1. B INDING ID S TO C ONTENT A P ROGRESS R EPORT A PRIL 2014 Chris Lennon President & CEO MediAnswers Chair of Open ID Project

2. What Problem Are We Trying To Solve?

3. Currently, there is no open method for embedding persistent content identifiers (e.g., watermarks, fingerprints, etc.) into content, so that it survives, no matter how that content gets to the consumer Retail and Consumer Products SKU UPC DistributionBinding Broadcast TV and Film ID Registration Consum er No guarantee of survivability Distribution Binding ID Registration Consumer

4. Content creators and distributors need an effective way of reliably binding content identifiers to audio/video content that will robustly and reliably transit an end-to-end media ecosystem  Existing identifiers, such as EIDR and Ad-ID, rely on binding an identifier to a file container, data streams within a file container, or structural metadata of the file itself, which can be destroyed during processing or delivery.  Research suggests that the only reliable approach is to bind the identifier within the audio/visual essence, so that it can survive throughout the end-to-end lifecycle.  Binding technologies exist – watermarks, fingerprints and wrappers – but today these are either proprietary, are not capable of surviving transit through the end-to-end ecosystem, or both.

5. Content creators and distributors need an effective way of reliably binding content identifiers to audio/video content that will robustly and reliably transit an end-to-end media ecosystem An open standard for ID-to-asset binding can enable a wide array of capabilities: Increased speed, transparency and accountability in video content and advertising measurement Improved media workflow automation within and between M&E entities Enablement of new anti-piracy tools and methods Reduced asset storage and transmission costs More complete long- tail content monetization On-the-fly media asset assembly More granular and comparable media ratings Accelerated digital content locker adoption Improved automated content recognition and detection Simplified and less-costly media reconciliation Better second-screen integration and improved multi-screen content discovery Fewer barriers to deploying cross-platform dynamic ad insertion

6. Where is this work being done? Where is this work being done?

7. What Has Happened Up To Now? Meetings every other week since group formed in July of 2013 Meetings every other week since group formed in July of 2013 Use Cases, and then Requirements created Use Cases, and then Requirements created RFI issued Dec 15, 2013 RFI issued Dec 15, 2013 RFI closed Jan 31, 2014 RFI closed Jan 31, 2014 Face To Face Meeting Feb 11, 2014 (6 formal, 2 informal replies) Face To Face Meeting Feb 11, 2014 (6 formal, 2 informal replies)

8. Some Use Cases The Group Identified

9. Cross Platform Measurement

10. Second Screen Applications

11. Audience Measurement

12. 4 Rs: Rights, Research, Royalties, Reconciliation

13. Targeted Ad Insertion (Advanced Advertising)

14. Requirements At the RFI’s core were a set of requirements. These came out of use cases discussed on the previous slides. At the RFI’s core were a set of requirements. These came out of use cases discussed on the previous slides.

15. Requirements Payload – Must be able to carry representations of Ad-IDs and EIDRs

16. Requirements Survivability Across Platforms – Must survive distribution to consumers across all distribution platforms

17. Requirements Recording And Playback – Must survive recording and playback at a later time (DVRs)

18. Requirements Granularity – Need to be able to detect the IDs during short commercials, as well as longer programs.

19. Requirements Synchronization Across Platforms – Must be able to retrieve IDs simultaneously across different platforms (second screen)

20. Requirements ID Replacement – Must be able to replace the ID if content is repurposed within another program (e.g. SportsCenter)

21. Requirements Quality – Must not degrade the quality of the content for the consumer

22. What Kind of Responses Did We Get? Most solutions focused on audio watermarking, although other solutions were presented (fingerprinting, XDS carriage, Time Reference Label, whistles, video watermarking) Most solutions focused on audio watermarking, although other solutions were presented (fingerprinting, XDS carriage, Time Reference Label, whistles, video watermarking)

23. What Kind of Responses Did We Get? Although watermarking was dominant technology presented, there may be advantages to coupling this with fingerprinting or other technologies Although watermarking was dominant technology presented, there may be advantages to coupling this with fingerprinting or other technologies Example: audio watermark establishes that ad played, and fingerprinting verifies that entire ad played Example: audio watermark establishes that ad played, and fingerprinting verifies that entire ad played

24. Next Steps Group to focus on full report to SMPTE, outlining suggested standardization work to achieve Open ID binding to essence. Group to focus on full report to SMPTE, outlining suggested standardization work to achieve Open ID binding to essence.

25. Thank You Questions?clennon@medianswers.tv