Is Hulu 'The Greatest Destruction of Media Value In Our Lifetime'?

from the that's-one-way-to-look-at-it dept

Hulu, the online video site that has content from most of the major networks, has largely been an early success. While it's thrown up some barriers to users, it's done a decent job of putting attractive content in an easily accessible format, and users have flocked to it. Still, we've wondered if the site will be able to survive in the long run because of the demands of its content providers, which seem to be behind its user-unfriendly moves. To get a glimpse of the thinking that drives these actions, check out a piece over on Paidcontent called Memo To Networks Re Hulu: You're Making A Big Mistake, written by a former TV development exec. He says that giving users what they want -- in the form of Hulu -- isn't a good idea because it undermines the TV networks' brands. He uses the example of NBC, saying its value isn't its programming, but rather "the more than 70 years that it has taken the network to create expectations for generation... The years that it has taken the network to train consumers to expect a level of quality that can't be matched."

Wow. We've talked a lot before about how media companies overvalue their content and don't realize the importance of the services that distribute it, but completely ignoring the value of the content in favor of a TV network brand seems only slightly ridiculous. The guy is right in that network brands don't have any meaning any more, but it's not Hulu that did this. It was because the networks failed to keep up with changing viewer preferences and demands, and responded to the rise of the DVR and other new technologies with attempts to set up obstacles, rather than innovation. Viewers' loyalties now lie with individual shows, and the channel upon which they're transmitted is meaningless. The strong brands are the shows, not the networks. People simply set their DVR to catch all the programs, or they go to Hulu, ignoring the network. Even people who watch their TV the old-fashioned way don't have much awareness or interest in the network brands, beyond the evening newscasts (maybe). The former exec's advice for networks is to keep their shows locked up on their own sites so they can "stand by their brand." But where does the brand ever deliver the value that he thinks they have? Sure, the networks can try to prop up their brands by making things more difficult for their audience online -- but they've tried that strategy, and it hasn't worked. So perhaps opening up access to their content, and getting themselves (and their brands) out of the way, is a better way forward.

Filed Under: brands, hulu, tv
Companies: hulu

Hulu Continues Its War On Users

from the this-is-not-good dept

We've wondered in the past if it's really possible for Hulu to survive in the longterm, given its awkward position between consumers who want to watch content, and content providers who want to put massive limits on how people can access content. This got plenty of attention in the ridiculous (and totally unnecessary) fight to block Boxee. In that case, even Hulu admits that it would like to allow Boxee (which is nothing more than a different type of browser), but that its content providers won't allow it (despite the fact that anyone who uses Boxee can simply open up another browser and watch the same content).

One of the biggest complaints with Hulu is that its content is limited only to people in the US, so those trying to access it from elsewhere get a message saying "too bad." Of course, there have been rather simple workarounds, using proxy servers to access the content. A couple months ago, when I was in the UK, I wanted to watch something on Hulu, but was blocked because of the location. Luckily, I just logged into my VPN, and Hulu let me through. Yet, today that might not work. Apparently Hulu has started blocking various anonymous proxies, saying that to watch Hulu, you need to log out of the proxy/VPN and "prove" that you're really in the states. Beyond being ridiculous, this can be a security risk. Many of us use VPNs for security reasons.

Again, my guess is that this is due to pressure coming from Hulu content providers, rather than Hulu itself. It makes little to no sense for the company to waste time and resources blocking people from viewing their content. However, it's that ongoing split, whereby Hulu has to waste time and resources making its service worse that may eventually spell doom for the company. Those who are blocked are likely to just go elsewhere -- such as BitTorrent -- to find the content they want, and thus the content providers won't get any ad revenue, whereas on Hulu they do share in the ad revenue. It's difficult to see how it makes any sense. Sure, some might point out that there are "rights" questions involved -- since the content providers may not have licenses to display the content outside the US, but given the basic geographic restrictions the site has set up, you'd think that Hulu had passed a sufficient bar that no court would accuse the company or the content provider of willfully violating any license agreements.

There's a pretty simple maxim that Hulu may be unable to follow: if you have to spend time and money making your product worse, you're going to have a hard time surviving. I recognize that Hulu has been something of a success to date, but it's hard to keep that up when you keep screwing over your users.

Filed Under: content, proxies, video
Companies: hulu

Hulu Tries (And Fails) To Up The Arms War Against Boxee

from the this-will-end-badly dept

To be honest, we're still quite confused as to why Hulu's content partners think it makes sense to stop Boxee from showing Hulu videos. If you don't know, Boxee is basically a web browser for your television. If you have a computer hooked up to your TV, you can watch Hulu (and other) videos. You could do it via any browser you want -- including Firefox or IE -- but Boxee is designed to function better for TVs. Yet, for some reason, even though it's just a browser, Hulu's content partners freaked out and demanded Boxee stop. Since then, there's been a bit of a technology back and forth, with Boxee offering workarounds, and Hulu trying to block Boxee's workaround (which Boxee got around quickly again). The latest, as pointed out by a few readers, is that Hulu is now trying to encrypt its content to keep it from working in non-browser apps. Of course, Boxee on the Mac is just like a browser, so the encryption doesn't even do anything -- and Boxee is planning to upgrade its software on other platforms to do the same thing. Honestly, though, the whole thing seems like a waste. Hulu is dedicating technical resources towards making its content less useful, and trying to stop people from using the content in perfectly reasonable ways. That's a recipe for failure. Even if the company is only doing this to appease angry content partners, you have to wonder how Hulu can possibly survive while sitting between content providers who want to lock everything down, and users who want to do the opposite.

Filed Under: online, video
Companies: boxee, hulu

The Hulu/Boxee Battle Continues To Go Back And Forth

from the give-it-up-hulu dept

On Friday morning, we wrote that Boxee had come up with a workaround to get Hulu content accessible again via Boxee. Basically, it just started accessing the content via Hulu's RSS feed: which is exactly how the RISS feed was meant to be used. It's just that the Boxee software would act as the "reader" of choice. It was difficult to see how Hulu could complain without appearing ridiculous: it would effectively have to say that only certain RSS readers could use it's feed... and that's exactly what the company did. By Friday evening, Hulu had a technical block in place. Of course, it didn't take long for Boxee to figure out a workaround to that block, and supposedly (at the time I'm writing this) the service is back -- though, Boxee has now added a little indicator to its software to let you know whether Hulu is accessible or not...

Everyone knows that Hulu's content partners are actively trying to block Boxee, but it's extremely difficult to see what their complaint is. Boxee is simply a different browser, accessing the content exactly as the companies offered it. Users of Boxee can still access Hulu on their computer, it's just in a less friendly UI. All this really does is make plenty of legitimate TV watchers decide to go elsewhere for the content. It simply makes no sense to say Boxee can't access Hulu. It would be like CNN denying mobile web browsers from accessing its site.

Filed Under: content, tv, video
Companies: boxee, hulu

Boxee Routes Around Hulu Ban

from the this-ought-to-be-fun dept

We were among those surprised and confused by content providers trying to prevent Boxee from accessing Hulu content. If you don't know, Boxee is basically an interface for watching video content from the internet on your TV. You hook up a computer to your television and effectively use Boxee as a more TV friendly browser. As part of the list of internet content you could view, Hulu was a popular option, but Hulu's content partners protested -- perhaps because they're negotiating with cable companies on exclusive internet rights. But, there seemed to be absolutely no legal reason to stop Boxee from offering the content. After all, Boxee was just a browser for the content, like Firefox or IE or Safari.

Well, now it looks like Boxee is trying to push the matter a bit. It hasn't re-enabled access to Hulu exactly, but it has launched an RSS reader that will handle video, including Hulu's own RSS feeds. It's not a perfect solution, but effectively Boxee is pointing out to Hulu and its content partners, that they've made the content available for consuming, and all Boxee users are doing is consuming it as offered. It will certainly be interesting to see how Hulu responds...

Filed Under: content providers, hollywood, tv
Companies: boxee, hulu

Universal, YouTube Collaboration All Depends On Execution... And Community

from the give-them-the-benefit-of-the-doubt? dept

A bunch of different sources are reporting on a "near deal" between Universal Music and YouTube to create a special stand-alone music video site, sort of like a "Hulu for music." As has been widely reported, all of the major record labels have been in talks to try to come up with new deals with YouTube -- with most of the earlier focus concerning how to deal with user-uploaded clips that contained music. Famously, Warner Music pulled out of discussions, when it was angry about the terms of the deal. Sony Music, however, recently renewed their deal. The Universal Music deal would be something much larger -- focusing more on content put on an entirely new site by the label itself. The other major labels have been offered the option of joining in as well.

Of course, no deal is definite, and with all of these things, the devil is in the details. The News.com report notes that the "benefits" that each party brings to the table is that Universal would bring the music, while YouTube/Google would bring the technology. If that's really all there is to it, then it's missing the point of YouTube. The value has never been in the technology itself -- which isn't even as good as some others', and not all that hard to replicate. The value in YouTube has always been the community. Many people now go to YouTube first to find any kind of video they're looking for -- and there's a large and growing community of folks who use YouTube to communicate with others. Creating an entire site to get rid of the riffraff just for the sake of selling higher CPM ads may sound good at first, but if it does so in a way that diminishes the value of the community, it may limit the usefulness or success of the site. In fact, at just about the same time that news of this possible deal was leaking, news was breaking that PluggedIn, a site that tried to be a "Hulu for music" and apparently had wonderful technology, was shutting down.

Filed Under: music videos
Companies: google, hulu, sony music, universal music, warner music, youtube

Is It Impossible For Hulu To Survive?

from the too-many-competing-interests dept

We've pointed out in the past that you don't compete against piracy by being lame, and you have to give Hulu at least some kudus for doing its best early on not to be lame (despite plenty of expectations to the contrary). However, every time we've mentioned Hulu around here, we've noticed an awful lot of pissed off comments from users, who complain about too many advertisements or the ridiculous location restrictions (or music restrictions) that Hulu has to put on content at the request of content owners. And, now, with the removal of Hulu content from Boxee, some are beginning to question whether or not Hulu is driving people back to unauthorized options for TV content.

The real question, however, may be whether or not it was ever possible for Hulu to really succeed. This isn't to knock the team at Hulu, who have actually gone beyond most expectations in delivering what they could, with a definite focus on usability and making the service as reasonable and useful as possible. But, with so many competing interests tugging them in every direction, it's nearly impossible for the company to actually satisfy the content providers and viewers at the same time. We've seen it over and over again -- with content providers having totally unrealistic expectations of what sort of limitations need to be placed on their content -- not realizing that whether they like it or not, there are other options out there. Hulu did a pretty good job "competing" with those free options, but as content providers get more and more assertive with their demands for limitations, it seems likely that the company is going to find it more and more difficult to compete against better, more engaging and less annoying (if illegal) competing sites. You don't compete against free by being lame. Hulu seems to recognize that -- but Hulu's content providers still haven't gotten the message.

Filed Under: content providers, online video, technology providers, tv
Companies: hulu

Cable Companies Negotiating To Control What TV Shows You Can Watch Online

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Earlier this week when Hulu cut off Boxee, supposedly at the request of its content partners, there was some speculation that the real pressure may have come from the cable companies who are losing customers at a pretty rapid clip. And, while the content companies pretend to deny it, the fact that people can get so much content for free online is almost certainly contributing to that situation.

Now, in theory, this should be a good thing for the TV guys -- who you would think want as many people watching their shows/channels as possible. But, the problem is the business model. Doesn't it always seem to come down to the business model? The TV networks make so much money by selling the channels to the cable companies, that they're scared to death of losing that revenue. We saw a hint of this late last year when Viacom and Time Warner Cable played a big game of chicken over channels like Comedy Central and MTV.

However, now reports are coming out that the cable companies are negotiating with TV programmers to offer their TV content exclusively via their cable internet offerings. In other words, forget Hulu and routing around the cable company and the $80/month they're charging you. You'd have to keep your cable, even if you don't want it, just to get access to many TV shows over the internet (well, legally). Not surprisingly, both the cable companies and the TV programmers seem to like this sort of deal: the programmers continue to get their big fees from the cable companies, and the cable guys avoid losing many more subscribers. Comcast's CEO Brian Roberts is even saying "Online video is our friend, not our enemy."

And, to some extent he's right. If Comcast is going to survive it does need to look at online video as a friend, rather than an enemy -- but the problems may come about if they think that they can force customers to only get online TV if they keep their cable TV service at such a high price. Because, while these deals may make sense for the TV networks and the cable guys, they seem to be forgetting the customers -- many of whom have received a nice taste of TV online for free, and aren't going to be happy about having to pay up for it. The problem is that these cable guys aren't adding any new value. In actuality, it seems like they're looking to take away value from what's already out there -- and that never works. It will likely just lead to increased piracy, increased anger at the cable companies, and a continuing of the downward spiral. But, these days, watching old school companies accelerate their own downward spiral happens so often, you almost have to assume it's likely.

Filed Under: cable companies, exclusivity, internet, networks, tv, video
Companies: comcast, hulu, nbc universal, time warner, viacom

Hollywood Shoots Itself In The Foot... Again; Removes Content From Boxee

from the there's-stupid-and-then-there's-hollywood dept

I've been hearing such wonderful things about Boxee lately that I had actually been meaning to test it out in the next few weeks. It makes it quite easy to view internet content over your television -- helping to bridge that "final gap" between the internet and your television. Boxee has done a nice job integrating a variety of different legal online video services so you can watch them all via your TV. Obviously, one of the big ones was Hulu, which provides video streams of some of the most popular shows on television. There are some dumb limitations associated with Hulu -- including geographic restrictions and music licensing restrictions -- but for those who can use Hulu it actually works quite well (surprising for an offering set up by NBC Universal and News Corp.). The folks at Hulu have actually been pretty upfront in explaining the limitations and their own frustrations in dealing with some of the very content providers who funded them in knocking down some of the more idiotic restrictions.

However, now it appears those content providers have shot themselves in the foot again. Christopher Froehlich alerts us to the news that Hulu's content providers have demanded that Boxee stop streaming Hulu content and Boxee is going to comply. Hulu has a post on their own blog, where they certainly sound quite apologetic about the whole thing:

The maddening part of writing this blog entry is that we realize that there is no immediate win here for users. Please know that we take very seriously our role of representing users such that we are able to provide more and more content in more and more ways over time. We embrace this activity in ways that respect content owners' -- and even the entire industry's -- challenges to create great content that users love. Yes, it's a complex matter. A tough mission, and a never-ending one, but one we are passionately committed to.

For those Boxee users reading this post, we understand and appreciate that you're likely to tell us that we're nuts. Please know that we do share the same interests and won't stop innovating in support of the bigger mission.

Kudos to Hulu and its CEO for at least explaining the issue in a human, rather than corporate-PR-speak way. And, yes, it's the content providers who are nuts, rather than Hulu. After all, wasn't the point of putting the content on Hulu to get more people to watch the content? Why would they possibly try to make it more difficult for people to watch. Oh, wait, we forgot. NBC Universal thinks it's a good thing to make their content hard to watch.

But, to be honest, it's difficult to see how there's even a claim at all by the content providers at all. They put the content on Hulu so that anyone watching the content via the internet on a computer within the geographic restrictions should be fine. Boxee is just an application on a computer. It's functionally identical to watching the content on your computer screen. The only real difference is that the "screen" is a television instead of a monitor. But the mechanism is identical. It's difficult to see how the content providers can claim any right whatsoever to say that you can watch the content that they purposely put online only on a specific type of screen. I can understand Hulu not wanting to upset its content providers. And I can understand Boxee not wanting to upset Hulu... but I can't see how those content providers have any legal right to make this request at all.

Hell, I imagine users of Boxee (depending on their setup) can simply use the computer they already have hooked up to their TV to surf directly over to Hulu. The interface might not be as nice, but they'll still get to see the content. In those cases, it's not even about the screen -- but the browser. It's perfectly legal for me to hook up my laptop to a TV, surf over to Hulu in Firefox and watch a show. All Boxee does is put that into a different browser -- a better browser for TV. Since when does any content provider get to say that it's okay to watch the content they put online in one browser, but not another? In the end, what good at all does it do to ban Hulu on Boxee other than piss people off?

Filed Under: content providers, hollywood, tv
Companies: boxee, hulu, nbc universal

Music Licensing Rights Hindering Hulu As Well

from the live-by-copyright,-die-by-copyright dept

The main backers of the online video site Hulu, NBC Universal and News Corp., are two of the stronger supporters of our copyright system, and have, at times, been known to push to make it even more stringent in order to "protect" their works. So, it's interesting to see them discovering that draconian copyright rules can come back and bite them as well. We were just covering some of the problems various TV shows have had being put on DVD due to licensing problems, and now it appears those same problems are making it difficult to get some shows up on Hulu -- despite the fact producers would like those shows online.

One of our readers, named Mark, wrote in to let us know that he and his wife had been watching the old TV show The Pretender on Hulu, when they realized that some of the episodes were simply missing (including the entire final season). He wrote to Hulu to ask why, and was told:

"Thank for letting us know that some episodes from The Pretender appear to be missing from our lineup. Individual episodes are sometimes held up due to rights issues, quite often related to music used in the show - and that's the case this time - some of the music in episodes 17 and 18 couldn't be cleared for online streaming. We'll continue to request them from our content partner, but at this time we can't offer them though we'd love to."

It's still difficult to understand why we would ever design copyright law and licensing policy in this manner. After all, having certain songs included in a TV show is never going to hurt the commercial viability of a song.

Filed Under: hulu, licensing
Companies: hulu