TIS Brightcove Submission

Section A Group 2

Gandla Akshay Gaurav Heenu Sunny Udayjeet Srushti Vrund Jay 

Kumar Shukla Gupta Chaudhary Sinha Salve  Joshi Parmar

PGP37073 PGP37074 PGP37075 PGP37103 PGP37107 PGP37154 PGP3719 PGP3740

4 9

Q1. What choices with respect to onboarding sides on its MSP has Brihtcove taken?
Discuss strengths (pros) and weaknesses (cons) of Brihtcove’s side related choices?

Sol. Brightcove had 4 choices with respect to onboarding sides on its MSP:

● 4 sided platform
● Onboarding the publisher first
● Premium and long tail Publishers
● Delay in getting consumers

Choices Pros Cons

Publishers Multiple Revenue sources Rise of complexity

Cross Side Network effects Conflict of interest

Larger scale Lowest common denominator

Wider content Chicken and egg problem

Serving Long tail Serve lare premium customization 

To serve long/medium tailed  need large user base

Q2. Was Brightcove right/wrong in not following YouTube’s path? Critically evaluate.

YouTube Brightcove BC initiative Right/Wrong with respect to YT

Consumer first Publisher centric Generated revenue from day 1 but did not think
attitude of long term benefit

Fewer sides in the 4 sided network Higher revenue with high complexity, conflict of
beginning interest, chicken & egg prob

C2C B2B, B2C, B2B Loss of focus on one or more markets

Free (No pricing Pricing based on Content restriction, mutual effect on both sides
model) premium

CGM BGM
Q3. How do you decide which side to go after first, when building an MSP?

● Which shows WTA/ high multihoming cost

● Which can exist independently initially until cross side effect kicks in
● Which has potential cross-side effects and solves chicken and egg problems.
● Side that is harder to get, aggregating them to the platform brings in an easier side
automatically
● Side which perceives either monetary or non-monetary benefit from joining the
platform

Q4. What should have Brightcove done differently?

● Should have concentrated on the user base initially

● Should have concentrated on long or medium-tail publishers.
● Should have focused on a fewer-sided platform for lower complexity and conflict of
interest
● Should not have invested too many resources to provide customized solutions
● After the new round of funding, they should have tried to change strategy to contain
challenges from YouTube
● They fully ignored normal users’ ability to create content which should not have been
done