Hosted Video Services Survey and Analysis

HOSTED VIDEO
SERVICES SURVEY
AND ANALYSIS
By Tim Siglin,
Contributing Editor, Streaming Media magazine,
and Co-founder & Principal Analyst, Transitions, Inc.
Produced by Streaming Media magazine
and Unisphere Research,
a Division of Information Today, Inc.
August 2015
Sponsored by
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction3
Sample Size and Respondent Profiles3
Company Profiles4
Conclusion7
Appendix A: Personal Viewing Habits8
HOSTED VIDEO SERVICES SURVEY AND ANALYSIS was produced by Unisphere Research and Streaming Media magazine, sponsored by Brightcove, and crafted by Transitions, Inc.
Unisphere Research is the market research unit of Unisphere Media, a division of Information Today, Inc. To review abstracts of our past reports, visit www.unisphereresearch.com.
Unisphere Media, 121 Chanlon Road, New Providence, NJ 07974; 908-795-3702.
INTRODUCTION
SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONDENT PROFILES
Streaming Media magazine and Unisphere Research, along

with Brightcove and Transitions, Inc., set out to gauge trends in
Hosted Video Services among media professionals who want to
publish and monetize online video across multiple platforms.
Hosted Video Services (HVS) are defined as cloud-based services
to deliver and monetize video across connected devices.
Transitions and Unisphere crafted a set of questions which
asked survey respondents to provide details on their viewing
habits as well as their assessment of HVS, both in terms of
features and average monthly streams served. HVS is the main
focus of this report, while viewing habits data is contained in
Appendix A.
Our survey pool contains industry experts, engineers, and
executive management, so we asked questions that provided
insight into both the actual and intended uses of online video
across multiple platforms.
What were our three primary takeaways? First, one of the
filters through which the whole survey analysis should be assessed
is the fact that respondents tend to work for companies that either
deliver less than 100,000 or more than 1 million unique streams
of online content per month.
Among respondents who work for companies that focus on
directly monetizing content, monetizing non-desktop online
media content delivery has a long way to go. Mobile is the
farthest along (as opposed to gaming consoles, etc.) with 16% of
respondents saying their companies have realized at least a 50%
monetization rate for mobile content delivery.
Finally, respondents rated multi-device delivery capability
as their top need when it comes to using HVS. The next most
important feature was speedpresented to survey takers as
speed (player load times) to gauge the importance of load times
for HVS providersand a need for detailed analytics.
Approximately 900 respondents completed this 28-question

survey, and nearly 100 additional respondents completed a
substantial part of the survey, for a total of 992 survey responses
used for our analysis.
Almost 750 of the respondents completing the survey were from
North America (83%), followed by Europe (10%), and rounded
out by those in Asia-Pacific, South America, and Australia/New
Zealand, respectively. Where appropriate, we chose to delineate
European differences if a significant number of responses from
the EC differed from the North American responses.
If it is relevant, the analysis in this report will also note where
large groups of partial survey respondents stopped answering. In
most cases, this directly corresponds to a set of free-form questions
around monetization of content on various non-PC devices.
Almost 77% of survey respondents identified themselves as
working for a company that delivers online video, whether in live
or on-demand form. Of those, approximately 8% of respondents
worked for companies that focused on delivering live online
content, 31% were in companies that focus on delivering ondemand online content, and the rest worked for companies that
deliver both live and on-demand content.
When it comes to respondents industry segments, content
providers (35%) topped the list, followed by technology partner/
vendor companies (20%). Agencies and consultants were the third
largest segment (10%), followed by resellers/system integrators
(5%), content aggregators (3%), and Pay TV operators (2%).
The remaining approximately one-quarter of respondents used
the other category, ranging from a high number of education
and corporate trainers to government, healthcare, religious
institutions, and streaming product manufacturers.
Many respondents identified themselves as executive
management (32%) while others work in product management
or engineering (27%). Marketing and sales accounted for
another segment (11%) followed by respondents working in
business development or partnership roles (7%). Almost 23% of
respondents used an other category to self-identify their roles as
analyst, consultant, content producer, faculty, or volunteer.
COMPANY PROFILES
In our second section, we wanted to determine which respondents
were employed by companies that delivered video online, and then
gauge their assessment of HVS functionality and benefits.
As stated in the introductory section, almost 77% of all
respondents said they worked for a company that delivered online
video. Digging further into that question, we then asked survey
takers to tell us which kinds of media their company primarily
delivers online. [Chart 1]
Chart 01: Primary Content Delivered By Type
Other
14%
Premium
22%
Enterprise
(training)
34%
focused on enterprise content delivery (32%) less than overall

respondents (34%), and the same was true for those European
respondents employed by companies focused on delivering social
media (9%) versus overall respondents (11%).
Another comparative question asked: Does your company
deliver on-demand or live content online? [Chart 2]
Chart 02: Company Focus: Live vs. On-Demand

No Video
Delivered
16%
Live
32%
Promotional
19%
Social
Media
11%
More than half of respondents (52%) work for a company

that delivers both live and on-demand content, with companies
focusing exclusively on live content delivery (8%) and time-shifted
content delivery (28%) representing smaller discrete percentages.
This could be logically construed, also, to mean that the majority
of those companies that deliver education or enterprise webcasts
are not exclusively providing live content delivery.
An additional group of respondents (16%) identified
themselves as working for a company that does not deliver video.
The next question then asked survey takers to provide
information about the average monthly video traffic served by
their companies over the past year. The most common response
to this question, given by almost half of respondents, was that
they didnt know the amount of content delivered. Reasons for
this high level of uncertainty, based on additional comments,
included a desire not to give away a companys overall delivery
throughput, as well as delivery simply being gauged in other
waysfor example, in gigabytes delivered. Approximately 14%
of respondents also said they did not deliver video online, in
keeping with the previous chart.
t
t
This question is geared toward the activities of the

respondents company, not of the respondents personal media
consumption.
Social media content (11%) accounts for the lowest response
to this question, despite it being more than 30% of respondents
personal consumption. Similarly, enterprise (34%) accounts for the
largest portion of content served by respondents companies, more
than double the 15% of primary media consumption for respondents
personal viewing. Premium content (22%) and promotion content
(19%) account for the remaining chosen categories.
A large group of respondents (14%) chose the other category
to define what kinds of content their companies deliver. When
the approximately 140 other comments are analyzed, it appears
that educational, religious, and governmental entities are the
focus of video delivery for our respondents respective companies.
Additional analysis shows that European respondents (42%)
were much more likely than overall respondents (22%) to be
employed by a company serving up premium content. On the
other hand, European respondents were employed by companies
Time-Shifted
52%
The remaining responses present an interesting picture of two

divergent groups of respondents. [Chart 3]
Chart 03: Average Monthly Video Traffic Served (Streams)

Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
60%
45%
30%
15%
0%

100,000
250,000
500,000
1,000,000
1,000,000+

51% 13% 8% 4% 24%
This chart shows a chasm between those that deliver 100,000

unique video streams per month (51%) and those that deliver
more than 1 million streams per month (24%). After these two,
the next largest group of respondents delivers 250,000 streams per
month (14%) with very few delivering 500,000 streams per month
(8%) or up to 1 million streams (4%).
As stated in a previous survey, which showed a similar split, we
believe this gap deserves additional research to determine if the
market is bifurcated between those who serve almost no content
and those who serve hundreds of terabytes or petabytes of content
per month. If so, an opportunity may exist for middle market
growth for HVS.
Chart 04: Critical Hosted Video Services
30.0
15.0
7.5
21%
19%
15%
14%
12%
11%
8%
t
t
22.5
We then asked respondents to rate the critical features and

services that they need from a hosted video solution in order to be
able to publish and monetize across multiple platforms.
This multiple-response question is designed in such a way
that response levels represent an almost logarithmic scale, in
that those features listed at the bottom of the scale are much less
important overall. [Chart 4]
Far and away, the highest ranked response from this multipleresponse question was multi-device delivery capability (21%).
The next most important feature was speed (19%) and was
presented to survey takers as speed (player load times) to gauge
how important load times are for hosted video solution offerings.
The need for analytics (15%) and adaptive bitrate (14%) were
also high, as was global delivery (12%). The need for ad insertion
(11%) may be balanced by our respondents response to the next
question, below.
The biggest surprise was the general non-interest in cloudbased encoding (8%). This may be the leading edge of an
emerging trend, or an anomaly, but the data is inconclusive as to
which is most likely.
The next question asked respondents to choose between
advertising or subscriptions for their preferred monetization
approach.
While understanding that some respondents choose not
to monetize their contentmore on that in the subsequent
questions surrounding mobile, emerging, and OTT monetization
modelsresponses to this question indicate that respondents
were evenly split between the two models at 51% for advertising
and 49% for subscriptions.
The next three questions were of the same format. We asked
respondents to choose a percentage that best identified their
companys efforts in monetizing online media streams in three
categories; mobile, smart television/OTT, and gaming consoles.
We combined over-the-top (OTT) and smart televisions together
as a way to determine whether television-centric devices that were
primarily designed for media consumption differed in any way
from gaming consoles.
0.0
Multi- Speed Analytics ABR Global

Ad
Cloud device (player
Delivery Insertion Based

load times)
Encoding

Chart 5: What percentage of your streams are respondents monetizing (by platform)?
68%
Mobile
15%
78%
SmartTV/OTT
9%
10%
Game Console
0%
20%
n <10%
40%
n 10%2%
60%
n 26%50%
7%
3% 2%
89% 5%
3% 1% 1%
80%
n 50%90%
100%
n >90%
or OTT is very high (78%). The other end of the monetization

spectrum is equally bleak: A very small percentage have
monetized more than 50% of their total offerings (5%).
On the gaming console front, efforts have just begun. Slightly
more than 2% of all respondents have monetized more than 50%
of their total offerings, with almost 89% of responses indicating
that companies have monetized less than 10% of all their media
offerings for gaming consoles.
We then asked a series of questions about the same
monetization issue, but in a series of free-form answers.
What we anticipated finding was a consistency of answers.
What we actually found was more nuanced, with the following
two charts indicating how respondents work through
monetization issues.
The first question asked: How does your company currently
monetize mobile content delivery?
From this, we sorted answers into like-kind groups,
represented in the chart below:
None AdWords/YouTube Subscription Sponsorships Advertising Other

48%
4%
11%
2%
12%
24%
t
t
Approximately half of respondents claimed they made no

monetization effort for mobile content, with some noting they
are not allowed to do so (e.g., government or not-for-profit) and
others noting that non-standard subscription fees (e.g., college
tuitions) covered their costs. Still others noted that they were
for-hire content producers, with some charging a small fee to their
traditional media customers to make training or informational
videos available online upon completion of the production process
[Chart 5]
The chart above shows responses for those whose companies
do deliver online media (this includes both traditional media
companies as well as government entities) and highlights just
how far companies have to go in monetizing non-desktop online
media content delivery. Mobile is the farthest along, with 16% of
respondents saying their companies have realized at least a 50%
monetization rate for mobile content delivery. On the flip side,
more than two-thirds of respondents (68%) said theyve realized
less than a 10% monetization effort for mobile.
The picture is even bleaker when it comes to smart televisions,
and gaming consolesor, it may be more opportunistic,
depending on ones perspective. Of the respondents in the
Smart TV/OTT category, the percentage of companies that have
monetized less than 10% of all their media offerings for Smart TV
4% 3%
The second question asked a similar question, lumping game

consoles in with Smart TVs and OTT boxes: How does your
company currently monetize game console, Smart TV, or OTT 40
content delivery?
From the responses, we again compiled a series of answers into
30
like-kind groups, represented in the chart below:
Chart 06: Limiting Factors

for Hosted Video Services Strategy
35%
29%
None AdWords/YouTube Subscription Sponsorships Advertising Other 20

77%
2%
4%
1%
7%
12%
10%
10
Astute readers will note that we split out Google AdWords and
YouTube into a separate grouping of advertisements. We did so
because a statistically significant number of responses used these
two similar groups of advertising revenue models to define their
monetization. This may be due to the ease and convenience of
adding AdWords to a site or YouTube channel, and convenience
is often key to enticing content owners to share their content in a
public hosted video platform.
We also asked whether respondents used multiple hosted
video solutions providers. Almost one-third said they use more
than one provider, with 68% claiming they only use one solutions
provider.
Finally, we asked respondents to highlight any limitations they
face in choosing HVS to publish and monetize their online video
content delivery. [Chart 6]
CONCLUSION
This report, written by the author in conjunction with
Streaming Media magazine, Unisphere, and the reports sponsor,
Brightcove, highlights a number of key findings.
On a personal consumption level, many of the responses to
this survey are aligned with responses weve received in earlier
surveys conducted by Unisphere and Transitions in 2014.
One trend, which is spelled out in Appendix A, is the
identification of the operating system used by survey respondents.
The trend toward Apple devices when it comes to primary media
consumption devices was quite pronounced, and it is consistent
with findings from third-party surveys that show a decline in
Android usage in North America and, to a lesser extent, Europe.
Second, on a professional level, survey respondents tend to
work for companies that either deliver less than 100,000 or more
than unique streams of online content per month. The chasm
between these two camps, especially pronounced between 250,000
12%
10%
4%
Delivery Quality of Quality of

Prefer
Unfamiliar
Cost
of User of Dashboard/ Internal
With

Experience Program- Develop- Benefits

matic ment
Other
This question offered multiple responses, so the ranking is

semi-logarithmic in nature. Respondents noted that delivery
costs (35%) were the biggest barrier, followed by quality of
user experience (29%), quality of the HVS dashboard or
programmatic ease (12%), and a lack of familiarity with the
benefits of an HVS (10%).
A small group of respondents said they preferred to develop
their online media delivery solutions internally (12%).
to 1 million unique streams per month, presents opportunity for

the right HVS offerings.
In addition, we found that responses were almost equally
divided between advertising and subscriptions as an effective way
to monetize content. Moreover, for those respondents who did
not work for companies that dont focus on directly monetizing
contentsuch as contract production houses, government
organizations or higher educational institutionsthe need to
monetize mobile delivery does not appear to be a concern for the
near term.
One final note to ponder, especially when it comes to
enterprise or education content delivery: Many of these same
respondents, while not seeing a need to monetize mobile content,
do see a need to deliver to as many screens as possible. A number
of free-form responses indicated that mobile is driving their
companies to re-examine internally-built delivery solutions,
which presents yet another opportunity to HVS providers.
APPENDIX A: PERSONAL VIEWING HABITS

We had almost 1,000 respondents complete this section of the
survey, which offers a broad insight into viewing habits. Survey
takers were asked to think of these as Responder as Viewer
questions.
As with our previous two 2014 reports, sponsored by Akamai
and Piksel, the first question in this Hosted Video Services survey
asks respondents to use a list to identify the device they consider
their primary personal device when viewing content. [Chart 8]
Chart 08: Primary Personal On-Demand Media Viewing
Tablet
17%
Chart 09: Primary Operating Systems for Media Viewing

Android
10%
Other
6%
Microsoft
Windows
33%
Desktop
31%
Apple
OS X
31%
IOS
14%
Chrome/Chromium 3%
Linux 2%
Smartphone
10%
Laptop
24%
Other 1%
The pie chart, above, shows that laptops are still the most
dominant form-factor for primary online media consumption,
and the combination of desktops and laptops still make up a
majority (55%) of primary media consumption for our survey
takers. Tablets and television were neck and neck, with tablets
(17%) barely squeaking by television (17%) in a photo finish.
Smartphones came in at a respectable level (10%).
Drilling down, we analyzed respondents answers around
their television consumption patterns, to better understand how
online streams are consumed on the biggest screen, be it via smart
television, streaming dongles, or set-top boxes.
Responses for primary consumption of online video streams
on a television, from highest to lowest number of responses: OTT
boxes (Apple, Roku, etc.), Smart Televisions, streaming dongles
(Chromecast, FireTV Stick, etc.), and gaming consoles.
The second question asked respondents to report which
operating system they used to primarily consume content on the
screen chosen in question one. [Chart 9]
Apples Mac OS X, its desktop and laptop operating system,
combined with its mobile-centric iOS operating system,
accounted for a large share (45%) of media consumption
operating systems. The single biggest OS choice, however, was

Microsoft (33%) followed by OS X on its own (31%).
For mobile operating systems, iOS (14%) topped the list,
followed by Android (10%).
Other operating systems in use were Chrome/Chromium
(3%), Linux (2%), and Roku (2%). The latter was of note, as it
was not on the list, but 23 respondents took the time to write it in
as their primary consumption operating system.
We then asked respondents what kind of content they
consumed, outside of their professional roles in the streaming
media industry. The following chart provides details around their
responses. [Chart 10]
Chart 10: Primary Content Consumed By Type

Other
5%
Enterprise
(training)
15%
Premium
45%
Social
Media
30%
Promotional
6%
t
t
Television
17%
Premium content viewing (45%) accounts for almost half

of all responses, followed by social media content (30%). This
represents a significant departure from the responses to this
question in previous surveys. In previous surveys, conducted in
2014, we found that 59% of respondents chose premium content
viewing, but only 23% chose social media viewing. Are the tables
turning towards social media as primary content consumption
platforms?
Enterprise viewing (15%) was also slightly higher than in
previous surveys. This includes webcasts and training sessions,
with promotional content (6%) bringing up the rear.
While this question intentionally did not offer an all of
the above response, approximately 5% of respondents let us
know that they equally consume content from several or all of
the questions choices on their primary online video streaming
device. Additional types of content included news clips, sports,
educational videos, adult entertainment, and streaming audio.
Seeking to gauge the percentage of live-linear viewing versus
time-shifted viewing, we asked respondents whether they watched
their favorite shows live or later. The following chart shows their
responses. [Chart 11]
trend towards time-shifted or on-demand viewing is by far the

dominant choice for survey respondents.
We then asked respondents to tell us which device they used
to consume live content. Specifically we asked, Is your primary
live media consumption primarily via television (cable, OTA) or
online streams?
Survey takers told us they still prefer the television, as shown in
the chart below. [Chart 12]
Chart 12: Live Content Consumption
Television
53%
Online
Streaming
47%
Chart 11: Favorite Shows Consumption Mode
Live
34%
TimeShifted
66%
t
t
The chart only tells half the story, though. We provided three
choices for this question: live, time-shifted, or both. The both
choice was the majority choice (51%) while live-only answers
were the lowest (9%). Time-shifted-only viewing (40%) came
in at a higher rate than in previous surveys, meaning that the
Television (53%) accounts for barely more than half of total

responses. This equates to an approximately 3% decline from
surveys that Unisphere conducted in 2014. In this survey, online
live streams consumed in a non-television setting rise to 47%,
the highest level ever. The percentage of overlap between survey
respondents is often very low (~15%) so we are not yet ready to
declare this move a consistent trend.
To further delve into this line of thought, we asked
respondents to tell us whether they typically consume live
media content on the biggest available screen. The answer was
a resounding yes with more than 71% of survey takers saying
they use the biggest available screen.
Two comment trends on this particular question caught our
analysts eye. They revolved around technology and convenience
or availability. On the technology front, some respondents
mentioned that they cast their smaller screen to a bigger screen,
in the way that one would use AirPlay to send an iPad or iPhone
video stream to an Apple TV.
10
On the convenience and availability front, respondents noted

that they go for the biggest available screen if it is conveniently in
the same room or bemoaned the fact they would like to but its
an option only about one-third to one-quarter of the time.
We then asked respondents to identify their largest available
screen. [Chart 13]
Chart 13: Primary Personal On-Demand Media Viewing
Tablet 1%
be watched on a television, at least not via over-the-air or cable

broadcast services.
The next two questions in our survey, 9 and 10, dealt with
personal response to slow-loading content.
The first question asked about the length of time a respondent
would wait until attempting to refresh a video. Specifically, we
asked: If a video is slow to load, how long do you tend to wait
before you attempt to refresh the viewing attempt? [Chart 14]
The response to this question surprised both the client and our
analyst. From an analytical perspective, it is notable that almost
60% of all respondents indicated they would wait longer than 5
seconds, and only 5% said they would attempt to refresh in the
1-2 second range. Respondents tend to under-report the length of
time they wait, so the findings are intriguing. [Chart 15]
Chart 15: Slow-Loading Video, Typical Response
Desktop
9%
Television
82%
Wait Less Than 5 Seconds

26%
Laptop 4%
Other 3%
Wait More Than 5 Seconds

58%
Smartphone 0%
Chart 14: Slow-Loading Video Wait Time,

Prior to Refreshing
12 Seconds
5%
35 Seconds
38%
510 Seconds
57%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
Abandon Video
Immediately 16%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
The next question asked for the same information in a slightly

different way: If a video is slow to load, what will you typically
do? In this case, the question is designed to see whether content
is immediately abandoned if the potential viewer perceives
they will have to wait. A slightly higher percentage (16%) than
previous surveys said they would abandon the video immediately,
with a large majority (58%) saying they would wait more than 5
seconds. The remaining group (26%) said they would wait up to
5 seconds.
Several of the additional comments for this question also
raised the it depends scenario, but a few of the comments also
said that respondents would wait much longer than 5 seconds if
the content were compelling. Knowing what goes into popular
content delivery, our industry respondents are probably more
likely to wait it out than versus the average consumer, but the
findings are intriguing nonetheless.
t
t
It was no surprise that television (82%) took top marks.

Desktop monitors (9%) were followed by laptops (4%) and
tablets (1%). Smartphones registered less than one-half of 1%,
meaning that the convenient screen wasnt always the one that
media was consumed on.
A number of respondents (3%) opted for other to inform
us that they had projectors and front-projection screens, ranging
from 72 inches to 120 inches. Others noted that the biggest
available screen is relative, as some live streaming content cannot
11
Chart 16: Video Playback Choices: Quick Start vs. Stalling

Waiting
to Start
19%
Our final personal online media consumption question asked

respondents whether it is worse to wait for a video to begin
playback or for it to stall partway.
Which is worse, the question asked, waiting for an online
video to start, which then plays without interruption, or having
the video start immediately but then having it stall part way
through? [Chart 16]
As the chart to the left shows, overall responses were more
than 4:1 in favor of waiting a bit longer for the video to start, if
waiting meant it would not stall part way through the videos
playback.
Stalling
Partway
81%

Hosted Video Services Survey and Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hosted Video Services Survey and Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HOSTED VIDEO

SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONDENT PROFILES

Streaming Media magazine and Unisphere Research, along

Approximately 900 respondents completed this 28-question

Chart 01: Primary Content Delivered By Type

focused on enterprise content delivery (32%) less than overall

Chart 02: Company Focus: Live vs. On-Demand

More than half of respondents (52%) work for a company

This question is geared toward the activities of the

The remaining responses present an interesting picture of two

Chart 03: Average Monthly Video Traffic Served (Streams)

This chart shows a chasm between those that deliver 100,000

Chart 04: Critical Hosted Video Services

Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

We then asked respondents to rate the critical features and

Multi- Speed Analytics ABR Global

or OTT is very high (78%). The other end of the monetization

None AdWords/YouTube Subscription Sponsorships Advertising Other

Approximately half of respondents claimed they made no

The second question asked a similar question, lumping game

Chart 06: Limiting Factors

Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.

None AdWords/YouTube Subscription Sponsorships Advertising Other 20

Delivery Quality of Quality of

This question offered multiple responses, so the ranking is

to 1 million unique streams per month, presents opportunity for

APPENDIX A: PERSONAL VIEWING HABITS

Chart 08: Primary Personal On-Demand Media Viewing

Chart 09: Primary Operating Systems for Media Viewing

operating systems. The single biggest OS choice, however, was

Chart 10: Primary Content Consumed By Type

Premium content viewing (45%) accounts for almost half

trend towards time-shifted or on-demand viewing is by far the

Chart 12: Live Content Consumption

Chart 11: Favorite Shows Consumption Mode

Television (53%) accounts for barely more than half of total

On the convenience and availability front, respondents noted

Chart 13: Primary Personal On-Demand Media Viewing

be watched on a television, at least not via over-the-air or cable

Chart 15: Slow-Loading Video, Typical Response

Wait Less Than 5 Seconds

Wait More Than 5 Seconds

Chart 14: Slow-Loading Video Wait Time,

The next question asked for the same information in a slightly

It was no surprise that television (82%) took top marks.

Chart 16: Video Playback Choices: Quick Start vs. Stalling

Our final personal online media consumption question asked

Вам также может понравиться