In this age of YouTube, all sorts of businesses are offering video clips on their Websites; and business owner Felicia Palmer is following suit. Her business, 4Control Media Inc., based in New Jersey, owns two popular Websites that use the technology. The first, SOHH.com, provides the latest hip-hop news and includes regular columns, blogs, and music samples of new tracks. The site began using streaming video last year and in March, Palmer launched FreshFlixx.com. The new site focuses on videos, including celebrity interviews and movie previews, with movie downloads soon to come.
The real challenge for many companies is how to make money from streaming video. 4Control Media generates revenues from sponsorships and commercials that run prior to the video clips. If traffic to the sites is any indicator, the future looks bright: In just over a year, the number of hits for video clips has skyrocketed to more than 500,000 a month. Overall, Palmer projects annual revenues to more than double this year — reaching $2.5 million, up from $1.2 million in 2006. “It’s all about consumer demand and being able to offer any type of content,” says Palmer.
Of course, she’s just one player in the larger trend. Revenues from Internet video are expected to grow from $1.5 billion this year to $4.2 billion by 2011, according to the Yankee Group, a market research firm.
Such figures indicate opportunities for investors. While they might not be able to buy into 4Control Media — the 14-employee company is private — experts say they can benefit by tapping into
companies that serve content providers. Legions of companies are positioning themselves to be the next YouTube, especially in niche markets. Meanwhile, media companies are trying to make movie downloads faster and easier. It’s the companies behind the scenes, those that provide the hardware and software that make streaming video possible, that may offer the best play on the market.“A rising tide lifts all boats,” says Isaac Green, president and CEO of Piedmont Investment Advisors L.L.C. in Durham, North Carolina (No. 12 on the be asset managers list with $1.4 billion in assets under management). “You are sometimes better off playing the infrastructure names — without regard to which company, which provider, or which platform winds up being dominant. It really doesn’t matter, as long as people are interested in downloading.”
The companies that help build Internet networks are favorites among institutional investors. These companies assemble basic commodity electronic components in a way that gives them a lot of value, says Robert Stimpson, portfolio manager of the Black Oak Emerging Technology fund (BOGSX) at Oak Associates Funds in Akron, Ohio. One of his picks is Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO), the San Jose, California-based maker of networking products that constitute a good portion of the Internet’s backbone.
“Cisco is a beneficiary of innovation on the Internet,” says Stimpson. “They are the behemoth in the industry and one of the best-run companies.” Oak Associates has owned the stock since Cisco went public in 1990, riding it all the way up and then down after the technology crash in 2001. Still, those clients who got in at the beginning haven’t done that badly. Oak Associates first bought Cisco for as low as eight cents a share; split adjusted it traded around $30 in early August.
Stimpson also likes Sunnyvale, California-based Juniper Networks Inc. (JNPR), which makes routers and other equipment that help improve the quality of streaming video. Last year an investigation found that the company improperly backdated employee stock options; it was forced to restate its financial records to the tune of $900 million. There’s also been some man agement reshuffling, with five top executives shown the door (CEO Scott Kriens remained). But the stock has more than doubled off a low closing price of $12.20 in August 2006 and traded around $31 a year later. Investors are waiting for Juniper’s next generation of routers due to hit the market later this year.
Other infrastructure bets include those companies that enable video content to be delivered smoothly. For example, when a television network posts a popular show online, these tech companies help handle the spike in Internet traffic by spreading out the volume over their network of servers. Jeff Rottinghaus, portfolio manager of the T. Rowe Price Global Technology fund (PRGTX), likes Limelight Networks Inc. (LLNW), a company based in Tempe, Arizona, that digitally delivers content for media companies in a wide range of industries, including television, radio, video games, and software. Fast-growing Limelight went public at $15 a share in June, and was up 18% by late July. But when the company announced disappointing earnings for its first quarter as a public
company, the shares plummeted some 39% in one day to $8.99. But the sudden drop didn’t change Rottinghaus’ long-term outlook for Limelight as a good growth opportunity. “I think the stock will go much higher over the next year or two,” he says, noting that he thought the same when shares were trading at $17.With a market cap of $636 million, Limelight Networks competes against much larger Akamai Technologies Inc. (AKAM), based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the leader in digital delivery space with a market cap of $5.1 billion. Rottinghaus is betting on the continued expansive growth of the Internet around the globe and faster growth with the smaller Limelight. “When the demand comes, networks can use this service to download video faster.”
Also on the smaller scale, Stimpson likes F5 Networks Inc. (FFIV), a company with a market cap of $1.5 billion that focuses more on software that helps customers manage the performance and security of their “mission critical” Internet applications, such as online banking and stock trading. Its technologies also can be applied to video. The way information gets routed on the Internet can get very complicated, and F5 Networks should reap the rewards of the growth in video demand. “They are a natural beneficiary,” says Stimpson.
Network providers also stand to benefit from the battle between cable and telecommunications companies to offer downloads in the home. “It’s an arms race between cable companies and telecoms to effectively deliver video services,” says John Slack, an equity analyst at Morningstar. “Network equipment providers are the arms dealers, and when there’s a war, they are the ones that make the money.”
Other suppliers to the video downloading trend stand to gain. Green of Piedmont Advisors likes Corning Inc. (GLW), the former glassmaker that has transitioned into a technology company. Corning makes fiber optic lines for broadband networks and is also a leader in liquid-crystal displays for computer monitors and flat panel televisions. Its stock traded fairly cheaply in late July, with a forward price-to-earnings ratio of about 17. That makes it relatively inexpensive, given an analyst consensus forecast of 18% earnings growth this year, and an estimated average of 17% over the next five years. “They have solid earnings growth at a reasonable price,” says Green. “That’s hard to come by in today’s environment.”
Meanwhile, companies that deliver DVDs and are starting to offer movie downloads aren’t generating as much interest. For example, investors such as Rottinghaus have tended to shy away from stocks like Netflix (NFLX) and Blockbuster (BBI). These companies now offer a limited selection of movies online, but online delivery is outside of their traditional business model. Their forays into video downloading have been expensive, Rottinghaus says, but the companies have not yielded much in terms of new revenues as they compete against each other by lowering monthly rental fees.
Still, investing options abound. “Video has been on the In
ternet for a while, but it is really proliferating now,” says Stimpson. “It might not be the sole reason to own any in the group of infrastructure players, but it’s another opportunity for investors.”