The service looks and feels really similar to Joost, but slightly more instinctive as it pops up with what looks like a remote control in one corner, and this control widget is there from the start - you know what you are meant to look at and use. Again, the service starts full screen and takes you away from what you are doing whilst it then loads whatever it needs to load. The screen seemingly randomly resizes to a window, but content loads noticeably quicker than Joost.

Hand on my heart I don’t think I can further review this Beta fairly. I clicked on buttons, but the interface gave no recognisable response. I pushed another button – 20 seconds later something happened. I did do a search, which was quick, and the video loaded quickly in a VHS style resolution not best suited to a full laptop screen, but watch-able without any stuttering.

Again, I’m sure the service will get a lot better, but it feels a year or more away from something you’d recommend. Again, maybe more of a disclaimer on such a first stage Beta would be useful, especially as people are used to such fully formed Beta’s from the likes of Google and others.

BBC iPlayer

“404 Page Unauthorised”.

Hmm, guess I’ll have to wait till later in the month to talk about the BBC iPlayer, although I may well be worth its own special appraisal. I have watched shows on the BBC website before , clicking onto links and happily watched episodes of shows I liked. I know iPlayer is a new and sparkly technology, but the simplicity of going to a freely available web page and just clicking is where I think we need to be striving towards.

ITV.com

Hmm, clicked in the address on my Firefox browser and clicked on a banner for a ‘preview of our new website’.

It doesn’t recognise my flash player, but I downloaded all the software last time I came to this site. I’ll sort it out.

Ok, restarted firefox and this time the ITV site shows me a white page for ages whilst it ‘loads ads’. Sometimes I hate the net. Again it tells me it can’t detect the right software, but I click on a nice picture of Coronation Street which promises a preview of next week’s hit show.

Ahh, it won’t play. Strange as I watched a clip on this self same laptop last week.

5 minutes later: I had a little think, and decided to actually read all the bumpf on the webpage. Restart the experiment with a copy of IE7 that I keep for emergencies like this. D’oh again!

Ok, I clicked on the ‘play preview of next week’s show’ type of JPEG. The video loaded in about 20 seconds, but it goes straight into an ad break. Cool if I’m expecting it, but the player tells me its playing a 10 second clip, then a 30 second one, then a 30 second one (which doesn’t load properly) and I’m wondering when the show might start, or if its working properly. I’m not able to detach the player, it just launches my Windows Media player but nothing else happens within the player. I give up on that, but click on ‘watch live ITV’. Loads fast, looks good enough, goes full screen effortlessly when the content grabbed me enough to do so.

Simple, effective, it work, it has the content (even if I do hate Corrie) and it has the well known and trusted brand.

One minute later:

Ohh, Windows Media Player has now started playing with the ‘detached’ content, but I do have to resize the player and the video before I continue.

4oD

I’m getting a bit frustrated with all this double-clicking on my desktop for an entertaining experience.

Ok, I get a full screen page that is nicely laid out and this feels like a content service. I look around and work out that some content is paid for, some not. With my previous experiences, including early use of paid for music download sites I decide not to part with cash.

I have a choice to stream or download. Now that’s impressive. That’s an instant gratification when I’m watching on the laptop in my bedroom, or allows me a catch-up when I’m sitting on a train. Brownie points for the Channel 4 team.

I click on stream, and am asked for my password. Why do these websites never remember it - this isn’t my bank account and I have too many passwords to remember.

I get a pop up, it states it’s playing ads and at the bottom of the pop up box it tells me which episode I’m about to watch. Someone has really thought about this service, and I’m impressed. It even gives me an option to ‘book’ all the episodes in the series I chose to view.

Click to watch full-screen, which is on the wrong side of blurry but the video plays smoothly. I’m assuming that quality of video on downloaded shows would be higher.

I make a mental note to start using 4oD.

Five

I went to the five web page but decided not to pay £2.40 for an episode of CSI that seems to be in constant re-run on Five and other channels.

The page looks nice and well thought out, the limited content is quality programming but I’m not tempted to pay for what I see as ‘free’ content. Perhaps they should look at the ad-funded model for current programming.

BFI

I thought the British Film Institute deserved a quick mention. You can download some free, but mainly paid for content. A simple site, but it gives access to a treasure trove of amazing content that is normally next to impossible to access, except for say a bi-annual showing at one cinema in London.

Finally!! A summary:

So, a mammoth effort of crashed browsers (Narrowstep), software downloads, labyrinthine libraries and flakey software.

I ask myself why the viewers want to watch TV (on a PC); for me that means to watch in a room where I don’t have multi-channel; it’s to watch when I’m away from home (and don’t necessarily have access to the internet). One ‘need’ would suggest a streaming service, the other a download one.

I would suggest that it’s a hard sell and hard even to communicate to people ‘go here for Show z’ to download, ‘but go here for show z to stream’. That issue for the newcomers is compounded by the question of advertising and marketing a new and unknown service brand, letting your (potential) audience you’re here. Surely the sites that offer more options in one place will win out?

The next major issue: Unbelievable as it may seem, there is actually a finite amount of content, and a more finite amount of content people can be bothered to look up and watch. Ultimately, as it’s about content not technology Sky, Channel 4 and presumably the BBC will win out in the UK with their massive libraries.

So, from the point of usability, simplicity of sell and access to content, the existing TV content brands win out at this stage of the battle. I doff my hat to the BFI and other specific niche content providers that will find an audience, but they are playing a different game from the corporate mammoths.

Round 1 to the TV stations, for the newbies I say take lessons from 75 years of expertise in TV and in what it is to be a ‘channel’ or distribution platform; with its self promotion (promo’s, junctions, zone’s, dayparting etc); ease of use (scheduling/offering a refined menu); what the audience wants to watch, expects, and is used to in the wider world and apply that to your ‘new paradigm’ before the bell rings to start Round 2 of this battle.

Will Broadband TV succeed immediately?

Sorry for the break in posts, I was travelling.

TV over broadband has really been talking off recently and after the initial excitement of Joost, 40D and BBC iPlayer has died, the reality and the shakeout will begin.

It's pretty obvious to all, not just Creatives like me, that its the content, stupid. People watch shows, they don't 'use' technology for its own sake. But I think in content is paramount, these developments are more than just content, it's more than any piece of cool software. What hasn't been discussed is the marketplace. I'm having visions of VHS vs Betmax, HD-DVD vs BlueRay all over again.

The first thing that strikes me immediately now that I have Joost, babelgum, veoh, 4oD, Sky Anytime, ITV.com (on demand) and waiting to download BBC's iPlayer, is... can you guess?

Well, I mentioned 7 ways of watching TV. Yes 7, 6 of which involve a download, an icon on my desktop, a log in process, and a double click whilst software loads and I can then go pick what I want to watch, or infact see if there is anything worth watching. ITV.com is the only one that I can just go to the website (and here, I had to close ITV.com in Firefox, find where I have IE7 on my computer before I could watch anything).

These are all mass-market propositions - but that's too much software and junk on my computer. Now considering you are in a market place where many people have access to multiple streams, via an easy interface (regular TV and remote) you're setting yourself up to have some problems.

Unless 'portals' like Joost or Babelgum do the mind-blowingly difficult and become like the UK's Sky or Virgin Media dominating a particular market with a mass of quality product on offer, its going to be a very hard sell indeed. The BBC are more likely to pull it off because of the sheer amount of product they have, which in turn will attract others.

Yes, there are all the issues or DRM (Digital Rights Management), and lots of people are trying to create value. In this post however, I'm being the consumer with my many, many choices of how to spend my free time, not an Executive trying to sell my wares.

I think these portals will 'simmer' but won't reach mass market propositions until the software become no more than 'widgets' which work across browsers, and as seamlessly as browsers. I think both Microsoft and Adobe are working on that.


Now looking into my crystal ball the other bump to get over in terms of market penetration in old fashioned marketing and advertising (ok, hands up, I'm ignoring revenue and network capacity issues here for the sake of clarity).

The much talked about long tail (small revenues over prolonged time) is valid, but video based entertainment has always been, and to a very large extent will remain about hit content. A hit business needs hit content. Real hit content is still about well produced show, featuring 'stars' that play to the mass market - and a mass market that needs to know the hit show exists and be able find it easily.

I don't see Joost or Babelgum taking over poster sites like Channel 4 saying, watch Ugly Betty on our service. Equally, the current dynamics of the business will mean Battlestar Gallactica's producers won't take out posters for their shows saying 'watch on Sky, Joost and Virgin Media on Demand'.

Traditional TV is fighting with the fact that programme brands are getting bigger than the channels. These new start-ups need to not forget that.

My biggest bit of advice, ditch the incompatible downloaded software to participate and partner up with established channel brands.



As a addendum, my personal usage. I Sky+ everything and look at all the players as part of my work. I find Sky Anytime clunky, but use it to download movies I've already paid for through my subscription which I'll watch whilst travelling or staying at my partners. 4oD kept crashing on me, and its limited content mean I don't bother. Joost, Babelgum & veoh I check out of professional curiosity, but I doubt I'll go back till I see there is a show I want to watch on it. ITV.com looks good, but I don't watch many of their shows, iPlayer I'm waiting for. Youtube's and Google Video are all about short form content so are a slightly different marketplace.

The Shake-Out? Multi-channel in the UK

There's always lots of media coverage when a new channel is launched, but that's less true when a service shuts down - no boastful press releases then. The economics of running a TV business are tough, no matter if you are a big player or running a station off a laptop with a staff of 2 interns (literally, I've visited those stations ).

Many TV businesses were launched on business plans that looked at breaking even in 2 to 5 years. Many were there as 'placeholders' to gain market share, to vainly help with ratings slides, through to simple 'squatting' holding onto valuable EPG slots in the entertainment section looking for a buyer.

The market is being squeezed and in many cases broadcasters and bumping along either side of break-even. Investors and parent companies are now getting itchy feet.

The squeeze on channels and their revenues has been getting much more intense: The rise of Freeview; the massive squeeze on subscription revenues (if you've managed to get them at all); the rise in Sky EPG costs; the collapse of participation revenues; getting shunted to EPG dead zones; attracting advertising; costs of running a subscription service on Sky being uneconomic for pretty much any player (Film 4 included) at a price the public are willing to pay; negotiating your way onto cable; a glut of pitifully bad competition drowning out mid-size quality players; the rise of the internet and social networks; the rise of Joost, BT Vision and other new distribution platforms; the rise of the long tail VoD business model; rights issues and costs; technology changes and free content (does anyone pay for ring-tone specific downloads anymore?), the list just goes on and on.

We are beginning to see the changes, but like the UK housing market will there be a collapse (say prompted by a Sky rule change) or a gentle slide?

I don't think this in the end of multi-channel but I do see 2 things happening. A greater polarisation between 2 distinct business groups. One, well funded, with multiple, well marketed 'brands' featuring 'expensive' content and run by large, funded businesses on all major platforms who are either a top 5 player in one market (eg: Virgin Media's, ITV's or Five's bouquet of channels who all have a Freeview window), or a significant player in multiple markets (MTV, Discovery, Turner). Mass market with one shared back office infrastructure and able to attract advertising, sponsorship and of course audiences. In here you'll also have the businesses who use TV as some kind of shop window, from gambling and bingo,through to shopping channels and pure advertiser strands like Audi TV.

Secondly I see a big mass of properly niche players featuring targeted content, distributed via 'secondary' methods where distribution costs are lower, where capabilities of charging subscriptions, 'accounts', one off payments and targeted advertising are within realistic reach. These will be the entrepreneurial businesses, the niche content players, distribution and production companies. Already Ten Alps is becoming a major player in this emerging market and expect Joost, BT Vision, You Tube and others to be names to look out for as well as 'new' broadcasters like the National Union of Students and the like.

So is this pointless musing, or is the middle market really being squeezed?

In recent weeks both Optimistic and Life TV have essentially disappeared having sold their valuable entertainment EPG slots. We've had channel's like London TV move over to broadband, the Simply group change focus as they become a broadband distributor, DITG/YooMedia moved away from being broadcasters. A whole swathe of adult, shopping and participation and gaming services shutting down or imploding. There are rumours of Channel 4 taking over one or more of EMAP's music channels - perhaps no surprise as those channels revenue streams of a £1 a pop to request a video on a channels that plays out the ostensibly the same music on a 2 hour loop. Channels like Extreme Sports moved from a 'bespoke' service to be put under the wings of Zone Media who specialise in buy-by-the-100-hours library programming with minimal brand building and marketing, surviving on low risk, low cost, lower return models with little ambition.

Looking at comments by Jonny Webb and Malcolm Wall I'd expect a rejig (and loss of?) channels in the Virgin Media stable, Turner had a re-jig recently and how much longer will NBC Universal keep backing Sci-Fi UK as a stand alone brand when any break out hit it has gets pinched by the competition (Heroes). This mass market is going to have more 'strong' players as Virgin 1 and MTV's General Entertainment services launch and squeeze the value in multi-channel and dig their claws deep into the emerging platforms.

I of course, could be wrong and your comments are appreciated as always.