Skip to content. Skip to navigation
You are here: Home News & Opinion Editorials Hulu - Its Own Worst Enemy
#########
   Alabama
   Alaska
   Arizona
   Arkansas
   California
   Colorado
   Connecticut
   DC
   Delaware
   Florida
   Georgia
   Hawaii
   Idaho
   Illinois
   Indiana
   Iowa
   Kansas
   Kentucky
   Louisiana
   Maine
   Maryland
   Massachusetts
   Michigan
   Minnesota
   Mississippi
   Missouri
   Montana
   Nebraska
   Nevada
   New Hampshire
   New Jersey
   New Mexico
   New York
   North Carolina
   North Dakota
   Ohio
   Oklahoma
   Oregon
   Pennsylvania
   Rhode Island
   South Carolina
   South Dakota
   Tennesee
   Texas
   Utah
   Vermont
   Virginia
   Washington
   West Virginia
   Wisconsin
   Wyoming
 

Hulu - Its Own Worst Enemy

by Tom Andry last modified October 26, 2009
I think it should be spelled uluH since it is obviously the evil twin

I think it should be spelled uluH since it is obviously the evil twin

One doesn't have too look too hard to find examples of businesses mismanaged into oblivion. Circuit City's recent inexplicable demise is a textbook example. Is Hulu next? It very well may be and here's why.

Hulu has been praised and lamented ever since its launch. Users love the content and the price (free essentially) but content providers want to do everything possible to keep it out of the living room (and frankly, anywhere other than your computer). Don't believe me? Every time someone figures out a way to get Hulu out of your office, Hulu blocks them - all the with the same excuse, "At the request of our content partners." Boxee brought Hulu to the living room? Blocked. PS3 did the same? Blocked. What about mobile phones with browsers? Blocked.

At the same time, Netflix is posting a 28% increase in their subscribers and 24% increase in revenue over last year. How? By trying to provide content to every possible device. They are on dedicated boxes (Roku, TiVo), Blu-ray players (Samsung, LG, Insignia), Displays (Samsung, LG, soon Sony), and game systems (Xbox 360). They probably have scientists working on ways of beaming content to your toaster, bathroom mirror, and hearing aid as we speak.

"But Netflix doesn't have the newest content," you say. While that is mostly true (they often have the recent episodes of popular TV shows like Heroes and 24 the next day and their deal with Starz! has increased the timeliness of their content), that's not the point. The point is that they are doing what successful businesses have been doing for centuries - giving the customer what they want.

What is Hulu doing? Pulling a Sybil on us. On one hand they are trying to stay relevant and provide timely content. They put up episodes of nearly every TV show the next day and keep it up for weeks. It is a central repository of content instead of users having to bounce around the net for what they want. They are a step above YouTube in that their content is professionally done. On the other hand, they are ruled by their content providers that are deathly afraid of losing revenue to this newfangled Internet doohickey. Even though NBC Universal's TV chief, Marc Graboff, has stated that, "Our research indicates that making shows available online has not cannibalized but has been additive," they still block every attempt to utilize their product.

So why is Hulu their own worst enemy? We all know the reason. Fear. They are afraid of losing advertising dollars. So now their solution is to monetize Hulu through subscriptions?

Whatever marketing genius came up with that plan needs to return their degree to the Crackerjack box they got it out of.

Netflix works with a subscription cost because you get the content ad-free AND people are used to paying for renting movies. It's clear that between the streaming and rental services just about everyone comes out ahead. You'd pay way more if you just rent a few movies a month (which most of us would probably do). What is Hulu going to offer (since the subscription model is really the only one that makes sense, how would pay-to-play on Hulu be any different than OnDemand)? I know what they'll have to offer - no ads. No one is going to pay for Hulu if they have to sit through ads. We can do that at the TV. Heck, most of us are using DVRs now so we dont' have to watch commercials anymore. But a couple of 15-30 seconds of commercials per show (Hulu's current model) feels like a joy compared to the 1 to 4 ratio of commercials to content on cable or satellite. 

Let's put it this way content providers: If I had the option of streaming Hulu with commercials for free or paying a monthly change for a DVR, you'd better bet I'd be looking very hard at the Hulu version (I'd probably do both but that's because I'm a Audioholic and other people shouldn't be judged by me). So now, instead of having one shot of getting commercials to the consumer (people that watch it live), you now have two (because you know no one is sitting through those commercials if they DVR'ed it). 

Hulu is going to kill Hulu through fear. They need to man up and show their content providers that the little bit they might lose in first run ad sales can more than be made up by streaming ad sales. NBC can prove this by providing a service that streams only their content. They need to stop trying to keep their content out of our hands and start facilitating the sale of their own product. We want it. We've been demanding it. Now give it to us.

by Tom Andry last modified October 26, 2009

Recent Forum Posts:

Post Reply
highfigh posts on October 26, 2009 23:11
AccessGuy;639954
OK...if you mean the ratio of commercials/broadcasts its 1:3, if you mean the ratio of commercials/total time, it's 1:4 capiche?


If it's 1:3, the total is 4 segments.
AccessGuy posts on October 26, 2009 23:07
OK...if you mean the ratio of commercials/broadcasts it's 1:3, if you mean the ratio of commercials/total time, it's 1:4 capiche? Perhaps this next example will clarify a bit further: if the ratio of men to women in some group is 1:1, then 50% are men and 50% are women. The fraction is men/(men + women) or women/(men + women). In any case it's certainly a lot of commercials and FAR less then on HULU~!
dar_of_emur posts on October 26, 2009 21:51
Another great read. Thanks Tom.
jliedeka posts on October 26, 2009 17:44
1:3 == 1 to 3 == 25%
1/3 == 1 out of 3 == 33%
ivseenbetter posts on October 26, 2009 14:13
AccessGuy;639701
I believe the actual ratio is 1:3 In other words 25% of an hour show is advertising. This is why, when you watch an hour show on DVR and fast forward through the commercials (in 30 sec intervals via my remote!) the total time is just over 45 minutes.


I thought 1:3 = 33%
1:4 = 25%
Post Reply
 
Join our Newsletter for News & Deals
#########