From: Ramon Chen
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 1:28 PM
To: *ALL MetaTV
Subject: Capt. Midnight: IBD Networking event – Panel
Last evening, John Esrey participated in an interactive TV panel which gave MetaTV great visibility and garnered a lot of interest. Peter C and myself also attended on behalf of MetaTV. The following is a review of the panel and some anecdotes.
Thanks to Peter Ansel for making the contact and getting us set up to do the panel. (Interest actually came from two sources, both IBD and Concero – the event sponsor, who were very interested in having someone from MetaTV on the panel. We didn’t connect the dots until late last week, it goes to show, people want MetaTV’s opinions at iTV events and are actively seeking us out).
THE EVENT
BDNetwork Event:
Tuesday, February 6, 2001 6:30-8:30 PM.
St. Francis Yacht Club, On the Marina, SF (very appropriate for the Capt. to be close to the water)
If We Build Interactive TV, Will They Come?
This panel will define interactive TV and look at patterns among users of this re-emerging technology.
We will explore possible revenue models and look at examples of interactive deployments that are available today.
WHO ATTENDED: Lots of people looking for jobs in the iTV space, lots of representatives from RespondTV and Wink, some content companies as well as general people looking to network.
THE TOPICS:
__________________________________________________________
What is interactive TV?
What are the possible revenue models – proven and not proven – for iTV?
Now that applications are being deployed, are we seeing more consumer adoption?
Where in the adoption curve are consumers with broadband?
Who are the companies that are adopting iTV and what are their demographics?
How much of broadband applications are “sizzle vs.. steak?”
___________________________________________________________
6:30 – 7:00 PM – Welcome Cocktails & Networking**
7:15 – 8:00 PM – Panel Discussion: If We Build Interactive TV, Will They Come?
Moderator:
Cathy Hetzel, VP of E-TV and Broadband, Concero
Panelists:
Todd Lash, Sr. VP Product Strategy, Respond TV
Karen Gold, VP of E-Commerce Marketing, Wink Communications
John Esrey, VP of Strategic and Business Development, MetaTV
Joe Gillespie, EVP, TechTV
8:00 – 8:30 PM – More Networking
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HOW IT WENT (Selected highlights)
The panel opened with each representative introducing themselves going left to right. John was up first and took full advantage by positioning MetaTV as a complete iTV platform. The other panelists (in this order: RespondTV, TechTV, Wink) followed by describing their positioning (the RespondTV representative was rather nervous and had some difficulty with this opening).
Wink’s representative (Katie Gold) immediately started off taking a shot at the Respond Panelist (Todd Lash). She said “Unlike Respond, Wink keeps the eyeballs on the broadcast, whereas Respond takes you to a web site for fulfillment). To which Respond responded with “Actually, you’re wrong, we don’t take the viewer away.” This set the stage for a little tet-a-tet between Wink and Respond. For some reason Wink folks continue to publicly badmouth Respond and this seems to be a recurring battle.
Wink also touted what they called “tree branch technology” which simply was nothing more than starting off with two choices (Yes/No) and presenting additional tailored options to the viewer depending on which they accepted
TechTV was the only non-technology provider and Joe Gillespie’s perspective was one of a programmer and he felt that advertising was not a very interesting medium for interactivity. He was much more interested in interactivity within reality based programming (play along with Survivor) and creating programming specifically designed with interactivity in mind. At this time Respond weighed in with “Our technology can work with programming beyond advertising”. John was asked to comment on where he thought the revenues were going to come from and he demonstrated our tight relationship and understanding of where the network operators were in their deployments and investments and followed by defining 3 potential revenue streams: Advertising, commerce and subscription and cited several compelling examples. Wink gave their commerce example of purchasing a CD on VH1.
In a recurring theme (the moderator appeared to turn to John first with the strong questions), John was again asked to comment this time on privacy issues. John discussed ownership, credit worthiness and said that it would not be an issue because the MSO’s already had great responsibility around this area. Also the gathering of this information would be more from an opt-in or opt-out approach (like the Internet) allowing consumers the freedom to choose how their data is handled.
The next question was around critical mass and the number of set-top boxes that might make commerce viable and compelling for iTV to truly take off. Respond stated that even today with programming such as QVC, 19 out of 20 people that write down the 1-800 number don’t end up calling, so he said that interactivity would really move this forward and make the emotive point of decision and purchase a click away. The issue of Monica/Rachael’s sweater of friends reared up again and John pointed out that there were several challenges with the business model of this form of programming. The sweater revenue would be swallowed up by all the various participants (The actor/actress, the agent, the network, the cable operator, the vendor etc…) all wanting their cut. Therefore the walled garden approach today was much cleaner. Only two participants share the revenue, the netop and the content provider. Wink felt that there was significant opportunity to extend interactivity to programs that don’t have issues such as infomercials. TechTV said that product placements within live programming would be scary for him because he saw the potential to lose editorial control.
John was once again first up on the question of multi-devices beyond the TV. John pointed out that the network operators had relationships with many different companies (cellular etc) and that it would be a natural future extension to provide content for these other appliances. He mentioned that of course MetaTV with our cross platform technology that is applied to different set-tops today would be able to handle just such a requirement in the future.
TechTV also said that content needed to be specifically designed for the platform. He pointed out that a print magazine mapped directly to a web site was not compelling and similarly internet content mapped to the TV just would not work. Another subliminal plug for MetaTV and our Syndication technology.
The audience then started to ask questions. John was asked how the Telcos would play in this iTV world. He pointed out that they were primarily copper based in the pipes into the home and right now didn’t have the bandwidth in the last mile into the home to compete. He mentioned that they would most likely need to partner with Satellite companies to find a solution.
Finally the issue of the low-end boxes was raised by a member of the audience. It was pointed out that the digital boxes today simply did not have sufficient power to do iTV. TechTV said that consumers should be given a choice, he said that there would be a demographic of audience that would pay more for a sophisticated box. He pointed out that Cablevision was indeed offering that today by selling higher end boxes through their Wiz stores.
John wrapped up yet another MetaTV advantage point by saying that the low end boxes could support forms of iTV today and that even when new boxes are purchased, the low end boxes would move to other rooms in the house. So an infrastructure that could support both boxes with a consistent experience while exploiting the boxes is really what was key.
At the end of the panel, the panelists were approached by individuals with more questions. John was immediately seized by a reporter attending the conference for additional comments and definitely garnered the most interest. The Wink representative didn’t really stick around at the end.
Once more, we took advantage of another great opportunity and continue to further our expertise, brand and perception in the iTV arena.
ANECDOTES
We met quite a few Respond folks who were very nice, but interestingly enough we met one of their new hire’s a guy from Tivo who was now one of their product managers. Following along the lines of Andrew Lev’s kickoff presentation of hiring great people not just good, we had declined further interviewing this individual after just one phone call as well as feedback from people who knew of him. We had felt that he was actually not even just good, but far from. It was interesting that he is now helping Respond with their product management. Just goes to show, people who don’t make the MetaTV cut, end up …
Another interesting MetaTV/Respond interaction continues with Peter Coleman and one of their VP’s Margaret “Muggs” Buckley who is at most of the conferences and trade shows. “Muggs” apparently wasn’t very happy that Peter took pictures of the Respond booth at NATPE. This is now quite a good natured running joke between MetaTV and Respond and they are taking it in good humor.
In fact, as mentioned, Respond has their hands full with Wink making bad comments and in fact Commerce.TV digging around their trash!
We were told that the CTO of Commerce.TV was caught rummaging through Respond.TV trash at WCS tear down looking for internal documents. Note to everyone given Internal only docs for prep at conferences. NEVER LEAVE THEM LYING AROUND PLEASE. The competition will go to any lengths to get info.
Finally, I was approached by a woman who was a little drunk who asked what I did at MetaTV. I told her and even gave her my card. She said “You know, I interviewed over the phone at MetaTV but I wasn’t asked to come in. I can’t though remember the name of the person I interviewed with.” She proceeded to tell me how she was perfect for MetaTV and how she was incredibly well connected and knew a lot about the cable industry. As she sat their swigging down her glass of wine, I asked, “think back, are you sure you don’t remember who you interviewed with?”. “No she said, I don’t remember.”
“Oh well, maybe you weren’t quite the right fit for the job.” I left her scratching her head trying to figure it out. The person she interviewed over the phone of course was ME.
Rule: If you can’t remember the name of the person that you interviewed with and would end up reporting to, don’t expect to get the job (and actually, don’t try for the job a second time – which is what she was actually attempting to do).
– The Capt.