Time Warner Eyes Hulu Stake, Wants Service To Remove Current Seasons Of Shows
from the don't-innovate-too-much dept
We've discussed for years now how Hulu is hamstrung by the fact that it's owned by the traditional cable and broadcast industry. Owners 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast/NBC have gone out of their way to ensure the service is never too disruptive -- lest it hurt the traditional cable cash cow. And that's been the cable industry's mantra for years now -- crow ceaselessly about how you're "innovating," while simultaneously trying not to innovate too much, lest your customers realize your legacy TV service is absurdly expensive, inflexible, and outdated.As the industry has slowly realized that it can no longer just pretend cord cutting doesn't exist -- things have improved slightly, with Hulu making a renewed effort to invest in original programming and dramatically broadening its content catalog to better compete with Amazon and Netflix. The company has also listened to consumer complaints and now offers an ad free version -- while placing fewer ads in the ad supported option. Hulu is also attracting new investors, with reports that Time Warner is looking to give a $2 billion cash infusion in exchange for a 25% stake.
But while Time Warner isn't making it a condition of the deal, the company is making it clear that it would like to see Hulu pull current seasons of shows in a misguided belief that it can turn back time:
"Time Warner believes that the presence of full, current seasons on Hulu—or anywhere else outside the bounds of pay-TV—is harmful to its owners because it contributes to people dropping their pay-TV subscriptions, or "cutting the cord." In the discussions about taking a 25% equity stake in Hulu, Time Warner has told the site's owners that it ultimately wants episodes from current seasons off the service, at least in their existing form, although that is not a condition for its investment, according to the people familiar with the discussions.The problem is that Time Warner would join Comcast in sharing the delusion that you can be both simultaneously disruptive and innovative on the streaming side, while still magically preventing traditional cable customers from noticing and cutting the cord. Comcast was barred from meddling in matters of Hulu management as a condition of its acquisition of NBC, but it's a condition Comcast largely ignored. It's also a seven year condition that will expire shortly after Time Warner seals its new ownership stake, meaning a double dose of myopic, backward-looking leadership at Hulu at precisely the wrong time.
Though many in the insular cable industry ecosystem like to pretend otherwise, it's simply no longer a debate: consumers are increasingly cutting the cord and migrating to cheaper, more flexible viewing options. Traditional TV customers get 194 channels, but they only watch, on average, about 17 of them. 16% of consumers cut the cord last year, while 23% of consumers engaged in "cord-trimming" (reducing their overall cable package) in some way. 57% of those asked, unsurprisingly, say that price is the biggest reason they're looking to shake things up.
It's not an enviable position for the traditional TV industry to be in. To seriously combat cord cutting, it needs to offer a more flexible product at a lower cost -- something that (with a few "skinny bundle" exceptions) it absolutely refuses to do. What we get instead is turf protection (broadband usage caps), a boat load of denial and failed "me too" services like Comcast Streampix that, thanks to fear of cannibalizing the legacy cash cow, are neither here nor there. The problem is, if Hulu isn't willing to offer what consumers want, Netflix, Amazon, or some other company certainly will.
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 tv, disruption, ownership, streaming, streaming tv, tv
Companies: comcast, hulu, time warner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or just leave them period. Be done with it. Netflix Original content list is growing and growing. Maybe instead read some books. You rent out ebooks from your local library and do that from home. Or go there and rent out some DVD movies, or Audio books, etc all for FREE. I was just looking and you can rent out Chromebook Laptops. You pay for it with Taxes, why not use it?
Why keep playing their games? Laziness? There's a number of things you can do to save money and still have a lot of stuff to keep you busy. Maybe less TV is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is sad, yes. Where I used to live, a library card cost ca. $30 per year. Where I live now, it's free, paid for by taxes. When you can't afford it, you can still use what they have but you'd be stuck in the library doing it.
MBAs again, I assume. Everything must be able to cover its own cost on its own, or it gets cut. That kind of thinking gets us all the annoying "below the line" charges madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go for it TW!
The lost Hulu revenue and lost ratings are just bonuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go for it TW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go for it TW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Go for it TW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go for it TW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
I'm sure I am not alone in saying that, for me, if it isn't on Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc, then IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I don't care what your show, episodes or movie is. I won't miss it.
There a million and one ways I can fill my time. And not just in front of the TV. In addition to the above, I also use PBS, TED, YouTube and others. Thus I often watch more educational or just plain better content than whatever you are offering. But it doesn't matter if what you have is better. It simply is invisible to me. It doesn't exist.
I want to watch it on all of my devices. TV, Computer, phone, tablet, etc. When I want. Where I want. And without cable TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
You're most certainly not alone. I feel exactly the same way.
I signed up for Hulu's ad-free plan precisely so I could watch current season episodes. When that option disappears, I'll weigh whether a continued subscription to Hulu is still of value to me, and most likely I'll decide it is not and cancel it.
But, what is most certain is this: I will not sign back up for cable TV services. Under any circumstances. EVER.
My decision to cut the cable TV cord a few years ago was PERMANENT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
Sure you might never, but people as a whole will come to pay if they can get more value from that. Then again cable has always been about avoiding competition, so this will almost certainly never come to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
The fact is the automobile is vastly superior to the horse and buggy in many ways. Even if the horse and buggy were vastly cheaper (eg, worth the price), it would not appeal to me. And similarly, neither would cable TV.
My break with cable TV is permanent. Just like my 'break' with Microsoft products. If it could change to become what I want, then ok, but there's no way that can ever happen.
In order for me to go back to Cable TV, it would have to have morphed into something entirely different which is equal to or better than the internet services I use now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
Sure, but they're also vastly inferior in many ways. Just look at the price of fuel, and what burning it theoretically is doing to the ecosystem, and it makes jerks like the al-Saud family rich. It's also among the most dangerous things we can do over which we have an almost pitiful amount of control (think drunk drivers or falling asleep at the wheel).
I've always loved the smell of barns and it's pretty cool that horses can create more horses. They also know the way home so drunk, stoned, or asleep they'll get you there.
Automobiles are faster, but that's over-rated in lots of ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey Time Warner / Hulu, here's a free clue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shomi -- Watch This Space
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know my kids will never go back to being told when, what, and how they are to view TV shows, they have better things to do. I myself who grew up watching TV, went through college wanting the TV to just at least be on, gladly cut the cord and I'm down to probably 2-4 shows I will watch during any random TV season. These networks actively made me want to replace a habit which I don't want to start again, and awesomely enough, my kids won't have from the start. I laugh because TV networks are doing this to their selves, and no matter what anyone says they'll refuse to change course until their 10 ft past the cliff Wile E. Coyote style. Hm, I guess some habits do die hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HULU losing current episodes
However, if HULU removes the current season of shows, We will drop it immediately. We can always read another book, play music, go camping and drink with friends to mention just a few things we already do with our leisure time.
TV shows do not define our lifestyle, but sometimes they may enhance it. When a big megacorp is more interested in its ROI than servicing customers, we can help prove we have power too and just tell them to fuck off!. We do not NEED what they are selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since cable and the rest of the providers saw wisdom in shoving off commercials on my dime, the price then was way too high.
Now I don't really care what they do. I am no longer a customer nor a potential customer in the future. I have other things I can do to get entertainment and none of them include PPV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keeping up with current shows is the only reason to keep Hulu. Their standing content library is pathetic, and yes, the lack of complete seasons is very irritating. No one even remotely serious about Hulu as a service is going to make this problem worse.
If I didn't know better, I would think someone didn't want Hulu to be all that useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's it.
They only want you to watch:
* when THEY want
* where THEY want
* on the specific devices THEY want you to use to view
* and if you use a TiVo, you're a pirate commie terrorist thief
Good riddance to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only time I see it mentioned is when website inserts a video from the US-centric service, usually resulting in a "OMG, you're not permitted to watch this because you're foreign. Love, Hulu" message for me.
I usually take that as a "screw you, foreigner". Sometimes, I'll look for the material elsewhere if I can be arsed; a lot of the time, I cannot. Hit enough of these failed videos, and I figure the site doing the inserting doesn't care enough to want my eyeballs either.
I've got enough other stuff to do anyway; watching that video can't have been important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, basically, Wall Street thinks killing current-season means killing Hulu's profits and killing Hulu's appeal to customers.
Hulu's current customers will unquestionably get pissed off, cancel, and quickly move to Netflix, assuming they aren't already Netflix customers.
Hulu loses a ton of money, Netflix gains a ton of money, and Time-Warner ends up pissing away their $2 billion cash infusion and accomplishing nothing but making Netflix bigger and more profitable.
The business development guys over at Netflix have to be laughing their asses off right now. There is literally nothing that legacy entertainment companies won't do to kill themselves faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last gasp
Like a chicken with its head cut off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The biggest problems they are facing is the idea that no one would forgo seeing their content or find a different path to it.
Consumers want to get the content and are willing to pay reasonable fees. Cutting off all of the options has 2 possible outcomes, they goto a competitor who has content or they will find a way to get the content outside the "rules". The cartels are so focused on locking down & keeping control over the content they miss that even die hard nonpirates are getting fed up.
The cartel thinks if you watch it on a tablet during your commute, its a public performance and they need to get extra.
They stream lesser quality to avoid someone finding a way to "steal" the stream, making people who want to pay them unhappy when the stream stutters.
For far to long they have been the only game in town and the big firey sky rock hasn't clued them in that things have changed. They made sure they didn't have to compete and now their asses are bonded to the laurels they were resting on and they can't compete. Willing to bet some industry insiders are still saying privately the internet is just a fad that is gonna die off soon.
In the meantime everytime they insanely cut off access they drive one more person to the realization they don't count. That person will see others who are watching things they can't, and learn how its done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Works on monkeys, works on business execs
Something I've heard about, though I've no idea how accurate it is, involves a way to catch monkeys.
What the 'hunters' do is they have jars they put bait in attached to something, with openings just large enough for a monkey to stick their empty hand inside, but too small for them to remove it once they have hold of the bait. Despite the fact that the monkey could easily escape by simply letting go of the bait, they refuse to do so, and as a result are captured when the hunter goes to check the trap.
The execs of Time Warner and similar companies are acting exactly the same way. They could easily escape the 'trap' that they've found themselves in by letting go of the 'bait', in this case the lucrative profits and control they've become accustomed to, but instead they remain trapped, locked in place until the hunter named 'competition' comes by to kill them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Works on monkeys, works on business execs
The problem is like the weather, we all bitch about it but often do nothing to make it change. I can mention Sony and we all know the long list of failures... but people keep buying. There isn't a connected effort to remind the giants that at the end of the day they need to offer us what we want.
Game of Thrones gets hugely pirated, because of stupid deals locking up the hottest commodity in a system that doesn't work in todays reality. They are proud to be so popular, but are scared of making any changes to the old model to see if a new model might get them money from the "pirates". They get to whine about how they need more copyright to protect it while ignoring money they could be earning by embracing consumer demand.
Until enough people get pissed off enough to demand better, nothing is going to change. Perhaps maybe we should let go of the bait in the traps holding us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Warner or Time Warner Cable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or not. Who owns the monopoly (copyright) over the content?
What I see is Netflix and the rest of the competition jumping into the bandwagon of original self-productions. This is good. And bad. Because it inevitably creates fragmentation. But then again, file sharing is there for all of our needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun with numbers.
Point of order, Mr. Speaker? Ah, statistics. Is that 16% of *all* potential consumers, or only of those signed up for cable? 16% of ca. 300 million potential consumers, or (eg.) 200 million signed up subscribers/customers?
Or, am I totally off-base here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's quantum, innit?
Maybe they'd be better buying a cat....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's quantum, innit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different perspectives
They think they are selling content. But their customers see content that is mostly free over the airwaves, which is clearly being paid for by advertising.
The customers think they are buying a delivery service. When the customers believe they are buying something that is fundamentally different than what the company thinks it is selling, failure seems certain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]