July 26, 2013 – Leading players in new media gathered in New York on July 15 to discuss the future of TV content as part of Informa’s new tvXperience conference. The day kicked off with a lively debate that revealed how new modes of distribution and trends in audience consumption are impacting traditional and new programming outlets in ways that are as much mutually supportive as they are competitive.
Participants in the discussion included Jim Turner, senior vice president, market development and sales, Net2TV; Rob Barnett, founder & CEO, My Damn Channel; Chris Williams, chief development officer, Maker Studios, and Marc DeBevoise, executive vice president and general manager, entertainment, news and sports, CBS Interactive. The session, an edited transcript of which follows, was moderated by ScreenPlays editor Fred Dawson
Fred Dawson – Let’s begin with each of you providing us a brief overview of your and your companies’ roles in content development and distribution.
Jim Turner – Net2TV is taking some of the great short-form content developed for the Web by major brands like CBS and turning that content into new kinds of streamed channels for linear traditional television. We create teasers, opening segments, all of the other kinds of things that you would expect, curate them into shows, create a four- or five-hour loop of content and stream that just like regular television.
Back in the ‘80s, when the technological revolution allowed hundreds of channels of television instead of 20 or 30, new kinds of niche programming came into the marketplace. But those channels who are successful are no longer serving that niche marketplace. Instead, they’ve moved more and more towards general entertainment. And so the under-served niche affinity networks are actually growing up on the Web, and we’re hoping to take that and turn that into a lean-back television experience.
We distribute through the cloud to the connected-TV universe which we’re assembling. We’ll be on about 20 million devices by the end of the year and probably about 35 million next year. And we’re also in conversations for taking these channels and distributing them in other ways as well, potentially in traditional distribution.
And for smart TVs, where navigation is needed and it’s not just a collection of channels, we’ve also created Portico, which is a navigation application. It’s currently on Philips TVs, and we’ll be on Roku in a few weeks and a number of other TV platforms by the end of the year.
This is all free ad supported programming. We’ve created a very robust ad platform with two-unit ad pods running about every six or seven minutes. We’re dynamically insertable, manageable and targetable, and we’ve also added the stuff I tried to do at Canoe Ventures, which was to create advanced advertising for things like requests for information, long-form telescoping, branded showcases and so forth. All this is done in the cloud, so we have access to HTML5 for creating all these interactive experiences.
Marc DeBevoise – At CBS Interactive we’re sort of combined with and yet somewhat separate from the broadcast network and the other parts of CBS Corp. We kind of divide into two worlds – the brands that are related to the network and the brands that are not necessarily related to the network. You saw an example in Chow [a cooking series demonstrated by Jim Turner in a Net2TV video] of a non-related network brand. We also have things like CNET, the largest tech site, GameSpot, the largest gaming information site, TV.com, which bought TV Guide.com as well.
So we have a lot of assets that are around amazing Internet-based content and brands, some of which have been around for a long time, and some of which are newer. We really are investing as a corporation into those as content and distribution vehicles.
And then there are the brands that are totally related to our network, which are the entertainment side, which is CBS.com, the news side, CBSNews.com, and the sports side, CBSSports.com, as well as a couple of other sports businesses we’ve acquired over the years, one being College Sports Television, which has turned into the College Sports Network for CBSSports.com. We run the Web sites for 130 colleges around the U.S. for their sports content as well as a large subscription package called U-Live, University Live.
And so that’s the part that I run; I run the CBS brands, and really what we’re focused on there is taking the network content and the various windows and rights we have to exploit and push them over multiple platforms and having that grow into a really robust business. It’s a tremendous business on the full episode prime time, day time, late night content. It’s a tremendous business on live sports streaming. It’s a good business on the news side, although we do really run that as a half way separate organization running 24/7 where the network side is really only running two and a half hours a day.
We’re exploring all models; we’re looking at ad-supported streaming; we’re looking at paid downloads in terms of DST; we look at subscription, although we have very big partnerships on the retrans side with the traditional MVPDs, and then we look at subscription in a number of ways on the sports side, certainly with our U-Live product, but we’re also the largest paid fantasy sports provider at CBS Sports from the old Sportsline days. So there’s a wide range of content and a wide range of distribution capabilities that all go into building one of the highest growth businesses for CBS. We do it on a profitable basis. We’re there to make money for the corporation.
Chris Williams – Maker Studios is the largest independent network of YouTube channels in the world. We partner with 60,000 different video creators across the globe. We’ll probably do about four billion video views this month just on our YouTube networks alone.
We bundle our channels into verticals. While all of them are obsessively focused on Millennials’ culture, we divide them into categories like comedy, music, lifestyle, fashion, music and gaming. And within each of those clusters of channels in each vertical, which are heavily branded, there’s an owned-and-operated channel kind of at the center. We’ve created an ecosystem of audiences. Our partnerships are across the globe.
We’re giving creators an opportunity to reach their goals, a place to find a home and build a long-term audience. We have sound stages, a studio and a scaled network behind it. Our owners are innovators, a family that has organized business around passion and verticals.
What we’ve found is that Millennials consume media much, much, much differently than older audiences. If you look around and see how young people are consuming media, the content of linear television or linear anything from a media perspective is one that is pretty alien. Just anecdotally, I have five-year-old and eight-year-old boys. We’ll be in the car and a song will come on the radio, and my five-year-old might say, hey, dad, play that again, I love that song. Linear is a completely alien concept to kids, with the exception of certain things like live events and sports in particular.
So YouTube is our main home where we focus on pretty much teenagers and young adults. They consume shows that are completely different from what anyone above 34 consumes, and they do it online and particularly on YouTube.
At the same time, we’re expanding our distribution and reach. We’re building not only tools to support a new class of video creator worldwide, but we’re also creating new opportunities for distribution. So beyond just YouTube we’ve developed our own owned-and-operated video distribution system and platform that will allow us to create an O&O website along with distribution and communications to third parties outside YouTube, whether that’s the deals we might have with Daily Motion or commitments to broadcast television partners. We’re exploiting explosive growth of online video consumption.
Rob Barnett – I spent the first parts of my career at places like CBS, MTV and VH-1. In a typical experience in those companies you couldn’t contain in this room the number of executives that it takes to get one show launched. What was exciting to me in 2007, when we launched our company, was that in the new world each one of us in this room has opportunities to become the new CBS or the new MTV.
Inside the major corporations I saw a shift at least in job titles. A lot of people started to get the name digital on their business cards or the name new media. And it seemed there was an opportunity to jump out somewhat early and try to start something new.
At My Damn Channel we looked at three ideas. One, let’s say the YouTube model, was, let’s aggregate everybody else’s content and try to have the most traffic on the Web. I didn’t think a couple of guys and a power point presentation could necessarily beat that model, so we put that aside. The second model, which I guess in many respects became a lot of what happens in Hulu, is the repurposing of some of the best content in traditional media onto the Web. We knew that would work, but we weren’t sitting on huge libraries of NBC, Fox and CBS.
So we went this crazy third way, which was inspired mostly by brand giants like HBO and Showtime that built their businesses on the backs of creating the very best original content for their platforms. We founded the company with the belief that some of the biggest artists in film and television never really had the opportunity in old media to do exactly what they wanted to entertain you without hundreds of executives between them and you. We thought that would be a powerful way to inspire them to get into something that, in its infancy, would not be lucrative, but at the end of the game would give them an opportunity to make a lot of money and control their own destiny.
So we reached out to some really great talent from film and television, and over the years we’ve also developed new talent to create the main spot for original comedy series online. We have a couple of competitors that have very, very large audiences, but by their own admission they focus mainly on one-off videos. We’ve stolen a lot of pages from the television playbook and always believed that the way to build an audience over time, like on television, was to program content either on a daily basis or on a weekly basis.
Dawson – One of the things that’s emerging here, which Chris emphasized, is we have this dichotomy between an audience under 34 and everybody else, and what we’re also seeing in some of these snippets here are examples of what may not be linear in the sense that you can get it on demand, but it’s linear in the sense it’s kind of traditional TV programming in many respects. It’s just for a younger audience.
Is this really just about a cultural divide where traditional television, because it makes a lot of money selling geriatric products to older viewers, can’t really appeal enough to a young audience, and so, therefore, this new environment is emerging as just a kind of parallel universe but more or less duplicating the old one? Or is there something different going on here with respect to the content itself that’s going to reshape how things are done going forward?
Williams – I think it’s all of the above. I really do think for the moment the youth audience does not respond to traditional television, which is why the average age of the prime-time broadcast television viewer is about 58.
I think what you’ve got is a scenario where the business models and the technology for the last four years have been driving a lot of what consumers are exposed to. The 24-hour linear schedule is something that works because the technology is what it was from the beginning of television, and so the business models evolved to support that. It’s not because consumers want to consume it that way. In particular young audiences are going to consume what they want when they want on what device they want. It’s a whole different world in terms of format and artists. If you look at the most popular artists in the world for youth culture and for teenagers in particular, you probably never heard of them.
Dawson – Right. So this is the cultural divide I was talking about. But what about the actual changes in the nature of content? We’ve seen the formats, the story lines….
Williams – It’s not like the greatest story tellers in the world all got in a room and said 22 minutes in the best timeframe in which to tell the story. Format is one of the things that’s completely out the window. [To Turner]You talk about the lean-back experience; you’re kind of designing your business model around the lean-back experience. And I think that’s actually really good for the geriatric audience. I just think the youthful audience under 34, they’re going….
Dawson – How are you engaging them in terms of not being purely lean back?
Williams – Our biggest show, as an example, is a show called “Epic Rap Battles of History.” It’s actually the biggest show in the world online. It typically does about 30 million video views per episode.
It generates a massive amount of engagement. The number we look at a lot, what drives its success, has to do with a very simple four-word phrase at the end of every episode – and this is just one of myriad examples – where they go, ‘Who won, who’s next?’ This inspires the audience to comment on the video. So each video on average has run 400,000 comments. When you think about what a comment is, a like or a favorite, it’s a mechanism by which to share that video, so that creates plurality, engagement.
The bar is pretty high. Not only does content have to be great and in formats that are repeatable to do over and over again; it has to be shareable. Shareable is what drives viral success of audiences online. YouTube has proved to be the most effective platform at doing that, which is why they account for 50 percent of all video views
Dawson – So there’s a lot of discovery going on. There’s a lot of driving of discovery with, ‘Hey, look at this; it’s really cool.’
Williams – Yeah. It’s the new water cooler. It not only has to be good enough for somebody to say, ‘I like this, I enjoyed watching this,’ but they have to earn a currency of coolness by having now shared it with their friends. This is something we take very, very seriously. Whenever we have a major hit like we have with “Epic Rap Battles” it’s generally because that dynamic is at play. And it’s an immediate share.
Dawson – Rob, what are you seeing in the vein of receptivity to new ideas that aren’t more or less a recycling of traditional television?
Barnett – I think it comes back to the platform. You have a lot of majors out there for the first time ever funding original online content. We’re seeing places like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon writing really big checks for native original digital content. If you look at those shows, for example, “House of Cards” with Kevin Spacey, you can say that’s a television show. It’s created in a new way on a new platform, but it’s television-like programming.
Everything that Chris is talking about and everything we do at My Damn Channel is speaking in a new language, and it doesn’t necessarily live in the part of your brain that’s called television; it lives in the part of your brain that’s called New. There’s a different language and there’s a different feel to the content that’s created by people who are really native to original online video.
As Chris said, success is gauged not so much in the number of people who may or may not have seen new digital content. True success is gauged by the number of people who are truly interactive with that content. When you get into the seven-hour discussion about how you make money, if I’m an advertiser I want to care more about Marc creating a video and sharing it with me and saying something about it than the idea that maybe everybody in this room saw it.
Dawson – Would you say a major difference has to do with the fact the audience feels like they’re part of the program in these environments? There might be a talk or a reality show element to it, but there’s something going on here that is making you as an audience member feel like you’re in this. You’re not just watching something going on that’s somebody else’s story.
Barnett – I’ll just make one brief comment and pass the mike. There’s a new demand not just on the audience to interact but on the talent. You can’t just be a creator of the great three-minute or 22-minute piece of video. You have to figure out, unless you’re maybe the upper echelon of movie star, how to have a direct relationship that’s real with your audience. That’s a whole new reality. You’re not allowed to sleep anymore.
Dawson – Let’s bring it back to Marc.
DeBevoise – The geriatric core [laughter]. Look, let me throw a couple of things in on this. First and foremost CBS as a corporation and me personally believe that all the things these guys are doing are the future and potentially the current as well. There are great things happening, great new content being built, audiences being formed, and, finally, real money being transacted.
It took a while. I liken this to the cable revolution. Back in the ‘80s there was a bunch of these new brands that came up around specific genre niches. They expanded, and now you have MTV that doesn’t even do videos anymore. You had to do video to build that niche. I think we’re in that revolution right now, and that is happening.
The thing I’ll point out is that the big hunking thing of broadcast didn’t go away. It actually became more important as the center of the broadest set of aggregation, and, secondly, it’s where all the studios came out of. It’s where you aggregate the creation of very, very valuable content.
And this is where I’ll go back to a couple of your points earlier. You’re seeing people throwing things around like YouTube saying we’re the largest basic cable network out there. They start throwing these sorts of things that say how big they are, instead of saying how fast they’re growing. If you want to do size, the CBS Television Network streams two to three billion hours of content a month. That’s easily three X if not four X all of YouTube, including all the UDC (University of the District of Columbia) and all the international stuff. It’s not even in the ballpark of size comparison.
Williams – To old people.
DeBevoise – Right. The average age is 55; yet we have more 18-49 years olds than any other network. Which means we have more 18-49 year olds by multiples than any YouTube channel or YouTube aggregator. If there’s an anecdotal belief that there are more young people together, the answer is those people are doing more than one thing.
Williams – But, of course, the audience is shrinking. You can’t deny the numbers that show the audience in 1950 compared to today…
DeBevoise – I don’t deny it’s shrinking. I’m just looking at the math. That’s why you have $72-billion transactions on TV and you have $4 billion online. You can’t buy $72 billion of video ads online. There isn’t enough inventory. It doesn’t exist.
As a broadcast network, the way we look at it is the ability to watch long-form content – and, by the way, 22 or 44 minutes isn’t magic, but you saw your ad completion rates when you watched three-minute video versus when you watched long-form video [a reference to Dawson’s openkng presentation in which he cited statistics showing high ad viewing completion rates on long-form versus short-form Web video]. Completion rates go up because that means someone has been engaged long enough and cares enough to watch that long of a piece of content.
The shorter form gets people to dabble a lot but also bail a lot on advertising. So for advertisers to get full completion of your message, you’re going to be better in longer form content, whether that be online or on air. What television is really good at is investing massive amounts of money to build really, really premium content. I don’t knock what these guys here or others do…
Williams – What are you defining as premium, Marc? Production value does not equal good.
DeBevoise – No, but production value does equal premium, and in a lot of cases it does equal talent, in a lot of cases…..
Williams – The way to an advertiser, not necessarily to the audience, particularly not the young.
DeBevoise – Why is there so much more audience in broadcast than online?
Williams – Because the truth is it’s absolutely an older audience. The average age of your viewer on prime time is 58. You can talk about 18-49 all day, but…
DeBevoise – And we have 30 times the viewers; we have so many more viewers.
Williams – We can have a billion people watching each month. I’m not saying Makers is as big as CBS. I’m just talking about trajectory. All that matters is trajectory. Where are the audiences going?
DeBevoise – I agree with you on trajectory. I agree with you that certain things are growing…
Dawson – Let me interject here. Basically we’re talking about past, present and future. I think we’re all agreed about certain trend lines. Younger people are getting older. Older people are dying [laughter]. So there’s definitely a cultural change. So we can look at this as inevitable on one level if you want to go out there far enough.
But I want to come back to the main point here, which is what it is that a network like CBS is doing. You talked about buying into CNET, “Chow” or whatever is made for this new environment. And you have the other programming that’s part of the network. How is that changing, if at all, with respect to the use of the digital medium? For example, are you looking at doing things like NBC Sports is doing with making it available everywhere? Are you looking at augmenting the programming as a function of doing that?
DeBevoise – You single out NBC Sports, and I don’t mean to sound negative, but it’s a little bit uninformed. There are three or four other players larger than NBC Sports with a much broader set of sports online. You have ESPN3, which is 3,500 events yearly; us, we have 20,000 live events a year coming from 130 colleges broadcast specifically online under a subscription package you can buy. NBC is like fourth place. They’re like an afterthought.
Dawson – Well, there’s a difference, and that is they are making their high-profile regularly scheduled broadcast sports events like Sunday Night Football available online to everybody, whether or not they subscribe to cable.
DeBevoise – You mean like the Masters, which we made available, like the Super Bowl, which is the largest streaming event with three billion people watching, like the PGA Tour, which we are the streaming partner of? We’re all doing it. They’re, frankly, the last to the table when it comes to putting stuff out there. And I feel like they’re going to be pulled back by their Comcast brethren.
Dawson – What are you seeing with respect to having done that?
DeBevoise – One to three percent of the audience will watch an alternative screen. They’re going to go to the best screen available, and for major events like the Super Bowl, PGA, they’re going to go in front of a big screen. So we view it as a non-cannibalistic way to monetize and reach audiences that are not sitting in their house on their couch in front of the TV set.
Dawson – Are you doing anything as far as the monetization side to up the value of its being available online?
DeBevoise – Absolutely. If you look at the Super Bowl packages we put out there, we had five camera views, including the current view that was on television. It was the live broadcast sound. We had social media built into the players, so you could chat back and forth with both our experts and each other. We had trackers on sentiment and all these other things building through the player as well.
So all that interactivity that you think you could do with a live event we were trying to push with the largest social media event in the history of television. 52 million comments around it. We have the number one, two and three events in that regard. We also do the Grammys, which for the last two years has been the largest social media event.
That’s one of the things you brought up. Social media is just as important as to how all this has evolved for both broadcast and new content. This is the water cooler for the future. TV or video content has always been a social activity. It’s just been limited in what circle you can be social with it. Is it your family, your office? Now it can be millions of people instantly as you’re watching it.
It’s actually bringing people back to live. The demise of live viewership should have been faster. People should just be wanting this stuff on demand, because we make it available and they should want it that way. Yet we still get 90 percent, 85 percent of our audience live. And it’s not just the old people; it’s the young people, too.
And why is that? I think it’s because they want to interact in real time on social, to be able to have that conversation. That’s why something like “Big Bang Theory,” which does massive audiences young and old, has that staying power from a live perspective. You’d think the young people would be time shifting in massive numbers.
Williams – When you say young people, you mean 39-year-olds. When I say young people, I mean eight-year-olds, 13-year-olds.
Dawson – Let me ask you, Marc, following up on what you said about the Super Bowl and the extraordinary lengths you went to to create a new viewing experience, does that come back and say, we’ve got to do this a lot, or wasn’t it worth it?
DeBevoise – It says we should do it if we’re given the rights and it doesn’t cannibalize our broadcast, which is absolutely massive.
Williams – Don’t you think something like the Olympics is sort of uniquely suited to…
DeBevoise – So perfect, because there are multiple days and time issues. Take Big Brother, for example, which is three days a week in the summer. It’s a massive program for us every summer. It’s the largest thing we do in the summer. We built a program at $9.99 a month that is the live 24/7 streaming camera feeds, and we get tens of thousands, not quite a hundred thousand people, to pay us for that.
First of all, people are crazy. Second of all, that tells you a lot about what the Internet can do. You can build out alternative ways to reach to audiences giving them more than what we can give them in the linear format.
Dawson – Jim, you’re looking at all these players in this marketplace. You have this challenge of what are we going to do that’s going to make a difference. One of the things you can do to make a difference is getting onto the TV set a lot of content that otherwise wouldn’t see the light of day, nixing it altogether, putting it into identifiable channels, which is what you’re doing.
How open ended is that model? It strikes me, when you look at what YouTube is doing, allowing everybody to create their own channel environment, their own categories, you’re kind of doing the opposite in the sense you’re creating the categories and funneling the stuff that’s out there into that. Have you done research, have you looked at what the potential of all this is in terms of the aggregation of content that’s already out there? Give us a sense of where this might be going, because it’s an interesting idea.
Turner – My first comment is, because this discussion has been wonderfully entertaining, to me it’s really simply, this is the age of “and.” One of you isn’t going to win. Movies didn’t die when we had television, and short form isn’t going to kill long form. The truth is people still like to have a linear experience of turning on the TV and not thinking. That’s why TV works. We turn it on and lean back and let content flow over us.
Williams – Who?
Turner – Increasingly, the 13 year olds as well.
Dawson – Everybody loves a good story.
Williams – That’s different. Everybody loves a good story. I agree. And there’s been a renaissance in television programming, where you’re seeing “Game of Thrones”…
Dawson – The age of the anti-hero.
Williams – They’re incredible. If I were a graduate in broadcast and film, I’d be all over TV today versus feature films. There’s no question. I’m not saying that stuff goes away. The way it’s distributed changes, and the audiences are going to be smaller. Even “Walking Dead,” the biggest cable success ever, is what, ten million people? Relative to what a big show was five years ago, let alone 20, it’s a smaller audience.
Turner – Fragmentation will continue. But I don’t believe 15 or 20 years from now when the 13-year-olds are 20- or 30-somethings that they’re going to sit down in front of the TV set to watch a five-minute clip and then they’re going to watch another five-minute clip. People are still going to want to turn on television and be entertained.
Curation still matters. What we’re doing is looking at the great categories. And, frankly, what we’re looking at is the magazine market. We’re looking at where are the great niches and affinities that are not being filled with video. People like Meredith,Condé Nast, Hearst and Time are creating incredible amounts of wonderful video. You can imagine a Sports Illustrated channel, or a Vogue channel, or a Cosmo channel or a Field and Stream channel. Those are viable. And those are getting $100 CPMs. Those are the kinds of markets we’re looking at.
Dawson – This seems like one of the untapped resources that a network like CBS has with eons worth of content out there. If you digitize all that and you really get creative with it, you can create your own virtual niches around repurposing a lot of stuff as well as using a lot of stuff that’s coming in that you never would use.
DeBevoise – Yeah, you can throw a lot of stuff against the wall, but you’ve got to find the audience. If I put up every episode of “Star Trek,” I’ll get a certain number of viewers, the fan.
Williams – When can we do that?
DeBevoise – It’s up. The problem is he doesn’t know it’s available. You have to build these marketing channels to get people to be aware even of the old stuff that they might love. I have every episode of “I Love Lucy” on CBS.com.
Dawson – While you still have those billions of viewers out there, you could market to them.
DeBevoise – But that’s valuable [ad] space. Can you make as many dollars getting people to watch library versions as you can make getting them to watch new programs? No. So you have to find new ways, whether it’s Net2TV or other forms of new distribution, to reach audiences who may want that content.
Williams – This is a really interesting area. If you look at something like “Star Trek,” CBS isn’t just a distributor. It’s a monstrous producer, one of the biggest producers of content in the world with massive libraries that are sitting there. I think we’ve sort of been trained through some of these platforms, and in particular with a company like YouTube that’s sort of messed it up with TV content, where we think we’ll put up a tab that says TV or put up a tab that says movies. I think it’s going to be more like traditional to an extent that people have an affinity toward a media brand that speaks to them, that they trust, where they’re going to look for a collection of content. So when we’re developing channels now, a big portion of the content that we do in our owned-and-operated channels is going to be like that.
DeBevoise – That’s exactly right. The way we look at libraries, there are people who are willing to pay us for it, whether it’s old TV cable networks, Netflix or Hulu or whatever. So the answer is, we’re looking for buyers of that content while we also say on our own platforms we’re going to try to exploit ourselves to make money as we create new content.
Dawson – Okay. We have a model for the future. Marc doesn’t cannibalize himself but he lets one of you do it with his old stuff. And, meanwhile, he’s paving new ground, and you’re paving new ground, and then we see what falls out from that. There’s a lot of great stuff that’s going to get recirculated and used, a lot of new stuff that’s being created through people like My Damn Channel that can funnel into these aggregation levels. So it’s going to be infinite fragmentation and total entertainment.
Williams – Remember, it’s not just fragmentation. The Internet also creates the opportunity for a worldwide, global phenomenon. I think Psy [“Gangman Style” video] is an example of that.
Dawson – Fragmentation isn’t bad if every fragment is millions of people.
Williams – But Psy was the largest audience for a single piece of content in the shortest period of time ever in the history of the universe. I think you’re going to start seeing that more and more – global instant hits that have bigger audiences than anything in the history of media.
Turner – But the tradeoff is that was one piece out of thousands of channels. You have how many channels?
Williams – It needs to be a repeatable format.
Turner – How many channels?
Williams – Two thousand.
Turner – So the question to your point of fragmentation is how many, and this is what we’re all going to learn, is how many channels does it take that you end up with the top one percent? This is the struggle everybody has had all along.
Dawson – That’s where we’ll have to end it. Thanks everybody.