Tampilkan postingan dengan label videoink. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label videoink. Tampilkan semua postingan

Kamis, 27 Agustus 2015

VR - The Rewards ... The Risks -- EXCLUSIVE Interview with Mike Rothenberg of River VR Accelerator

[My interview below first appeared yesterday in VideoInk .]  

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (VR), together “Immersive” technologies are increasingly meaningful actual realities for the business world and not just media and entertainment.  Much is written about the incredible promise and potential power of Immersive technologies for all of us (I too have written several times on that subject).  But, much less is written – at least in the industry press – about the known and, even more importantly, unknown risks associated with full sensory immersion. 

I became intrigued about this topic a few months back when I moderated a VR panel that featured Mike Rothenberg, a VR pioneer who runs the first VR accelerator, the “River Accelerator.”  (Here is a TechCrunch feature story of Mike from a couple years back -- am proud to say that my company's Manatt Venture Fund is an investor in Mike and his VC and Manatt Digital Media is heavily involved in the VR/AR Immersive space).  I recently interviewed Mike on this highly complex, fascinating topic.  Mike is one of VR’s strongest champions – and puts his money directly where his mouth is by financing VR startups through his venture capital firm Rothenberg Ventures.  Here is my interview.

Question (Csathy): Tell me at a high level what led you to not only be champion of VR’s amazing potential, but also a voice of caution with the cause?

Answer (Rothenberg):  I feel a social responsibility to address all aspects of VR given my role within the industry.  Like all great leaps in technology, there are really powerful things that could be positive or negative. VR is an entirely different type of visual medium because it bypasses your biological system to directly affect your memory.  It is not just visual; it is the difference in thinking that you are watching something and thinking you are there, which we call “presence”.

Csathy: Give me some non-obvious examples of Immersive’s potential to do great good.

Rothenberg: Definitely.  DeepStreamVR is a VR startup that helps cope with pain by refocusing attention. Some Washington hospitals have found that they can dramatically reduce the pain that child burn victims experience when changing bandages by immersing them in a VR world of snow.  In the snow world, the mind refocuses and the children report pain reductions comparable that of opiates.  It’s incredible.  Another example is FOVE, a company building a hardware system with eye-tracking software that translates a user’s eye movements to specific action.  An inspirational example of FOVE’s ability to change lives can be seen on its website, where a university student with muscular dystrophy in Japan plays a piano in a live performance using his eyes in a VR headset by looking at the piano keys with eye-tracking software.  Psious is another amazing startup changing lives. Its immersive technology helps people practice coping with fear, whatever they may be.  Fear of flying, fear of heights, etc.  If you can experience that fear in a controlled environment, you can learn to overcome it.  And think of the elderly and others who are immobile and confined to beds.  Now they can be transported anywhere in the world from their bedroom and be constrained only by our imaginations.

Ultimately the power of virtual reality is in its ability enable a permanently higher quality of life.

Csathy: How about on the other end of the spectrum.  What are some non-obvious examples of Immersive’s potential to cause great harm?

Rothenberg:  Watching a war movie makes you think you watched a war movie.  Inside a virtual reality war experience, you may feel like you are actually in a war.  VR could make a very different imprint on your memory and your brain that could lead to actual post-traumatic stress disorder.  If “Pirates of the Caribbean” is rated PG13 just due to the sight of blood, then how do we even begin to rate the potential impact of feeling what it’s like be there if someone cuts off a pirate’s leg right in front of us? We do not yet understand the implications there.  The ability to scar people is greater, and researchers will conduct studies to gauge how real those risks are.  I am not a proponent of blind censorship, but I’m afraid of what we don’t know.  That’s why we are not investing in potentially traumatizing VR.  We simply don’t know the real-life implications of experiencing terrifying content in VR.

Csathy:  In the panel I moderated, you used an example of how VR potentially could be used by terrorists like ISIS to create unimaginable impacts.  Are you aware of anyone yet – any group or company -- who has created VR content specifically designed to harm and cause pain?

Rothenberg:  Not yet, but they will come.

Csathy:  River seems to be mentioned in just about every VR investment conversation.  What is your investment strategy?

Rothenberg:  We invest in the intersection of where the world is going and where we want it to go We form proactive theses around next generation technology like VR, AR, and Artificial Intelligence, as well as invest actively in enterprise software and reactively in consumer.  Then we work with our network of hundreds of founders and startup CEOs to find and invest in the fastest-growing technology startups, most often as their first institutional investor, and help them get to the next stage with the right people for their company.

Csathy:  How would you describe the Immersive world as it is today, compared to where it will be?


Rothenberg:  I think VR in 2015 is like the Internet in 1994 or mobile in 2007.  It’s been in the preseason for decades but now it’s in the first inning.  There’s still so much exploration to be done!  So, although I don’t anticipate society’s immediate mass adoption of VR and AR technology, ultimately it is inevitable.

Minggu, 26 Juli 2015

Facebook v. YouTube - My VidCon Interview

VideoInk's Todd Longwell interviews me at VidCon -- discussing Facebook versus YouTube (is it really a zero-sum game?) and all things video.  The meat of the interview starts at the 90 second point.

Selasa, 07 Juli 2015

Facebook v. YouTube - Who Wins? 5 Part Test

At long last, just last week in time for the 4th of July holiday -- and in YouTube's own backyard -- Facebook shot off its video monetization fireworks, revealing for the first time how it planned to monetize its massively growing video business (and how video creators would share in it).  We already knew that Facebook video had become the first real threat to YouTube's dominance (a topic that I have previously explored) -- already crossing the "4 billion video views per day" threshold.  But, the rest was a mystery.

Well, mystery no longer (at least for the initial incarnation of Facebook video monetization efforts).  For a certain sub-set of its base (since these initial efforts are smartly an "experiment" in these early days), Facebook will now run auto-play ad interstitials in "suggested videos."  And, in what I find to be a bit of a surprise, it will split ad revenues 55/45 with creators a la YouTube (rather than give creators a higher split for, if nothing else, goodwill and PR -- remember, YouTube has been pilloried in the press about its 55/45 split).

So, what do I think about Facebook v. YouTube in this epic battle between the new mega-Challenger and the long-time Champ?  Which company has what advantage (and disadvantage) in the quest to be the most compelling home for video?  And, is it a "zero sum game" with one winner and one loser -- or does the entire industry "win"?

5 Part Test -- Advantage Who?:

(1) YouTube video is still the #1 "must publish" video platform and destination.

YouTube remains dominant, having crossed Facebook's "4 billion videos per day" threshold back in 2012.  Most creators still think, "you just gotta be there."  But, Facebook video is young (very young) and its growth has been explosive -- as has been overall creator and marketer excitement about the Challenger.  As one example, TV networks like HBO have now begun to sample their shows on Facebook "to leverage the massive reach of of their platform" (in the words of Jim Marsh, vice president of digital and social media) -- something that previously was virtually unthinkable in the YouTube-dominated world of not so long ago.  Cameron Saless, chief growth officer for "must know" digital-first video company Jukin' Media (a company I previously profiled), was just recently quoted saying "we're doing almost double the views on Facebook that we're doing on YouTube today, which a lot of people don't know."  When publishers start talking openly about those kinds of metrics (as is Jukin') and publicly pitting one behemoth against another, you know there is something really going on here.

So, Sheer Scale -- Advantage YouTube.

Growth and Overall Momentum -- Advantage Facebook.

(2) Facebook's video engagement rates surpass YouTube's.

That is the chatter everywhere (note Jukin' again) -- and that's massively important to both creators and marketers of course.  As I recently pointed out in VideoInk (welcome reporter Todd Longwell to VideoInk, by the way), Facebook has two seeming inherent strategic advantages over YouTube in this regard.  First, Facebook as much deeper and more precise information about its base than YouTube which, in turn, has the potential to lead to better targeting and higher CPMs.  And second, Facebook's DNA is also fundamentally different than YouTube's.  Yes, YouTube videos are share-able (and shared) of course.  But, YouTube is still primarily about personal and passive entertainment and engagement.  Facebook, on the other hand, is (and always has been) active -- it is all about sharing.  That is its raison d'être.  That's why Facebookers seek out their feeds multiple times throughout the day.  And, that bodes extremely well for Facebook's potential to build massive scale.

But note of caution -- as Todd Longwell pointed out to me in a direct exchange, is it really fair to equate Facebook video "engagement" with that of YouTube?  After all, Facebook counts auto-inserted, "auto-play" videos equally.  And, as Longwell also pointed out, video sound is likely frequently turned off in auto-play mode.  Further, paradoxically, YouTube's more passive "personal entertainment" DNA leads to more active user searching for precise videos that appeal to them (i.e., high relevance), whereas Facebook's more "active sharing" DNA and service-generated video auto-insertion likely lead to more video "noise" (i.e., low relevance), at least initially.

Viewer Engagement -- Advantage Facebook.

Relevance & Impact -- Advantage YouTube.

(3) YouTube still has the younger millennial audience that marketers most want to reach.

YouTube is still a (if not, "the") "must use" entertainment and communication platform for millennials.  It is part of who they are and what they do.  And, those millennials are whom marketers most want to reach.  Facebook reaches an older demographic (anecdotally, neither my 15 year old daughter or 13 year old son use Facebook -- nor do any of their friends; in fact, Facebook never enters into their Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube-dominating conversations).  To a certain extent, this is a double-edged sword, however, because it is the older Facebook demographic that has more immediate buying power.

Demographics of Base -- Advantage YouTube.

Buying Power -- Facebook.

(4) Both YouTube and Facebook give creators 55% of ad revenues.

Strange.  Facebook had the chance to score a big PR win by upping that percentage even just to 60%.  But, it didn't.  Opportunity lost ... at least for now.  (And note, Facebook's 55% creator revenue share will be apportioned by time amongst all creators in a particular stream, meaning that each individual creator's share apparently will be less than 55%).

Creator Economics -- Advantage Neither.

(5) Facebook is treading carefully with its new video monetization efforts -- while YouTube carries the baggage of a certain industry narrative.

Facebook, the Challenger and newcomer, is smartly treading lightly in its initial monetization efforts -- experimenting only with a subset of its overall base.  Facebook can, accordingly, gather data (including creator and customer sentiment) and adjust from there.  It can bob and weave, fine-tuning and dialing in the "right" compromise between monetization and customer experience.  It has no baggage in that regard.  YouTube, on the other hand, carries a full load of baggage (rightly or wrongly) in the form of negative creator sentiment.  Let's face it, the Champ (in any industry) always faces the heat -- and YouTube is no exception.  Creators -- and virtually all competing services -- have gone out of their way to deride YouTube's 55/45 revenue split.  This theme of "fundamental unfairness" (some have called it greed) has become a widely-held industry narrative.  And, once that kind of narrative is developed, it is difficult to shake.

Industry Sentiment & The "Baggage" Factor -- Advantage Facebook.

BOTTOM LINE


Each mega-platform has its own inherent advantages.  And, gloves are off ... as are more and more creator videos from YouTube.  It's no longer a YouTube only multi-channel network (MCN) world (which it essentially was less than one year ago).  It is now absolutely a multi-platform network (MPN) world.

But, this is NOT a zero-sum game between the giants.  The pie expands -- and the winner here is the overall video industry and eco-system -- including content creators and consumers.  Never before have there been so many opportunities to create content -- to find distribution for content -- to find an audience for that content -- and for us, the consumers, to find content that specifically speaks to us ... as individuals.  THAT is power my friends.

And this brave new digital-first video world is still very much in its infancy ....

Minggu, 11 Januari 2015

My 2015 Predictions - Consolidated Guest Articles from TechCrunch, Variety, Billboard & VideoInk

CES 2015 is in the books -- and we are now firmly simply ensconced in 2015.  Time to rock and roll in all things that are digital media.  To that end -- consolidated here for your reading pleasure -- here are my predictions for media/music/digital media for 2015 (via my separate year-end guest articles in TechCrunch, Variety, Billboard, and VideoInk):

"The Future of Digital Media in 2015" -- from TechCrunch -- where I identify 8 specific predictions for the year (a longer "director's cut" version with 10 predictions can be found here via my separate post in LinkedIn)

"The 3 Digital Media Mega-Deals that Defined the Year" -- from Variety -- where I discuss the rationale for those 3 deals and discuss how they impact what we will see in 2015

"Five Predictions for Digital Video in 2015" -- from VideoInk -- this one is exclusively focused on video

And, finally, here is my single major music industry-focused prediction/theme for 2015 (and which is featured in the print edition of Billboard Magazine that is on your newsstands now ... will post it here as well if it goes online):


2015 is the year that the music business begins to understand and embrace the power and potential of deeply integrating technology and online fan engagement with offline live events.  For most artists, streaming services expand their “communities” of thirsty fans and will offer ever-more tools to engage directly with -- and monetize -- them (via both live event tickets and unique new live “experiences”).  Live events (especially major festivals) will fuel these direct interactions further (both online and offline) – and more effectively line their own pockets – by leveraging innovative new technology to capture invaluable attendee data that they will share with savvy artists.  And, rabid fans will happily hand over more dollars for closer artist connections and better live music experiences (including more efficient food, drink and merchandising sales at shows). 

Selasa, 06 Januari 2015

My 5 Predictions for Digital VIDEO in 2015

My post below was originally featured as a guest article in VideoInk, titled "5 Predictions for Digital Video in 2015."


2014 proved to be a transformational year for digital-first video and the YouTube economy.  The short-form video world essentially “grew up” and traditional media, major brands, and even previously cynical Northern California investors took notice.  It was easy to see why.  2014 introduced the video content-driven mega-deal. Disney bought leading multi-channel network (MCN) Maker Studios for up to $1 billion, Otter Media uploaded rival MCN Fullscreen in a deal rumored to be up to $300 million, and European-based RTL Group tried on Stylehaul for a deal that values that vertically-focused MCN up to $200 million.

So, with that backdrop, here are my Top 5 predictions for digital video in 2015:

(1)  The pace of MCN acquisitions will accelerate as more studios jump into the M&A game rather than try to figure out this new content platform themselves.  Some leading MCNs ripe for acquisition include foodie-focused Tastemade, dance-focused DanceOn, Latino-focused Mitu, sports-focused Whistle Sports, and Collective Digital Studio.  (Note – Manatt Venture Fund is an investor in DanceOn and Whistle Sports is a client).

(2)  But the MCN action won’t be just domestic.  International becomes a major new battleground in the borderless digital video world.  Companies big and small will extend their reach via major partnerships, investment, and M&A.  Notable 2014 deals included RTL’s acquisition of Stylehaul, BSKYB’s $7 million strategic investment in Whistle Sports, and Fullscreen’s partnership with major Indian MCN Qyuki.

(3)  Major consumer brands follow suit.  For the first time, marketing dollars shift in significant scale from traditional media to more measurable digital platforms.  This takes the form of branded content -- not just ads.  As a result, investors place major bets on ad-tech companies to maximize and measure those spends.  We will see a number of significant ad-tech exits like Yahoo!’s recent acquisition of BrightRoll for $640 million.  Several brands will go even further and invest big to become digital-first lifestyle media companies themselves a la Red Bull, developing and aggregating content.  GoPro, Pepsi and Marriott have proudly announced such ambitions.

(4)  Both “traditional” media and YouTube itself are increasingly challenged by this fast-accelerating activity and by new competing video platforms like Facebook and Vessel (which just opened its paid subscription-first MCN kimono last week).  These “off YouTube” platforms will seek to lure content creators with tales of more attention and significantly greater revenues.

(5)  Seeing all this activity, and harboring a FOMO mentality, Silicon Valley investors will increasingly make pilgrimages down to LA --  the epicenter of this video content innovation and creativity.  After all, even super blue-chip VC Andreessen Horowitz vouched for video via its $50 million investment BuzzFeed.  That accelerated pace of investment will only further fan the flames of the vibrant SoCal entrepreneurial scene and the digital-first video revolution.


2014, exciting, transformative times for the media world.  And, just a precursor of more (much more!) to come in 2015.

Rabu, 31 Desember 2014

MUST READ White Paper -- Brands, "Earning & Owning YouTube"

All major brands and digital media mavens in general -- here is a “must read” brand-focused analysis/report titled “Earning & Owning YouTube” from our friends at leading digital video-focused publication VideoInk. Thanks to JJ and Sahil of VideoInk for their insights and overall support throughout the year. VideoInk has become one of my “Must Read” publications.

Minggu, 28 Desember 2014

My Top 10 EXCLUSIVE CEO Interviews of 2014 - Digital Media Companies/Execs You Need to Know

Long-time readers of my blog know that I have a long-running EXCLUSIVE Q&A series with CEOs of some of the most innovative digital media companies that I believe you should know.    I "hand pick" them -- and believe their stories are both interesting and instructive.  My series is called "5 Questions with ...." -- and each exec answers the same questions in their own words (and with real insights you won't find anyplace else).  2014's list is impressive -- with most execs and companies achieving significant strategic milestones during the year (including major M&A and financings).  Coincidence?  I would like to think not!

In any event, for your reading pleasure, here are my Top 10 "5 Questions with ... “ exclusive interviews of 2014 -- as measured by you, my readers:

(1) Stephanie Horbaczewski, CEO/Founder of StyleHaul -- sold her leading fashion-focused MCN to Euro-based RTL Group in Q4 for a deal that values the company up to $200 million.  That buys you a lot of style.  And Stephanie has it.  And now, a lot more of it.

(2) Colin Digiaro, President of Woven Digital -- just recently closed a major $18 million Series A round of financing.  Significant cash to accelerate its reach to its target core young male Vice-like audience.

(3) John West, CEO/Founder of Whistle Sports -- this leading sports-focused MCN also just recently closed a major round of financing -- $7 million -- with British mega-media company BSKYB.  Expect much more to come in 2015.

(4) Jack Conte, CEO/Founder of Patreon -- another featured company that successfully raised significant capital -- $15 million to be exact.  Based in the Bay Area.  Focused on the arts -- and financing through crowd-funding.  A different kind of crowd-funding.  Subscription-based.

(5) Oscar Hoglund, CEO/Founder of Epidemic Sound -- one of my favorite CEOs on this list.  Based in Sweden.  Serial entrepreneur who has been serially successful.  And, tackling (successfully!) the white hot issue of global music rights for our borderless digital video world.  Coming soon to the States.

(6) Jocelyn Johnson, Founder of VideoInk -- my favorite new "must read" publication -- exclusively digital video-focused.  Very LA (because that's where most of that digital video "action" is ...).  Am proud to be a regular contributor.

(7) Dmitri Williams, CEO/Founder of Ninja Metrics -- LA-based analytics company born, bred, and run by PhDs.  A different "take" on ad-tech.  Gaming-focused.  Highly respected.  Closely watched.  We at Manatt Digital are investors.

(8) Nicolas Gonda, CEO/Founder of Tugg -- another "share economy" company that is focused on solving the financial realities of indie visionaries, but this time on the movie/video side (as opposed to Patreon which is largely, though not exclusively, music-focused).

(9) Sean Wycliffe, CEO/Founder of Dealflicks -- love the problem this company is trying to solve -- filling empty movie theater seats via efficient "real-time" pricing.  Makes sense.  Let's see if 2015 brings in real dollars.  The opportunity is now.

(10) Phil Shalala, CEO/Founder of Krush -- a social media marketplace focused on action sports and street-wear -- empowering emerging artists and brands to market their passion projects.

2014 -- a banner crop of innovative CEOs and digital media companies.  Honored to have this kind of access to real innovators.

Stay tuned for an equally impressive list for 2015, as the VC world increasingly focuses on the disruption, opportunity and power that is "digital."