Amazon Prepping Netflix-Like Streaming Service:

Amazon.com appears to be readying a service that would make 5,000 movies and TV shows available to watch instantly, at no incremental charge, for members of the online retailer's $79-per-year "Prime" free-shipping membership program.

The service would provide "unlimited, commercial-free, instant streaming" of 5,000 movies and TV shows' with content similar to what is available through Netflix's streaming component. Amazon's service, though, would be limited to standard-definition video.

The notable observation here is that Amazon will try to create a business model that does not rely directly on incremental revenue, but rather on increasing subscribers to another existing service Amazon deems important. That's similar to Apple selling music and video to sell iPods and iPads. Netflix, Comcast and others, on the other hand, have less wiggle room, since their video businesses are about selling video.

Comcast, of course, also is trying the Amazon tactic, tying a fixed-line cable subscription to its mobile and untethered online video service. Still, it always is dangerous when a new competitor proposes to give away what another company sells.

Amazon Prime is a membership program that provides free two-day shipping as well as one-day shipping for $3.99 per item on certain purchases.

Currently Amazon offers a selection of more than 75,000 movie and TV show rentals or purchases through PCs, Microsoft's Xbox 360 and connected-TV devices, including those from TiVo, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Vizio and Roku.

Amazon.com's agreement to buy full ownership of LoveFilm, a European DVD rental and movie-streaming service, confirms the e-commerce giant intends to beef up its digital-video offering.

Operating in the U.K., Scandinavia and more recently Germany, LoveFilm's service is very similar to that of Netflix in the U.S. But it is well behind the American company, both in subscribers—1.6 million versus 17 million—and in the amount of streaming content it has licensed.

read more here

Netflix Beats, Worry Grows (Insert "Apple" and You Know the Story)

Netflix Really Becomes "Net Flicks"

The issue now is whether Netflix has put so much distance between itself and others that the others cannot catch up.

Netflix Streaming-Only Customers Are 33% of All New Subscribers

Netflix now finds 33 percent of its new customers are choosing the $7.99 a month, "streaming only" plan, a rather powerful testament to demand for the Netflix offer. Netflix introduced the offer in November 2010, at the same time slightly increasing the price of existing plans that support both DVD and streaming delivery.

Netflix also says it expects the percentage of "streaming only" customers to grow over time. About 66 percent of new customers elect to buy the  $9.99 1-DVD combination plan, which allows users to rent one DVD at a time, and also allows unlimited viewing using streaming.  "Very few of our existing subscribers are downgrading to the pure streaming plan," Netflix also notes.

read more here

What is Netflix's Long-Term Position in Online Video Business?

Netflix has confounded naysayers for years. The basic argument has been that the DVD rental business would be replaced by online video, and that Netflix would not make the adjustment.

So far, Netflix has proved doubters spectacularly wrong. By all accounts, it is making a steady transition to online delivery, and its customers seem to be adapting as well. So perhaps a new consensus has developed: that Netflix is among the firms that will survive the transition from physical media delivery to online delivery.

If you have been in most Best Buy outlets recently, you get a sense that Best Buy is serous about ultimately phasing out sales of physical media content, to the extent that floor space is an indication of what a retailer expects to sell.

Perhaps oddly, then, one might ask the question of whether online delivery is an unalloyed good thing for Netflix. Some might argue it will pose new, and different questions, for Netflix.

Up to this point, most seem to agree that switching to online delivery saves Netflix money because the company avoids paying postal fees for delivery. That's true.

But content owners are becoming more aggressive about protecting their online rights, and it is a reasonable prediction that Netflix will have to pay much more, in the future, for access to content it can stream. That obviously could pose issues for the revenue model, given the low costs Netflix now imposes on users of its library.

If its content acquisition costs rise, Netflix will face margin pressure, with the obvious choice of raising prices or watching its margins tumble. Higher prices might limit growth, but higher prices seem almost inevitable, at some point.

In the chart, for example, note the blue bar, representing streaming content costs, compared to the white bar, which represents  DVD content acquisition costs.

At the same time, a switch to streaming, rather than DVD rentals, will cost Netflix more, over time. Now, Netflix can buy a DVD, pay once, and rent the disc until it is worn out. When streaming, the typical deal is that the content owner gets 60 percent of the gross rental fee. So there is more financial leverage when sourcing content by buying DVDs.

Other distributors pay similar amounts, of course, but generally price each viewing at higher rates, ranging from $1.99 to $4.99 per movie (or more) on Apple's iTunes, Amazon On Demand, Vudu, and cable, satellite or telco video on demand services, for example. TV show rentals might cost the end user $1 per episode.

Netflix now offers a $7.99 per month unlimited streaming service, and you can guess that the economics can invert, given reasonable volume. You might wonder how Netflix can even offer the unlimited $7.99 streaming plan, and the answer is that it has agreements that were very generous. But it takes no insight to argue that future agreements will not offer such advantages.

The Netflix deal for Starz contnet, signed in October 2008, gave Netflix access to approximately 2,500 Disney and Sony movies for less than $0.15 per subscriber per month for its content, compared to the $2 to $4 per subscriber per month that TV operators typically pay Starz.

Netflix signed a deal to stream content from Epix, which is owned by three studios, Paramount Pictures, Lions Gate and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The exact terms of the deal haven't been disclosed, but numerous reports say it's for up to $1 billion over five years.

Importantly, Netflix won't be able to stream Epix's movies until 90 days after they have reached Epix's distribution window, which is typically 6-12 months after a movie is first available on premium movie channels, so this deal won't address Netflix's problem that it offers no current releases.

On the operating cost side, one might argue that more streaming means less mailing of DVDs, and hence less cost. That's correct. But one might quickly conclude that Netflix will have to pay more for streaming rights than it can possibly save in postage and fulfillment costs.

Perhaps the impact already is being felt. In the third quarter of 2010, Netflix's operating margin was 12.6 percent and net margin was 6.9 percent, down from 14.9 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively, in the second quarter. Some would say that is the result of higher content payments not balanced by an equal reduction in distribution cost.

There are other issues as well. At some point, if consumers start paying for bandwidth consumed that accounts for higher video consumption, the implied cost of streaming delivery will grow, increasing the "price" part of the "value versus price" equation. That could make other alternatives, especially a multichannel video subscription plus digital video recorder, a much more attractive "value."

That will especially be true for wireless providers, as people are getting used to watching video on their mobiles, and viewing on an iPad or wireless-connected PC also can be a satisfactory experience. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, for example, expects the revenue per megabit for wireless providers to fall from 43 cents today to just 2 cents in 2014.

Down the road are other potential risks to the business model as well. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued adecision that calls into question the First Sale Doctrine. Though it was a case related to re-selling software, the court observed that the policy implications might affect movies as well.

To get early access to fresh content, Netflix will have to pay more. If it chooses not to do so, the value of its library might weaken, from a customer's perspective. If it pays more to acquire more, and fresher content, its costs go up. So Netflix might have to raise prices. That could change its place in the market.

Netflix could accept lower margins, up to a point. Amazon certainly seems willing to do so. But assuming Netflix can manage those challenges, it does seem that a strategic choice has to be made. Netflix can offer a wider array of current content at higher prices, or a more-limited range of library or catalog content at lower prices. Some would argue it will do both, offering "enough" content at "good enough" prices to establish its position within the overall online video market.

Even in the more-established "premium" channel space, there is content differentiation between HBO, Starz and Showtime because none of the networks can afford to buy rights to all "new release" movie content, for example.

The trick will be to build on the library while adding just enough fresh and recent content to remain competitive. It's a tall order, but Netflix has confounded its critics in the past.

Whitney Tilson: Why We’re Short Netflix - Seeking Alpha:

Comcast Tests New Service That Combines Internet, TV

Comcast Corp. is testing a new service that combines linear television and some Internet content. The new set-top device combines digital video recorder functions with the ability to watch some web-delivered video and search for programs.

(click on image for larger view)

But it isn't just the ability to protect themselves from Netflix, Apple TV and other competitors. Typical cable set-top boxes are a bit underpowered in terms of supporting elegant user interfaces.

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt admits that over-the-top services have better user interfaces.

"I would not sit up here and say our user interface is really good," Britt said recently. "It's not as good as theirs."

Edward Rogers, deputy chairman and controlling shareholder of Rogers Communications also pointed out that set-top evolution in the cable industry has not kept pace with other developments in consumer electronics. "We realize that the evolution of these boxes has been a little slower than what we need," Rogers said.

Comcast Tests New Service That Combines Internet, TV - WSJ.com (subscription required)

http://www.cable360.net/technology/MSOs-Blame-Set-Tops-For-Their-OTT-Problems_44366.html

Netflix testing $7.99 and $8.99 streaming-only plans

Netflix now is offering streaming-only plans in the U.S. market, for prices that seem to range from $7.99 to $8.99, or $9.99 if users want physical disc access as well.

Netflix testing $7.99 and $8.99 streaming-only plans in US right now, one is not a discount (update) -- Engadget

Future of TV: One Investor's View

At some point, "over the top" video distribution is going to be a bigger financial force in the television business, but it won't happen as fast as many believe, simply because the amounts of business revenue at stake are so enormous. As hard as attackers will try, access to quality content still will be a key issue, as content owners will not be in a hurry to jeopardize their current revenue streams.

"Over the top" options will continue to proliferate, and device manufacturers will attempt to create ecosystems around their products to entice content owners to buy in. But it will take time to create the scale content owners will want to see before making adjustments in content relationships.

Also, existing distributors, such as cable companies, know exactly what is at stake and will work furiously to enable online video in ways that complement, rather than compete with, their current offerings.

Virtually all the contestants in the ecosystem will be looking at ways to "move up the stack" in terms of providing more value. Many of those attempts will fail.

Software and applications are not core competencies for many of the ecosystem providers, and that ultimately will limit the success of "up the stack" efforts.

Almost by definition, the real combat will take place over second and tertiary screens, rather than the large TV screen. Tablet PCs and smartphones will provide key examples, even though game consoles and other devices using the TV display also will fight for attention.

Perhaps the key issue is the future of content bundling. Nearly all the technology developments will create alternatives to the multichannel TV subscription. Perhaps an analogy can be glimpsed in the music business, where the "bundled" album or CD lost favor compared to purchases of discrete songs.

Also, the trend in video entertainment over the past several decades has been a shift away from linear formats and towards on-demand consumption. Digital methods are only the latest examples of a trend that began with the videocassette recorder.

Television originally was designed for a mass audience in a single country. But global content and its ability to develop a “niche” global audience now is a new trend. Think of about the rise of Japanese Anime, Spanish Novelas, Korean Drama or the rise of Bollywood entertainment from India. It’s not a mass, mainstream audience but I would argue that it’s “global torso” content that will be meaningful at scale. Websites like ViiKii, which have been launched to create realtime translations of shows by fan-subbers, have huge followings already. And I’m sure that this is what popularized the SlingBox in the first place. British, India & Pakistani ex-pats on a global scale want to watch cricket.

NetFlix might be winning the battle for distribution of movie content online. Linear television remains much more fluid. One app to watch is YouTube, which might graduate from user-generated video to a distribution mechanism for "linear" professionally-created video as well. Potential audience size always matters, and YouTube is aggregating an enormous potential audience.

That same argument goes for gaming consoles, which now represent an installed base of U.S. devices numbering about 60 million terminals. The issue is not simply the game console's ability to deliver online video, but the role gaming might ultimately play in building audiences for gaming-plus-TV experiences.

Content discovery will be important as well. In a universe of content, it is hard to find "the good stuff." In part, that is why some believe "social TV" is a growth area. People talk about video and movies they like. That will help with the "discovery" problem.

Another unknown is the way narratives are crafted. Hollywood is the master of the long-form story.Whether that will be the only, or even dominant narrative in the future is open to question.

What happens when content production & distribution is easy to professionally produce and distribute at mass low-cost scale? Will we still have predictable story lines? Or can we develop more fragmented content to meet the needs of fragmented audiences and interest groups?

What happens in a world where content producers have a direct relationship with the audience and can involve the audience directly in story creation? Or maybe even as wacky as involving the audience in the story itself?

read more here

Netflix Proved Lots of People Wrong

Netflix for Android

Netflix is working on a streaming video application for smartphones running Google’s Android operating system, a Netflix employee and online job listing have each confirmed.

Netflix has posted two job listings on its website so far this summer, both seeking Android developers. The current listing is titled “Android Video Playback Expert,” and begins, “Netflix is looking for a great engineer to help us build Instant Streaming client implementations on Android devices.

Netflix Streaming Is Coming to Your Android Phone

Netflix Edges Past Hulu In Total U.S. Traffic

Web traffic to Netflix was 20.2 million in June, 2010, just edging past Hulu’s 19.7 million.

It has to be said that most of the Netflix traffic likely was people updating their queues and so forth, while more of the traffic to Hulu was people viewing actual videos, but the traffic is some indication of the potential for Netflix to move into the video download space, some would argue.

Netflix Edges Past Hulu In Total U.S. Traffic (comScore)

Hulu Plus Not a Danger to Netflix

Barclays analyst Doug Anmuth does not believe Hulu's new subscription service "Plus" will harm Netflix subscriber growth, though it is the "first credible competitive subscription offering," especially for viewers who watch serials and other popular TV fare.

Netflix still is heavy on movie content.

link

Netflix Faces Stiffer VODCompetition

Netflix faces competition in digital video-on-demand and pay-per-view offerings from players like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Dish Network, according to analysts at Trefis. The reason is a
recent Federal Communications Commission decision allowing new films to be made available on-demand before such films are available on DVDs.

The FCC generally prohibits the use of so-called "selectable output control" technology, which encodes video programming with a signal to remotely disable set-top box output connections. But the FCC granted a waiver from those rules for Motion Picture Association of America members who want to protect copying of content if a new digital release window is created.

Allowing movie studios to temporarily prevent recording from TVs could pave the way for movies to be released to homes sooner than they are today. The FCC said the waiver is therefore in the public interest, because the studios are unlikely to offer new movies so soon after their theatrical release without such controls.

The FCC decision allows movie studios (like Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Disney Studios) to block analog signals on TVs and video recorders when consumers purchase their latest on-demand movies.

This decision was pushed for by Disney, Time Warner and Viacom to reduce the likelihood of content piracy, especially for new films where instances of piracy tend to be high. While this move gives movie studios more control over their content offering, it also gives a boost to cable providers that compete with Netflix to deliver the latest films to consumers, Trefis argues.

Remember When Netflix Was "Toast"?

Remember when Netflix was supposed to be "toast"? You remember the arguments: Physical media was
out, online was in; Netflix was wedded to a dying business model. Online distribution, by YouTube or
Hulu, was going to destroy Netflix.

That hasn't happened. Quite to the contrary, investors have bid up Netflix's stock by nearly 100 percent
since January 2010, in part because Netflix shows every sign of being a contender in online video. And now Hulu has announced a "paid" access model that puts it in head-to-head competition with Netflix to some extent.

True, Netflix often is thought of as primarily offering movie fare, while Hulu's content leans heavily towards TV shows.

Netflix has 14 million paying subscribers, while Hulu has about 40 million unique viewers, but so far zero paid subscribers. And that is the test for Hulu. Most observers think perhaps five percent to 10 percent of Hulu users might choose to buy the new paid service, suggesting a potential base of two million to four million paid subscribers.

If one assumes four million subscribers, at a monthly fee of $10, that implies $480 million worth of annual revenue. That's interesting, but not terribly interesting.

Wal-Mart to Become an Online Video Service Provider

What do you do when you are one of the top retailers of DVDs in the United States, and the product starts to face serious substitution from a newer product?

You start selling the newer product. Or so Wal-Mart thinks.

The retail giant, according to the New York Times, has agreed to buy Vudu, a three-year-old  online movie service built into an increasing number of high-definition televisions and Blu-ray players.

Wal-Mart’s move is likely to give a lift to sales of Internet-ready televisions and disc players, which generally cost a few hundred dollars more than devices without such connections.  Nor is the move the first attempt by Wal-Mart to figure out a way to make a transition from sales of packaged media to online forms of video consumption.

Wal-Mart dabbled in aq Netflix-style online DVD rental several years ago, but sold the operation to Netflix after getting 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers. Wal-Mart also attempted to get into video rentals with HP in 2007, but it gave up on that project after a year.

The Vudu acquistion would instantly make Wal-Mart a significant force in the video streaming business, and would make the company a direct competitor to Netflix once again.

Vudu initially entered the market with a set-top box that offered access to its video streaming service, but gave up on building its own hardware, and started offering its service as a software offering that could be integrated into other consumer electronic devices.

That might make more sense, as Wal-Mart also now is one of the leading retailers of consumer electronics.

Of course, Wal-Mart also has to position its electronics sales against Best Buy, a major competitor that likewise  is working with CinemaNow to enable streaming video services on its own consumer devices.

Is Digital Delivery Destroying Other Parts of the Movie Ecosystem?

Reality typically is more complex than any forecast about reality. Consider the movie business and downstream ecosystem. Digital entertainment was supposed to destroy the movie theater business, but evidence is contradictory on that score.

It might be more accurate to say that the digital entertainment business is hitting "physical media" sales more than anything else. In the first half of 2009, ticket sales grew 17.5 percent, according to Media by Numbers, a box-office tracking company. You might argue that is the result of higher ticket prices or a desire to momentarily escape recession woes.

As it turns out, neither of those factors seem to be driving the trend. Attendance jumped by nearly 16 percent in the first half of 2009. If those rates hold for the whole year, it would be the biggest box-office surge in at least two decades.

There likely is some truth to the adage that "people go to movies more frequently in a recession." But the evidence is mixed on that score. The last time Hollywood enjoyed a double-digit jump in attendance was 1989, when the unemployment rate was at a comfortable 5.4 percent. That year, the number of moviegoers shot up 16.4 percent, according to Box Office Mojo.

In 1982, theater attendance jumped 10.1 percent to about 1.18 billion as unemployment rose sharply past 10 percent. Then admissions fell nearly 12 percent, an unusually sharp drop, in 1985, as the economy picked up.

The economy's effect is a bit unclear, in other words. As always is the case, though, movie attendance is higher when film-makers create movies lots of people want to see, and that likely is a part of the story.

The film industry over the last year or two has released movies that are happier, scarier or just less depressing than what came before, some might argue.

Still, the point is that digital delivery has not adversely affected theater attendance of late.

DVD sales are another matter. In 2008, movie ticket sales surpassed DVD revenue, according to Adams Media Research. Where 2009 box office receipts grew 10 percent $9.87 billion, DVD sales fell 13 percent to $8.73 billion.

For whatever reason, consumers are spending less money buying DVDs than they had been for most of the past 10 years, and a reasonable guess would be that video on demand and other streaming services finally are starting to have an impact. The other angle is that Netflix has kept growing as well, despite predictions by many that growth would falter as Internet delivery and VOD became more established behaviors.

Consumers may also have realized that they will not watch most movies more than once. That will shift behavior towards rental services and VOD.

The prevailing wisdom is that the DVD business is in a permanent decline. A few years ago many analysts wrongly predicted that theater sales would drop every year, as well. One should never underestimate the impact business decisions by the movie ecosystem can have.

Making movies people want to see plays a huge role, for example. Pricing and distribution decisions made in the DVD sales and rental channel also can have a huge and unforseen impact. Netflix disrupted the retail rental store business, for example.

Also, Blu-ray HDTV appliance adoption might be playing a role as well. Though the installed base of DVD players still represent the lion's share of device usage, Blu-ray obviously is growing. That could have consumers holding back on purchases of physical media they believe will someday go the way of casette tapes.

Video Now Driving Bigger Access Bandwidth Packages, says Compete.com

How much Internet-delivered video is being consumed by users of sites such as Hulu.com or Netflix.com? According to compete.com data, Hulu.com traffic has grown 210 percent over the last year.

"If Hulu.com continued this growth trajectory for another year, we could see it break into Compete.com’s top 50, surpassing unique visitor traffic to sites like the NYtimes.com and Netflix.com," says Matt McGlinn, Compete.com writer.

From September 2008 to September 2009, Netflix.com’s volume of unique visitors viewing movies and other content online increased 163 percent, says Compete.com.

The good news for Internet service providers is that these trends will keep driving end users to buy access packages featuring higher amounts of bandwidth, says McGlinn.

Why Netflix is Not "Toast"

On-demand video might affect the DVD rental business someday, but apparently not this year. Netflix just revised first quarter and full-year 2008 guidance. For the year, Netflix expects to have 8.9 million to 9.5 million subscribers, up from the prior forecast of 8.4 million to 8.9 million subs. It expects revenue of $1.345 billion to $1.385 billion, up from $1.3 billion to $1.35 billion. It expects unchanged GAAP net income of $75 million to $83 million. But GAAP earning per share will be higher. The new forecast calls for $1.18 to $1.30 per diluted share, up from $1.12 to $1.24 per diluted share.

On-demand viewing is convenient, to be sure. But there are countervailing values as well. On-demand purchases introduce an element of uncertainty into monthly budgeting of expenses. On-demand rentals can be cash transactions, with no later unexpected financial impact. It's an underestimated value for physical rentals rather than on-demand purchases.

Flat rate is important for many consumers. So is the "unlimited" number of titles one can buy on some Netflix plans. That adds more value. Think of how parents view texting charges. Why do so many people buy relatively large plans? Because they don't want overage charges.

On-demand viewing leads to "overage" charges. Flat-rate or "cash on demand" services eliminate that uncertainty.

Content, TV Display Key to Online Success

The most-important things online movie download services can do to succeed is offer a broad selection of content and make it possible to view that content on TVs, which is the expectation users now have for movie content. That's because the single most important ingredient for success for any video offering is the content.

That isn't to say content pitched to mobiles or PCs can't find a niche. It is to say that the broad mass market for online-delivered movie viewing won't become a mass phenomenon until user behavior is consistent with what consumers expect today.

"When it comes to movie rentals and purchases, the quality of content matters," say analysts at The Diffusion Group. The second crucial element is that "getting video downloads to the TV is absolutely imperative."

The ability to view movie downloads on any TV in the home is of critical importance, both to those that have used online movie download services and those likely to do so soon, The Diffusion Group says.

The use of mobile phones for video viewing is not considered sufficiently desirable to justify using an online movie download service, Diffusion Group researchers find. "As such, cell phone video viewing will not in-and-of-itself be a compelling attribute for an online movie download service, especially of full-length movies.

And there's a difference between users and proponents. Proponents emphasize the interactive capabilities online content enables. But users don't seem especially enamored of those sorts of features, as fond of them as interactive proponents are.

Adult broadband users don't agree. "Only 28 percent rank this attribute positively and 42.3 percent rank it unimportant," Diffusion Group researchers say.

What Future for Downloading, Streaming Video?

The conventional wisdom now is that movie downloading will replace DVD sales and rentals, and that this replacement is only a matter of time. The conventional wisdom may well be correct, up to a point. On-demand viewing, in one form or another, has been increasingly for decades.

To some extent, the rise of the cable industry was an early and crude form of on-demand viewing, to the extent that viewers began to break away from the "three networks" experience, starting a process of audience fragmentation that continues today in much more diverse forms.

But movie downloading isn't the only future. In fact, the way new visual media are being used suggests that consumers are taking an "all of the above" approach to media.

People might continue to rent DVDs as well. But maybe not in the same way. "Unless video stores are reinvented, it may be that in five years, there are tens of thousands of kiosks, millions of online DVD renters and very few video stores," says Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO.

If you look at any sort of DVD media as an example of "sideloading," as people sideload music onto their iPods and MP3 players, you get the idea. People download songs. But they also may stream or sideload. And though one often thinks online delivery is the only viable business format, one can imagine other ways to do things.

Price, for example, might be one way to differentiate the market. Online or to-the-TV downloads or streaming will have a higher price point, with a more "immediate" delivery format. But mailed DVDs will have a much-lower price point, with less immediate delivery. But the point is that the delivery time might not matter.

On the Netflix unlimited three DVD plan, can have as many as three movies "checked out" at any one time. And if a person is busy enough, viewing of those movies only happens on weekends. So "immediate" availability isn't required. The three selections have to be available on the weekend.

Release windows still are a factor as well. If you want to see a movie, and missed it in the theaters, you can view it about a month to 45 days sooner than any "on demand" outlet has the content, if you watch on a DVD. On an unlimited rental plan, the cost of any viewing is arbitrary.

Cable and Internet VOD costs something on the order of $4.00 per movie, and the content has to be viewed within a certain period of time, sometimes within 24 hours.

Selection probably will be an issue as well. It is hard to imagine an equivalent lineup of online titles as the Netflix catalog represents, especially in the "long tail" area of niche content.

"Despite the growth of VOD over the last five years, DVD rental has been stable, with online rental and kiosk rental making up for store losses," says Hastings. "In the United States, DVD spending, including purchase, is still approximately 20 times larger than cable and Internet VoD combined, according to Adams Media Research."

Just about everybody thinks this will change, at some point. The issue is whether online delivery is the only choice, or whether other delivery methods still will remain a significant part of the mix. Price, release windows, immediacy, and depth of catalog suggest there is room for multiple consumption modes.