The Trouble With Hulu... Too Many Competing Interests
from the gonna-kill-it dept
Nearly a year ago, we questioned whether or not Hulu could survive. It's not that we don't think the product is well done or well liked. Other than the annoying regional restrictions which pisses off lots of people, the overall service is quite nice. The problem is that there are just way too many conflicts to deal with. The company is owned, in large part, by the networks, and that's leading to all sorts of pressure and complaints about how ads are sold and whether or not there should be a subscription service. From what I've heard, the folks at Hulu understand quite well how an internet-age company should act. The company's rather honest explanation for its fight with Boxee certainly suggested the problem was at a different level than with Hulu management. But... with Hulu having most of its ownership from legacy industries, combined with having so many different players involved in the ownership, it shouldn't come as a surprise at all that the company is now coming under pressure to do things (subscriptions, limits, etc.) that will certainly kill off whatever good has been done. And, since some of the pressure is actually coming from the cable guys as well (who view Hulu as a huge threat), this will only get worse if, as is widely expected, Comcast completes its purchase of NBC Universal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: online video
Companies: hulu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The frustrating thing about that is I'm TRYING to give them ad revenue! I'm trying to support the shows I love! But I also want to watch them from the comfort of my computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ATTENTION MEDIA EXECS:
Despite my general opposition to the concept of copyright and other IP, despite my feeling that I should be able to share information however I choose, EVEN SO, I STILL PREFER TO VIEW AD-SUPPORTED CONTENT ON HULU BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF A FAIR EXCHANGE.
AS LONG AS HULU DOESN'T SUCK(which perception is going to vary within your audience), then I'm happy to sit through your 15-30 ads, I even check out your long-form ads from time to time when the option arises. I have even clicked through to the website when the ad was interesting.
BTW it doesn't seem like you care when I click "Dislke Ad," such as when I'm watching cartoons with my kids and you show ads with naked women in the shower or graphic violence or worse those damned PETA ads.
Tip: If I click dislike, then you are wasting the opportunity to sell me something else when you continue to show the same ad over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Picture this:
And what could be worse for a technology based company than to not MOVE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We saw how Apple surpassed Sony. I'm sure with all the meddling by the content industries, Hulu doesn't stand a chance either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly.
"it doesn't have the leverage so it will end up twisting on the vine and dying"
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Apple stepped up with the I-Tunes store to present the first well designed, well publicised place where you could buy MP3s rather then just download them illegally. The content industry was faced with supporting them for a take of their profits or not supporting them for no profits.
It should be a very similar situation for Hulu but due to their owners they aren't able to use the leverage that they should glean from their tech and position. Also because Hulu exists and is under the control of content creators it means that there doesn't seem to be a space for an I-Tunes type interloper to cut in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly! But it shouldn't be a problem. If you keep too tight a hold on your content, you will allocate a lot of resources to policing access and, as a result, you will produce less (and of lesser quality) new content. On the flip side, if you don't waste too much on policing your content, you'll have much more to spend on new content. Putting it in simple terms: would you rather get revenue out of 90% of little and crappy content or 10% out of a lot of high quality content. The key is to find a balance somewhere in-between that works for you and for your clients and go from there.
Unfortunately, the content providers haven't figured out their balance point and they're not even trying to. They insist that they should get 100% out of everything they have... and that's unrealistic. It wasn't happening even before the Internet and it will surely not happen after the creation of the Internet as long as there are still humans alive on the planet. They might get it criminalized, but look at how well that worked with the war on drugs or the prohibition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a functional free market, the disgruntled users could easily migrate to other ISP without any other intervention. Nevertheless, as we all know, the competition in the ISP business in the US is pathetic bordering on non-existent. In my opinion, this should become an antitrust issue if the deal goes through. Let's venture a guess on the probability of that happening...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed, I really hope the feds step in and block this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's put it this way: I don't see Comcast flipping out about someone streaming a Golf channel show through JustinTV. Quite the opposite, they might actually be happy for gaining some more exposure. On the other hand, I do see Comcast treating the next Olympic Games exactly like on NBCU did with the last ones. The difference is that now, unlike NBCU, they also own the communication infrastructure which would make their grip on the broadcasts even stronger... so much more that the term "broadcast" starts to lose its meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with the post, but question Hulu's motives...
The company's rather honest explanation for its fight with Boxee certainly suggested the problem was at a different level than with Hulu management.
Try out the Hulu Desktop to see why I don't think that's accurate. Both Boxee and the Hulu Desktop do much the same thing, except that Boxee is more open (it's open source and extendable by third parties). The BIG WIN for any company would be to become the gate-keeper between content and consumers. A company that pulls that off will know more about the customers (what they watch, what they buy, who their "friends" are) and can start to exert control over the customer relationship. Both the Hulu Desktop and Boxee will run on Windows, Mac and Linux, which is what many, if not most, set-top boxes run.
I think Hulu doesn't like Boxee because both companies ultimately want to do the same thing: Be the choke point between content and consumers. If it's just that Hulu's owners didn't like that Boxee was giving consumers a nice interface to watch Internet video on their TVs, then Hulu would not have created the Hulu Desktop to do the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, users block ads, don't want ads in the video, don't want to subscribe, and don't want to pay in any manner. Oh yeah, they really do want the videos for free.
Don't blame the "legacy industries", blame unrealistica customer expectations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you think that no one would step in and fill the gap if the incumbents would simply go out of business overnight? If you do, you're just kidding yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think there is a middle ground that would be acceptable to both parties. I know that I'm often very annoyed by the shear number of adverts that are thrown at me on TV these days but I don't mind a few short adverts at the beginning of something.
I also think that many content producers have forfeited a level of trust. They threw so many adverts at people that the backlash was inevitable, hence AdBlock etc. The content producers got greedy and so annoyed the customers who found a way around it. Its all about trying to find a position which works for both parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The ads are significantly shorter than regular TV ads by half. There are fewer per show, and they often give you options for how you view the ads. Just because you don't understand the opportunity they have to make something great doesn't mean it isn't HUGE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: users don't want to subscribe, and don't want to pay in any manner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: users don't want to subscribe, and don't want to pay in any manner
On Hulu, there is an uproar even over the commercials. I am certain that few users would actually watch the videos with 15 minutes of commercials per viewing hour.
Consumers like Hulu for time shifting, they like it for wherever whenever use, but they don't want to pay even with their attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: users don't want to subscribe, and don't want to pay in any manner
The bright young politicienne quickly stood out in conversation, and so it happened that Churchill turned to her and flatly asked if she would sleep with him for a million pound sterling.
Not to be done in, she instantly masked any feeling of offense and quipped back, matter of factly, "Why of course, a million quid is a million quid, after all."
"Then would you sleep with me for fifty pence?," he asked.
"Absolutely not, and I don't care who you are, sir, I will not be called a whore," came the calm reply.
To which Churchill rebutted, "Madame, the fact has already been establish, we only negotiate the price."
-------------------
"I am certain that few users would actually watch the videos with 15 minutes of commercials per viewing hour."
Well yes, but most anyone will watch when the ads are less than a minute/hr.
Hulu doesn't need more ads, they need to command a higher price (hopefully from their advertisers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu and Limited Commercial Interruption
(Intel also leads as a sponsor on Hulu's content from NBC itself.) However, the issue that a lot of the complainers have is that they see Hulu as an alternative to basic cable (or satellite) MINUS the ads (basically, VOD via the Internet), when that's not the intent of Hulu's owners. That means that sites like Hulu have a perception problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is anyone from CBS reading this?
I used to be addicted to CSI (Las Vegas). Hated to miss it. I was travelling in Europe last winter and figured I would use Hulu to keep up with CSI while away. I found, when I tried it, Hulu checked my IP and wouldn't work for me in Europe.
So, I missed a couple of episodes.
Somewhere along the line, seeing every CSI episode became less important to me. The shows--when I see them--are still great (I like the character that replaced Grissom), but I am less addicted now. And I miss about half the shows.
This isn't a boycott; this isn't a statement that I have some sort of "right" to Hulu. It is simply me recounting that you had me every Thursday night, but you let me break my addiction and now you don't have me.
My data point suggests that letting me view the show from Europe would have been a good thing for you. Perhaps you have other data points that suggest otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Look
I tried HuLu but it's just not as compelling as finding the content I want to watch with my DVR or other wise online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember itunes?
Hulu has the power here, even if it's owned by the content guys. They are not so dumb as to think that a company making money for them should be shut down. If they are, it will quickly be replaced with something they can't control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
never again
You can have my streaming video when you pry it from my cold dead router.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]