Is Adobe Paying The NFL To Use Flash?

Last night, the NFL and NBCSports.com broadcast the first of 17 free games this year dubbed "Sunday Night Football Extra" using Adobe Flash video. Some industry people I spoke to seemed surprised that the NFL and NBC were using Flash considering that NBC just did the Olympics in Silverlight. Others are suggesting that Adobe, which announced the games with a joint NFL press release, might be helping to subsidize the cost to the NFL and NBCSports.com by covering some of the bandwidth costs associated with broadcasting the games online.

While Adobe would not comment on the financial details of the deal with the NFL, it would not surprise me if Adobe is taking the same approach Microsoft's took with NBC for the Olympics, by helping to cover the content delivery costs. Some might ask, if Adobe is willing to pay to get the NFL to use Flash, why didn't Adobe pay to keep Microsoft's Silverlight platform from being used for the Olympics? The answer is, Adobe didn't need to. Outside of the NBC Olympics website, most of the other portals around the world were already using Flash video for the Olympics.

But for the NFL games, they represent a huge opportunity for Adobe down the road. If the games are successful, you could imagine the NFL really ramping up their online video strategy and it would be in Adobe's best interest to make sure a property like the NFL uses their platform moving forward. There are only a few major sports leagues in the U.S. and the NFL probably has one of the most loyal fan bases around, outside of car racing, not to mention one of the largest marketing and promotional arms. While I have not been able to confirm that Adobe is in fact helping cover the costs of broadcasting the NFL games online, it's a smart move on their part if they are. It will be very interesting to see if Adobe and Microsoft start bidding on some of the same high-profile events down the road as more main-stream content gets broadcast live over the web. 

Comments

[Chris Carper]

Dan, I comment on the SNF / Silverlight on my blog http://silverlightbiz.blogspot.com.

I don't know if Adobe paid, not sure why they would given they don't stand to gain anything here other than testing out FMS. The Olympics application has raised the bar for online video, and I agree with you that having another application that meets the bar is a good thing for the industry as a whole. It will definitely help to drive more complex video applications moving forward, which I believe is a great thing for Microsoft (and Adobe).

C

[Tom Streeter]

I'm stuck in a cubicle in Cincinnati, so I have no way of knowing whether Adobe did anything to sweeten the pot or not. But I have no trouble imagining why Adobe would do that if they did. I've decided 95% of all technology adoption in the enterprise is a function of professional jealousy. It may get dressed up with the respectable clothes of 'strategic initiative' sooner or later, but it starts out as lust for something someone else is doing. In the words of that great philosopher Hannibal Lector, "We covet what we see." The Olympics were what, two weeks? Adobe is going to be pounding its identity into the brainstems of Corporate America's decision makers from now until Christmas. I fully expect to start hearing docs ask me "if we have Adobe" so they can "put video up like the NFL does." It won't matter that we have video content going back to 2002. It's going to be podcasting all over again ("My God, we need to podcast. What's a podcast?")

With all due respect Chris, Adobe has everything to gain from this deal. I think the real news would be if they got this *without* paying for it. And, from what little I know of the inside workings of the NFL, it would be very unlike them to leave money sitting on the table like that.

[Chris Carper]

Thanks Tom, very smart people live in Cincinnati, so glad to see the comments! I am not discounting that it was a bad deal for Adobe, anytime you get a major audience where people are using your product, it's all for the greater good. Why do you think we (MS) participated in the olympics? :)

What I am saying is that the NFL was already using Adobe technologies since they pulled thier site away from CBSSports. So why would adobe pay for business that they already have? Most likely to license the NFL brand/logo, and or extend an already established partnership. I agree with you since it's the NFL, most likey they did pay to use the name and do PR, but they most likely did not have to pay to get thier technology used.

To your question on the "docs" asking to do like the NFL. I would ask them if they actually "saw" the NFL delivery, moreover the video quality, and playback experience? I would say they most likely have not seen it, and would probably change thier mind or not ask the question if they had.

Not saying the experience is bad, they set out to do a bold thing just like NBC/MS did with the Olympics. I am just saying it was without glitch, and I am sure they will get it right, but coming out of the shoot comparing to the Olympics and the DNC and seeing what goes into it, I would say that not many will be gasping for the NFL experience, yet.

I am sure over time (we have 16 more weeks) it will get better, and there is still a lot of work to go, but it just validates the point that that building richer, media centric applications that are very video intensive is not trivial, especially on top of high latency networks and across different hardware/software combinations.

My other point is that good or bad, this is great for the industry at large, and the trend is that more and more intense applications are going to need a platform that can support those needs. We are working to enable just that.. :)

C

[HmmConvenient]

ESPN360 is an excellent example of sports on the web, and they are powered by Move Networks (same that did the Democratic Convention). IMO, their paradigm for video delivery makes the Adobe/NFL experience look amateur at best.

[KIDFLASH]

Doesn't MS licence Flashlite from Adobe for mobile? I see it a win/win for Adobe either way. Many guys will be at work and use their mobile devices. Now Google will use JavaFX in up and coming browsers. JavaFX will be incorporating Flash and using ONT. Most MSFT ads use Adobe also I believe. Right click on the ADS and go to properties(Adobe). I see Google in the drivers seat soon with SUN and Flash. They have bought advertising sites that use flash like Double click. Im glad to see you understand the importance of flash around the world by stating. "Outside of the NBC Olympics website, most of the other portals around the world were already using Flash video for the Olympics." Most people think H.264 is the only game in town. When I view videos I like I like to download them. I got rid of Silverlight after the Olympics because they would not let me download what I wanted. Google will want download capabilities for customers . My flash player makes it easier.

[flashkid]

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_O/threadview?m=tm&bn=13394&tid=560020&mid=560020&tof=18&frt=5 Yahoo has a few good point being made in the ONT message board. The ONT web sites gives good examples why people would use flash.interactive extras such as alternative camera angles, picture-in-picture technology, in-game highlights, live statistics, and interactivity with network talent via a live blog. Fans love to belittle each other with live blogs. It could get interesting. Alfresco’s document sharing and collaboration capabilities as part of the file sharing features in Acrobat.com. I think Adobe is trying real hard not to drop the ball. The loyal fans might be worth buying if the web site or blog takes off. ONT has been looking for some content sites. They have also disclosed a new VP8 codec that could be involved.