Effective Enterprise Webcasting - Wainhouse Research · To view a live event, people simply click...

Optimizing Your Webcasting Solution for Efficiency and Success

Effective Enterprise Webcasting

Effective Enterprise Webcasting Optimizing Your Webcasting Solution for Efficiency and Success

Ira M. Weinstein Wainhouse Research

October 2005

http://www.wainhouse.com/

http://www.netbriefings.com/

Table of Contents

The Power of Webcasting........................................................................................................................... 1 General Concept ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Behind the Curtains .................................................................................................................................. 1 Live vs. On-Demand Content................................................................................................................... 2 Webcasting Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 3 Webcasting vs. Web Conferencing .......................................................................................................... 4

Traditional Webcasting Deployment Models ........................................................................................... 5 ASP Offerings .......................................................................................................................................... 5 CPE Offerings .......................................................................................................................................... 7

The Hybrid Webcasting Model.................................................................................................................. 9 ASP and CPE Enhancement Models ........................................................................................................ 9 The Hybrid ASP / CPE Solution ............................................................................................................ 11

Real-World Examples............................................................................................................................... 13 Example 1: Corporate Communications Event ...................................................................................... 14 Example 2: External Product Launch..................................................................................................... 14 Example 3: Internal / External Event ..................................................................................................... 15 Example Summary ................................................................................................................................. 16

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 17

Appendix A: Detailed Cost Calculations ................................................................................................ 18 CPE Cost Per Event Calculations........................................................................................................... 18 Caching Blade Cost Per Event Calculations........................................................................................... 18

About Wainhouse Research ..................................................................................................................... 19 About the Author.................................................................................................................................... 19

About Netbriefings.................................................................................................................................... 19

Effective Enterprise Webcasting Copyright © 2005 Wainhouse Research. All rights reserved.

List of Figures

Figure 1: Webcasting is Powered by Streaming Technology ....................................................................... 1

Figure 2: Webcasting vs. Web Conferencing ............................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Typical ASP Webcasting Model ................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Typical CPE Webcasting Model ................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5: CPE Enhancement Using a CDN Provider.................................................................................. 10

Figure 6: Hosting Two Webcasts Simultaneously ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 7: Typical Hybrid ASP / CPE Solution ........................................................................................... 12

Figure 8: Assumptions for Webcasting Examples ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 9: Example 1 - Corporate Communications Event .......................................................................... 14

Figure 10: Example 2 - External Product Launch....................................................................................... 14

Figure 11: Example 3 - Event Targeting both Internal and External users................................................. 15

Figure 12: Summary of Webcasting Example Results ............................................................................... 16

Effective Enterprise Webcasting Copyright © 2005 Wainhouse Research. All rights reserved.

The Power of Webcasting Effective corporate communications requires that the target audience enjoy easy, convenient, and timely access to information. Webcasting is a relatively new business tool that helps facilitate this exact requirement for large employee meetings, large marketing events, online training, secured shareholder meetings and more.

General Concept

Webcasting solutions allow people to “virtually” attend live events, or watch previously recorded / archived events from the convenience of their PC. There is no need to leave one’s office (or wherever one happens to be online at the time).

To view a live event, people simply click on the webcast URL, usually provided via email, and sign in. To view an on-demand content item, people simply go the appropriate website (often on a company’s Intranet) and click on the desired content item. It’s just that simple. Webcast attendees enjoy a low-stress, high-impact session that can include streaming video, streaming audio, PowerPoint slides, browser sessions, surveys, polling, and more. This combination of easy access and high impact makes webcasting an effective means of corporate communications -- both inside and outside the organization.

Behind the Curtains

The power behind webcasting is the use of streaming technology. This highlights a key difference between webcasting, which leverages streaming to facilitate “one-to-many” broadcasts to virtually any size audience, and web conferencing, which utilizes various other means to enable interactive meetings with a relatively small number of participants.

Streaming allows webcasting users to see or hear the rich media content without having to download entire rich media files (which tend to be very large and can take a long time to download). Instead, the rich media information is compressed into a series of small data chunks that are delivered to the user and placed in a viewing queue or buffer as shown below.

Figure 1: Webcasting is Powered by Streaming Technology


Copyright © 2005 Wainhouse Research. All rights reserved. Page 1

The viewer’s player then accesses the buffer and plays the data chunks requested by the viewer. The result is that the viewer can watch the rich media content while the content is still being transferred to his PC. For example, while the user is viewing the 34th second of content, his computer may be receiving the 51st second of content. In addition, buffering allows the viewer to pause, rewind, fast forward, and even jump from one section of the content to another in a VCR-like manner (but only within the section of the content already downloaded and stored in the buffer).

In the graphic above, point A represents the point in time at which the streaming server transmits the first data chunk to the viewer’s PC. The difference between points A and B on the time line represent the time it takes for the data to traverse the network and arrive at the viewer’s PC. Finally, during the time between points B and C, the viewer’s PC is buffering data. At point C, the buffer contains enough data to allow the content to be viewed by the user.

Live vs. On-Demand Content

For the most part, this document focuses on the delivery of live content to internal and external (public Internet) audiences. Readers should note that the majority of these concepts are equally valid for the distribution and viewing of archived, on-demand content.



Webcasting Benefits

The majority of webcasting solutions support the creation, management, distribution and delivery of rich media information and incorporate a wealth of content provider and attendee features.

Content Provider Benefits

º System deployment - easy purchasing as an integrated offering or as individual elements, a customizable interface allowing for branding and marketing.

º Cost effectiveness - for medium to large audiences, webcasting is often much less expensive than audio or web conferencing. ASP / service provider offerings combine little or no up-front cost and limited fixed fees, while CPE / customer premise equipment offerings require an up-front cost, but provide low per-use costs for high volume environments.

º Content creation - the ability to quickly and easily create high-impact, rich-media content such as audio, video, graphics, animation, co-browsing, and pre-recorded video clips. In addition, provides the convenience of creating and managing content from any PC, and the ability to include multiple presenters or hosts within a single presentation.

º Content distribution - the ability to host any size event ranging from just a few people to hundreds of thousands, including internal and/or external viewers located around the world.

º Content leveraging - the ability to archive live presentations for future on-demand playback, and to index content for easy access via integrated content search engines.

º Audience access and interaction - easy access to viewers since they need only a PC with Internet access, expedited access to your target audience (no delay waiting to schedule an in-person meeting), support for call-to-action items such as “click here to speak to a representative,” and the ability to include various types of interaction such as Q&A, polling, chat and surveys.

º Content and viewer management - integrated content security (files are not downloaded to the viewer’s PC, password protection is enforced, access can be limited by email address, invitee only, subnet, etc.), the ability to target a specific audience, a high level of automation as integrated registration systems handle logistics, marketing, and detailed usage logging.

Attendee Benefits

º Multiple benefits - ease of use, convenience, and low cost to enjoy high-impact, interactive rich media content. There is no impact on the viewer’s PC since there is no software to load or plug-ins to install. The sessions are multi-tasking friendly since content can be viewed live, paused, re-started, or viewed later. They are also non-threatening since attendees can’t be seen or heard, and even when interaction features are used, the attendee is not required to interact.

In short, webcasting allows content providers to distribute rich-media information in a controlled, secure manner to large or small, geographically dispersed audiences in a cost-effective, user friendly manner. From the attendee’s point of view, webcasting makes it easy and convenient to access live and on-demand rich media content.



Webcasting vs. Web Conferencing

Vendors and end users alike have trouble differentiating between webcasting and web conferencing. Like webcasting, web conferencing is also often used to facilitate communication among groups. While there are some key similarities between these two technologies (both support a wide range of rich media content that can be shared on PC screens over an intranet or the Internet), the two web technologies are, in fact, optimized for very different applications. The table below illustrates a few of the key differentiators:

Comparison Point Webcasting Web Conferencing

Target Application Broadcasts, Presentations, Training Data sharing during meetings

Optimal Audience Size Medium to massive Small to medium

Integrated Audio Yes (broadcast only) No (need audio bridge at extra cost)

Integrated Video Yes - high quality, full motion video is often the focus of the session

Yes – but typically lower quality (video is not the focus)

Coordination Required Yes (typically pre-planned) No (can be scheduled or ad-hoc)

Level of Interaction Basic (text chat, polling, etc.) High (voice, annotations, etc.)

Communication Delay * Moderate (a few seconds) Low (near real time)

Cost (per event / participant)

Moderate up-front cost Low per-participant cost

Low / no up-front cost Moderate per-participant cost

* The communication delay in webcasting does not typically impact attendees as this technology is intended for broadcasts, not fully-interactive sessions.

Figure 2: Webcasting vs. Web Conferencing

The key takeaways from the above chart are as follows:

1) Webcasting enables primarily one-to-many broadcasts, while web conferencing focuses on interactive meetings.

2) Webcasts are ideal, both in terms of functionality and cost, for large audiences, while web conferences are better suited for smaller groups.

3) Webcasts frequently involve and revolve around live or pre-recorded video to maximize the impact and connectedness with the presenter, while web conferences rarely include video and instead focus around PC content. The use of video not only provides an additional level of connectedness between the session host and the audience, but also improves information absorption and retention.

4) Webcasts include integrated audio (broadcast only) while web conferencing typically requires the use of an audio conferencing bridge / session.

Overall, webcasting is ideal for broadcasts, while web conferencing is better suited for meetings.



Traditional Webcasting Deployment Models

There are two traditional deployment models for webcasting solutions; the ASP (application service provider) model and the CPE (customer premise equipment) model. ASP offerings are service provider hosted solutions, typically web-based, that run off the service provider’s server and network infrastructure. In other words, a company that utilizes an ASP offering is effectively buying an outsourced solution from a service provider. On the other hand, CPE offerings involve the purchase of hardware / software solutions for deployment within the enterprise organization. Sometimes people refer to these as the buy (ASP) and build (CPE) models. Each of these models offer a wide range of advantages and capabilities, but neither is ideal for all webcasting situations.

ASP Offerings

The diagram below illustrates the architecture of a typical ASP webcasting offering.

Figure 3: Typical ASP Webcasting Model

The advantages of a hosted solution include:

Turnkey offering (application, content hosting, content delivery)

Fast to activate / deploy / use (usually up and running in minutes)

Low, if any, initial investment required

Ability to scale easily without performance issues



No burden on internal infrastructure and resources

o No servers to purchase or maintain

o No special network / bandwidth requirements other than ordinary Internet access

o No support staff requirements from end user side

The disadvantages of a hosted solution include:

Potential security issues since the content is stored on the ASP’s servers and caching systems

Possibly higher cost. The usage-based cost model means that high usage may result in higher costs than would be incurred in a fixed-cost CPE deployment.

Potential data loss risk as users depend on the service provider to maintain the data.

As shown above, under the ASP webcasting model, all streams originate from the service provider’s streaming server. This means that streams delivered to external viewers (those outside of the organization’s corporate firewall) place no burden on the enterprise’s data network. This makes ASP webcasting offerings well suited to host content targeting external users.

On the other hand, a consideration with the ASP model is that each time an internal viewer accesses a content item, an individual stream is directed from the service provider, through the enterprise firewall, to the requesting user. This stream serves only the one requesting user, assuming no caching systems are in place, which means that if 500 internal users request the same content item, a total of 500 streams will traverse from the service provider to the enterprise via the enterprise’s Internet connection and firewall. If we assume a rate of 200 kbps per stream, the internal users would consume a total of 100 Mbps of Internet bandwidth as they view this webcast. In addition, the need to inspect this volume of data would place a significant burden on the enterprise firewall.

The low up-front cost of the ASP model makes it an ideal choice for organizations that:

Are relatively small in size or number of anticipated simultaneous viewers

Anticipate relatively low usage volume based on either the number of webcasts or the number of participants per webcast

Are delivering content to largely external audiences

Are seeking to avoid capital expenditures

Have limited internal support resources or are seeking to avoid additional support and management burdens

In short, for organizations seeking to distribute content to internal audiences, an externally-hosted webcasting offering may not effectively meet their requirements.



CPE Offerings

The diagram below illustrates the architecture of a typical CPE (customer premise equipment) webcasting solution for deployment within the enterprise.

Figure 4: Typical CPE Webcasting Model

The advantages of a CPE webcasting / streaming solution include:

Full control over all aspects of the streaming / webcasting environment Decreased security concerns since sensitive content is hosted internally Interfaces with the organization’s directory services (such as Active Directory) for authentication

and permissioning (providing single log-in capability) Improved cost control as the capital investment / equipment purchase allows for unlimited usage

for a constant monthly cost Ability to leverage internal IT processes / procedures / equipment (servers, management,

backups, etc.)

The disadvantages of a CPE solution include:

Need to make a reasonable capital investment and pay yearly maintenance fees Fixed cost which must be paid regardless of usage level Justification requires certain usage volume, or faith that volume will be achieved Additional burden of managing the servers / applications / application devices Distribution capabilities limited by host organization’s infrastructure (servers, bandwidth) Access to new features may require upgrades / additional spending Technology may become obsolete, making investment protection is a concern



The fixed, up-front cost model of a CPE solution makes it ideal for organizations with an existing or anticipated high volume of usage (either in number of webcasts or total viewers), catering to a largely internal audience, with access to the necessary infrastructure and expertise to deploy and manage this type of solution.

A considerable weakness of a CPE-based solution is that content delivered to external viewers rides over the host organization’s Internet bandwidth as shown in the diagram above. In other words, in order to provide a 200 kbps stream to 500 external viewers, 100 Mbps of the host enterprise’s Internet bandwidth will be consumed. Furthermore, if the enterprise streaming servers are located behind the firewall, the 100 Mbps of content will place a significant burden on the enterprise firewall. In an extreme case, this may block or impact internal user Internet requests.

Overall, for organizations seeking to deliver content to external audiences, an enterprise-hosted CPE solution may not be the right choice.



The Hybrid Webcasting Model

The prior section outlined the following key point: ASP solutions are ideal for hosting content for largely external distribution, and CPE solutions are ideal for hosting content for largely internal distribution. The problem is that most organizations wish to distribute their content to a combination of internal and external audiences. This makes it extremely difficult to find a webcasting solution that meets all of their requirements all of the time.

ASP and CPE Enhancement Models

To resolve the issues described in the prior section, enterprises have several options:

Option 1 – The ASP Enhanced Model (ASP Solution plus Internal Caching)

Some enterprises utilize ASP webcasting providers to host their content and then use internal caching systems to decrease the burden on external Internet links. When a user requests an external content item (such as a video stream), the data is directed through the caching system where a local copy is made before being sent to the requesting user (see diagram below).

Subsequent requests for the same data by other internal users are then sourced by the internal caching system, which effectively eliminates the Internet bandwidth problem described previously.

There are, however, several drawbacks of this solution including:

the possible loss of interactivity features such as Q&A and polling

an inability to track individual user data such as names and duration of viewing

the cost of purchasing and managing these network caching devices. In many cases more than one caching system is required per organization.

Option 2 – The CPE Enhanced Model (CPE Solution plus a CDN Provider)

To overcome the problems associated with distributing CPE-hosted content to external viewers, some organizations utilize third-party content delivery networks (or CDNs).

In this case, the host organization provides a single copy of the content to the CDN service provider, which then distributes the content to Internet-based viewers around the world. This allows the host organization to provide the content to large numbers of users without having to distribute the content to each individual user as shown below.



Enterprise Site

Enterprise Viewers

Streaming Server

Content Server

Application Server

Presenter

Firewall

Router

Public Viewers

Internet

CDN

Content Creation Traffic

Viewer Traffic

Enterprise Internet Connection

General LAN Traffic

Figure 5: CPE Enhancement Using a CDN Provider

Unfortunately, this method is not without issues, including:

the need to contract with the CDN service provider,

the requirement to coordinate the delivery of the content to the CDN, and

the need to use two different management / tracking / reporting systems (one within the CPE solution, and one from the CDN provider).

Note that a few CPE vendors offer advanced CDN integration features which effectively make the CDN an extension of the CPE solution, at least in terms of management and content delivery. While not unheard of, these capabilities are still not available from most CPE solution vendors.

Finally, using a CDN to distribute the content adds additional latency, which in some circumstances may impact the user’s ability to interact with the session hosts in real time.



Option 3 – Parallel Webcasts

Another way to provide the webcasting content to both internal and external audiences is to host two parallel, but independent webcasts simultaneously; one on the CPE platform to serve internal users, and one on an ASP platform to serve external users as shown below.

Figure 6: Hosting Two Webcasts Simultaneously

The benefit of this method is that it minimizes the burden on the enterprise Internet bandwidth and firewall, and provides all viewers with easy access to the content. The major drawback is that the session host(s) must manipulate two different user interfaces / webcasting platforms simultaneously, which adds both complexity and cost. In addition, the host must field questions and feedback from two different audiences on two different engines. For these reasons, WR does not recommend this approach.

The Hybrid ASP / CPE Solution

Ideally, users would enjoy the benefits afforded by ASP and CPE webcasting solutions, without having to deal with the limitations of each of these content hosting and distribution models. One might call this a hybrid solution. As shown in the prior ASP and CPE diagrams, the typical webcasting solution involves the following elements;

An application server running the actual webcasting platform

A content server for storing the content items

A streaming server for streaming the content to the viewers

With ASP offerings, these elements are typically hosted by the webcasting service provider. For CPE solutions, they are hosted within the enterprise and often behind the firewall. The hybrid solution,



available from several vendors including Netbriefings, the sponsor of this white paper, allows organizations to host these elements in either or both locations to best suit their requirements. The graphic below illustrates a typical hybrid solution.

Figure 7: Typical Hybrid ASP / CPE Solution

In the diagram above, the service provider is hosting the application server and content server clusters, but both the service provider and end user organization are hosting streaming servers. When internal users request the content item, they are served by the enterprise hosted streaming server. But when external users request the content, they are served by the service provider hosted streaming server.

For security-sensitive organizations or content, the above scenario could be modified to include an enterprise hosted content server to either augment or replace the content server hosted by the service provider. This would allow the host organization to prevent non-public webcast content from leaving the enterprise.

Overall, the hybrid model provides the benefits of an ASP solution (efficient external content distribution) and the benefits of a CPE solution (efficient and cost-effective content distribution to internal audiences). Furthermore, distributing the servers between the service provider and the enterprise improves redundancy and allows for load balancing between the streaming servers.



Real-World Examples

The following examples illustrate the differences, in terms of bandwidth utilized and overall cost, between the ASP Enhanced, CPE Enhanced, and Hybrid models described above. The following common assumptions are followed throughout these live webcasting examples:

General Assumptions Cost Assumptions

Webcast Duration 45 minutes ASP Cost / Minute $0.12 / viewer

Stream Bandwidth 150 kbps / viewer CDN Cost / Minute $0.08 / viewer

Webcasts / Year 50 CPE Cost / Event $3,050 *

Enterprise Internet Bandwidth

15 Mbps available Enterprise Internet Bandwidth

$0 (already in place)

Caching blades required (for ASP Enhanced)

Six (6) – deployed in six different locations

Caching Blades Cost / Event

$967 *

* For the cost calculations behind these figures, please see Appendix A. Figure 8: Assumptions for Webcasting Examples

Other Assumptions:

1) It is assumed that an organization might make 33% of its Internet bandwidth available for streaming. For these examples, our “host” organization has a total of 45 Mbps of Internet bandwidth, 15 Mbps of which is available for streaming / webcasting traffic.

2) The examples below assume that all viewers are located in the same location. In other words, an internal audience of 1,500 people means that all 1,500 of those people are located in the same building, facility, or campus, and therefore share the same Internet bandwidth connection.

As the following examples illustrate, in situations with a reasonable number of viewers, the traditional ASP model will usually be both cost- and bandwidth-efficient for external webcasts, but not viable for largely internal events. The traditional CPE model will typically exhibit the opposite traits in that it will be cost and bandwidth efficient for internal webcasts, but not viable for distributing content to large external audiences. The ASP Enhanced and CPE Enhanced models will prove both cost-effective and bandwidth efficient, but the loss of functionality, additional complexity, and inability to centrally manage and track all usage data makes these solutions much less attractive. Finally, the hybrid model will usually be more expensive, but will effectively support events with varying combinations of internal and external participants.



Example 1: Corporate Communications Event Audience = 1,500 internal viewers, 50 external viewers

The table below highlights the cost and bandwidth consumed for this internal broadcast that is also viewed by a small number of external viewers perhaps employees traveling offsite at this time.

Method Total Cost (US $) Enterprise Internet Bandwidth Consumed (in Mbps)

ASP Traditional $8,370 225 Mbps * ASP Enhanced (with cache) $1,242 ** < 1 Mbps CPE Traditional $3,050 7.5 Mbps CPE Enhanced (with CDN) $3,230 < 1 Mbps Hybrid Model $3,320 < 1 Mbps

* Not Viable – Internet bandwidth required exceeds Internet bandwidth capacity. ** Some service providers have a minimum fee per event that significantly exceeds this calculated cost. Event minimums often start at $2,500 and above (depending upon the agreement / usage volume).

Figure 9: Example 1 - Corporate Communications Event

With 1,500 internal viewers reaching out individually to the webcasting provider, it comes as no surprise that the traditional ASP model is not only expensive, but also not viable since the required Internet bandwidth exceeds the 15 Mbps of available capacity. In this example, the traditional CPE model is both cost effective and Internet bandwidth friendly.

Summary: Best choice = Traditional CPE model Second choice = Hybrid model Alternatives = ASP Enhanced, CPE Enhanced (low price, not without issues)

Example 2: External Product Launch Audience = 50 internal viewers, 1,500 external viewers

The table below highlights the cost and bandwidth consumed for this largely externally directed event that is also viewed by a small number of internal viewers such as product sales reps or internal support staff.


ASP Traditional $8,370 7.5 Mbps ASP Enhanced (with cache) $9,072 < 1 Mbps CPE Traditional $3,050 225 Mbps * CPE Enhanced (with CDN) $8,450 < 1 Mbps Hybrid Model $11,150 < 1 Mbps

* Not Viable – Internet Bandwidth required exceeds Internet bandwidth capacity. Figure 10: Example 2 - External Product Launch



With 1,500 external viewers requesting content from the enterprise, the host organization’s Internet bandwidth is quickly depleted in the traditional CPE model. In this case, the traditional ASP model is both cost-effective and Internet bandwidth friendly.

Summary: Best choice = Traditional ASP model Second choice = Hybrid model Alternatives = ASP Enhanced, CPE Enhanced (low price, not without issues)

Example 3: Internal / External Event Audience = 1,500 internal viewers, 1,500 external viewers

The table below highlights the cost and bandwidth consumed for this event targeting large groups of internal and external viewers. This usage scenario is quite common for announcements made by public companies.


ASP Traditional $16,200 225 Mbps * ASP Enhanced (with cache) $9,072 < 1 Mbps CPE Traditional $3,050 225 Mbps * CPE Enhanced (with CDN) $8,450 < 1 Mbps Hybrid Model $11,150 < 1 Mbps

* Not Viable – Internet Bandwidth required exceeds Internet bandwidth capacity.

Figure 11: Example 3 - Event Targeting both Internal and External users

As one might expect, the 1,500 internal and 1,500 external users quickly overwhelm the available Internet bandwidth in the traditional ASP and traditional CPE models. The ASP Enhanced and CPE Enhanced models can support the traffic and are cost-effective, but the resulting loss of functionality makes these options inappropriate for this important event. Finally, as always, the hybrid model is viable and more expensive, but it provides a full functionality experience for all users and ease of management for the enterprise.

Summary: Best choice = Hybrid model Alternatives = ASP Enhanced, CPE Enhanced (low price, not without issues)



Example Summary

The table below summarizes the results of all three examples.

Example / User Counts Best Choice Second Choice

Example 1: 1,500 internal + 50 external

Traditional CPE Model (full functionality, low cost)

Hybrid Model (full functionality, higher cost)

Example 2: 50 internal + 1,500 external

Traditional ASP Model (full functionality, moderate cost)

Hybrid Model (full functionality, higher cost)

Example 3: 1,500 internal + 1,500 external

Hybrid Model (only viable full function option)

ASP Enhanced and / or CPE Enhanced Model

Figure 12: Summary of Webcasting Example Results

As shown above, the Hybrid Model is the only approach that appears as either the best or second choice for all scenarios. In other words, the Hybrid Model provides full functionality for largely internal, largely external, and both internal / external events.



Conclusion

Webcasting allows meeting hosts and content providers to leverage streaming technology to broadcast content to large, geographically dispersed audiences. The key benefits of webcasting include ease of use for both meeting hosts and attendees, the ability to include high-impact, rich media content elements (including audio, live video, and PC-content), and significant economies of scale.

Traditionally, webcasting has been available either as a service (the ASP model) or as a product (the CPE model) to be deployed within the enterprise organization. The ASP model is well-suited for broadcasts targeting external (public Internet) users, while the CPE model favors internal audiences. Although there are ways to expand the suitability of each model, neither the ASP nor the CPE solution is ideal (from a cost-effectiveness and bandwidth efficiency perspective) for organizations whose sessions target a mixture of internal and external viewers.

This document highlights the benefits of a hybrid webcasting model, which by combining the unique aspects of the ASP and CPE models, can effectively support internal, external, and mixed audience sessions. The key to this model is the ability for an enterprise to selectively activate the ASP model, the CPE model, or both models on a per-session basis, thus allowing the host organization to enjoy the benefits of each webcasting model.

For organizations seeking a turnkey, cost-effective means of distributing streaming / webcasting content to both internal and external audiences, the hybrid ASP / CPE model is a solid choice that provides a level of flexibility that cannot be achieved with traditional models.



Appendix A: Detailed Cost Calculations

This section highlights the calculations used to generate the CPE cost per event and the Caching Blade cost per event used in the Real-World Examples section of this document.

CPE Cost Per Event Calculations

Step 1: Calculate Asset Cost per Year

For this exercise, we estimated that a total investment of $150,000 was made for an enterprise CPE streaming solution. Assuming a three-year financial asset lifespan with a residual capital value of $0, the asset cost per year is $50,000.

Step 2: Include Maintenance Fees

We estimated that the enterprise would pay 15% of the total purchase price per year for equipment maintenance. Therefore, the yearly maintenance cost would be 15% of $150,000, or $22,500.

Step 3: Calculate the Cost Per Event

Combining the above costs, we find that the yearly cost of ownership for the CPE streaming solution (excluding finance charges) is $72,500. For this exercise, we assumed that one staff person would be hired, at a fully-loaded cost of $80,000 per annum, to manage the streaming system. This increased the yearly cost of ownership and management for the streaming solution to $152,500. Assuming that the enterprise hosts a total of 50 events per year, we calculate the CPE streaming solution cost per event to be $3,050.

Caching Blade Cost Per Event Calculations

Step 1: Calculate Asset Cost Per Year

We estimated that a total investment of $100,000 was made for caching blades for our sample enterprise. Assuming a three-year financial asset lifespan with a residual capital value of $0, the asset cost per year is $33,333.

Step 2: Include Maintenance Fees

We estimated that the enterprise would pay 15% of the total purchase price per year for equipment maintenance. Therefore, the yearly maintenance cost would be 15% of $100,000, or $15,000

Step 3: Calculate the Cost Per Event

Combining the above costs, we find that the yearly cost of ownership for the caching blades (excluding internal support / management fees and financing charges) is approximately $48,333. Assuming that the enterprise hosts a total of 50 events per year, we calculate the caching blade cost per event to be $967.



About Wainhouse Research

Wainhouse Research (www.wainhouse.com) is an independent market research firm that focuses on critical issues in rich media communications, videoconferencing, teleconferencing, and streaming media. The company conducts multi-client and custom research studies, consults with end users on key implementation issues, publishes white papers and market statistics, and delivers public and private seminars as well as speaker presentations at industry group meetings. Wainhouse Research publishes Conferencing Markets & Strategies, a three-volume study that details the current market trends and major vendor strategies in the multimedia networking infrastructure, endpoints, and services markets, as well as a variety of segment reports, the free newsletter, The Wainhouse Research Bulletin, and the PLATINUM (www.wrplatinum.com) content website. About the Author

Ira M. Weinstein is a Senior Analyst and Consultant at Wainhouse Research, and a 14-year veteran of the conferencing, collaboration and audio-visual industries. Prior to joining Wainhouse Research, Ira was the VP of Marketing and Business Development at IVCi, managed a technology consulting company, and ran the global conferencing department for a Fortune 50 investment bank. Ira’s current focus includes IP video conferencing, network service providers, global management systems, scheduling and automation platforms, ROI and technology justification programs, and audio-visual integration. Mr. Weinstein holds a B.S. in Engineering from Lehigh University and is currently pursuing an MBA in Management and Marketing. He can be reached at [email protected].

About Netbriefings

This information provided courtesy of the white paper sponsor.

Netbriefings offers both ASP and hybrid webcasting models. The company is a leading provider of large, broadcast-style webcast solutions, specifically suited for large, secure company meetings, outbound marketing events and online training. Its core differentiation is its robust streaming video/audio capability, and its ability to be flexible and scalable to the meeting requirements with an end-to-end catered service approach. In addition to its ASP solutions, Netbriefings assists companies in the deployment of a hybrid webcasting solution. In these cases, Netbriefings can place streaming and content servers on the company premise to reduce the streaming traffic and content delivery coming through the corporate firewall while still taking advantage of the cost benefits and increased security of a hosted solution. www.netbriefings.com



http://www.wainhouse.com/

http://www.wrplatinum.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.netbriefings.com/

Effective Enterprise Webcasting - Wainhouse Research · To view a live event, people simply click...

Documents

Transcript of Effective Enterprise Webcasting - Wainhouse Research · To view a live event, people simply click...