Hulu CEO So Careful Not To Upset Cable Companies, He Might Just Destroy His Own Business
from the nice-work! dept
A year and a half ago we questioned whether or not Hulu could really survive, given the rock and a hard place situation it had put itself in by being owned by the content rights holders, who wanted to limit what Hulu could do in competing against the rest of the online world. This limitation by its owners was quite obvious in the recently released subscription package that felt wanting.Now, Hulu's CEO, Jason Kilar -- who, it should be noted, has always appeared to fight for consumer interests against the demands of Hulu's owners -- has come out and said, quite clearly, that Hulu is not trying to "kill" cable. In other words, he's signaling to the world quite blatantly: Hulu is unable to do the one thing it needs to do to be a successful business.
If Hulu were a truly independent business, the main focus of that business would be to flat-out disrupt the monopoly cable TV business. That's a huge opportunity. But, of course, Hulu's owners don't want that, because they're in this neat symbiotic relationship with the cable companies, where those cable companies keep paying more and more money to the TV companies just to carry their shows. So they don't want to upset that business model -- even if it's incredibly anti-consumer. So, because of that, Hulu can't do the one thing it needs to do. It's telling, by the way, that the only people in our comments, who thought that Hulu's subscription offering was a good deal, were those who had or were planning to ditch cable. And here comes Hulu admitting that it's not designed to help those people. Yikes.
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: cable, internet, jason kilar, strategy, tv
Companies: hulu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hm...
I've always wondered why there wasn't more of an effort by someone with the capital to spend to begin creating the first real internet television "network". Create some REAL programming (I'm thinking maybe even pick up a good but cancelled show or two) and just market the SHIT out of it. First to do it right gets to be the Google of internet TV....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hm...
I think you can do better if you have a dedicated site for online television. In fact....I'm immensely surprised that Google hasn't attempted this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm...
The sites who are still in the game (the "funny or die"s of the web), have survived not from any user support but through the same deals that have kept Hulu afloat. In other words, in order to succeed here, you have to work with the people you're trying to displace. Which means - much like what Hulu is learning - you'll never displace them.
That is...until someone who's able to wrap his or her head around this ridiculousness comes along and sets up a new paradigm. Could happen. I think it would need to start with a reliable way to necessarily obfuscate website viewer numbers, not just from the public, but from the site holders themselves. Then you can start over from the top down, the way TV does it with Nielsen boxes, which only represent about 1% of the TV watching public. Compare to something like Quantcast or Google Analytics, where installing the code onto your site gives you a representation of 100% of the people viewing the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like RIAA, ASCAP, and the record labels. How is the money going to flow? Having NBC under wing will reduce costs but only in the short term. As advertising goes to more and more efficient online, there in increased competition from other sources, the cost of production in hollywood continues to increase, and the ideas for shows get ever worse its a failure waiting to happen.
To use corp speech "there are synergies that will make this a successful merger. It is another time Warner AOL deal. Yeah great merger just like NewsDay and Cablevision.
On a lighter note go to google and type "newsday and" it comes back with ...
"newsday and obituaries" as a the only selection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the real trick is to start a Hulu-esque site independently to actually do what Hulu appeared to be trying to do. Not that it would work without the cooperation of the very corporations who don't want it to work. Catch 22 seems to be their favorite play in the book.
People need to vote with their wallets on these issues. If you don't like the system, don't pay for it. Paying for it anyway simply because there are no alternatives is just going to incentivize the continued watering down or outright refusal to provide the alternatives we do want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do that creating unbelievable high parameters that only a few would be able to satisfy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uummm.... don't they already exist?
*cough* tvlinks *cough* project free tv *cough*
Pardon my cold *sniff*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should have been "...pretended to fight...".
His actions never quite seemed to match his words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Saying
Still true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Nailed It
Hulu can be THE player but they are walking the middle road and not satisfying anyone.
Hulu Plus is a sad joke until they start adding actual value -- ie. all the shows available on the desktop PLUS more good shows with some cable offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry. Hulu is finished. Here comes Apple.
Hulu's days are numbered since they are acting like such wussies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't worry. Hulu is finished. Here comes Apple.
I think Apple will need to embrace ad revenue for that to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Time-Warner Cable
You are a dumb pipe; please start acting like one.
- Your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When ESPN becomes available ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see, hulu is a reseller, pushing other peoples content. quite simply, there is no reason for the networks to push hulu over cable and sat distribution, because there is no financial bottom line reasons to do it. cable is an income creator on a mass scale. destroying it would destroy one of the steams of revenue that the networks need to be able to produce the content to start with.
disruptions has to come from a third party with nothing to lose. hulu disrupting cable would be akin to the networks shooting themselves in the head. i know, some here would like that, but in the end, there is no business model here that gives the networks the same bottom line.
mike, for an mba, you really, really, really miss a bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's sad... Hulu surpassed Veoh and Youtube by being the only one to really be on board with the big boys.
But it's that very "synergy" that is going to make something else huge. It began when they started taking down older episodes when "permission" ran out. Then it's the subscription.
Quite frankly, they need to give the big boys their money back and say they want their stock so they can go indie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Says one thing, does another
This little petty attack on a sound byte is pretty ridiculous. Hulu is a company that wants to make money. If Hulu can make enough money they can get more clout with networks and then they can admit to challenging cable monopolies. Until that time they gotta lay low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Party Lines
It's virtually the same here. Hulu's hands are tied publicity-wise. Even if they sole mantra is "bring down big cable", they can't *say* that.
That said, Hulu will surely remain limited to protect big cable's interests. However, that this is a fatal flaw is debatable. True, the limitation detriments their ability to push the service to where it should be, but at the same time, no one else can either. The relationships Hulu has with content producers is extremely hard to come by, and having them as de facto partners actually prevents any sort of true competition to Hulu.
The moral of the story: Hulu will be just fine; consumers, as usual, get the shaft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Party Lines
It would be nice if that was true. It could be, I suppose, but the intent is worthless if the execution can't be carried out. At the moment, there's not indication to me that they have the means and the will necessary to do so, either now or in the future.
Meanwhile, the thing about Hulu's "relationships" is that they're all with companies that are MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN THEY ARE. That's not a level relationship. Or even a climbable relationship. The networks have a little to gain by pulling Hulu's strings and a little to lose if it fails; Hulu has *everything* to gain by allowing their strings to be pulled and *everything* to lose by going against those partners. No matter how much money they make, Hulu will never even that playing field.
So the idea that Hulu is safe just because they've partnered with all these guys is pure illusion. If Hulu, at any point, starts to look uninteresting to the networks (or something prettier comes along), boom. They're out on the street. No question.
I mean, consumers get the shaft either way, but Hulu's is full of just as many holes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody is afraid of Hulu, nobody expects Hulu to define their space, and the structure of the company insures that nobody at Hulu is doing anything even vaguely creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they add more and cut the price, maybe.....I doubt they will see THAT many additions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]