Hulu Goes Public
By Maggie March 12th, 2008
In Stories
Hulu goes public today after being in invite-only beta testing since August. The much-discussed partnership between NewsCorp and NBC Universal is a video on demand service that brings users ad-supported streams of TV shows from NBC, Fox, Bravo, and other popular channels. Unfortunately, it’s currently not available outside the US, but Hulu execs say they’re working on that (despite their slogan of “anywhere, anytime”). When I tested it a few months ago, I liked what I saw: a straight-foward, nononsense interface with links to the latest episodes of my favorite shows like “House” and “Project Runway.” Perfect for the times I missed an episode, and make sure I catch the season in order (I really hate tuning into a show and realize I missed a big episode the week before, but now all the surprises are ruined).
I see Hulu and similar sites are new ways of distribution, nothing more, nothing less. And I think that’s pretty cool: except with one or two exceptions, I really have no desire to read cast bios, chat with other fans, or download 300 different wallpapers for my computer – I just want to know what happens next! As a social media effort, branded online television networks like Hulu are successful in their simplicity: audiences want to be able to watch a television show when they want, and brands (networks) want to get more people to watch their advertisements shows. While it’s true they’re losing viewers to other external sources – Internet video, DVDs, TiVo, web browsing – a social media site can provide a very basic utility to viewers and gain at least a small cut back into the market. And that, I think, I counts for something.
More thoughts on this after the jump.
It also makes me wonder how Hulu could expand to make up for dwindling profits in traditional broadcasting. Right now, they’re making their money off the ads shown in the streams, but what if they took the site a step further to offer more niche programming? They could use behavioral trends from registered users to create content-specific channels. Or what if they went the vertical-distribution route and became the place for online browsers to get their news, blogs, videos, photos, drinking games, etc. for a topic like home gardening, reality TV, or whatever? They could combat users’ fragmented attention spans by keeping them on their site through rich content on specific subjects. I’d go for that, as long as they keep it simple: I want to log on to see videos and the other stuff is gravy. I like the no-cluttered page look; if I want more, I want that to be my decision.
Your thoughts?
1 Dan O'Connor // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Being sans-TV myself at the moment, I’m watching most of my fave shows online at the networks’ own sites; how does Hulu improve on these? I mean, I can watch all of season 2 of ‘30 Rock’ on NBC.com - what does Hulu bring me that NBC doesn’t?
That said, I like the idea of being able to go to ONE place for all my tv…
2 Matt Rebeiro // Mar 13, 2008 at 12:14 am
More good news is the UK is about to get its very own shiny new version of Hulu called Kangaroo its gonna comprise BBC, ITV and Channel 4 content. Aside from being perplexed as to why BBC and C4 want to sully their good content alogside ITV’s dross its a promising project… sort of.
I think aggregation is a good thing although i’m more than happy to visit iplayer and load 4OD (which is much MUCH better). I think Dan’s point is a good one, moreover what does aggregation afford the broadcasters - wouldn’t they rather their content be on their site with their advertising? Do I care however? Of course not, I just like good content and don’t care where it comes from.
3 Ben // Mar 13, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I too am happy to go to each source to get my programmes, as I do on the BBC iPlayer for my weekly fix of Life in Cold Blood, which is pretty much all the TV I watch. But for those who want to sit back and be entertained, a behaviourally-targeted customised channel such as you describe, Maggie, a kind of Last.fm for video, might be very popular. The big difference would be that, along with our favourite shows, we would be exposed to similar but perhaps less heard-of content. A good chance for small-time shows to get seen, perhaps.
4 Dan O'Connor // Mar 14, 2008 at 1:26 am
I do like Ben’s notion of a sort of Last.tv - but I’m also skeptical: where music/artists/songs border on the infinite in their variety, there are a fairly limited number of TV shows. There is, I’d say, a fairly severe material limit on the ’sociablity’ of television when it comes to recommendations of TV shows I’ve never heard of. It’s not as though people are out there making brilliant episodic drama in their garages. I’d venture to say that in a few years, really great TV is going to be entirely paid-for only.
5 Maggie Walsh // Mar 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I do agree that Hulu doesn’t really offer much more than say, a network’s own web site that streams their shows, but I like the fact that it’s aggregating everything at once place (offering both Fox and NBC shows). I also prefer Hulu’s setup because I don’t have to go through 9 hoops just to get to my show — it’s just about the content.
Regarding the Last.TV idea, I think it would work. Perhaps people aren’t making full-out dramas on their own, but there is a lot of content that is simply not being shown because it wouldn’t fit in with what mainstream TV watchers want. I wonder if the networks could make some change off a “Pilots” channel — licensing just the pilot episodes of the 90% of shows they reject; at least they’re just not being chucked into the bin, and the producers of the show may get a second chance at getting the show aired. Reminds me of something like VH1’s Acceptable.tv.
6 Matt Rebeiro // Mar 14, 2008 at 6:46 pm
In response to Dan’s secepticism and to build on Maggie’s idea of a Pilot channel I’d say that Sanctuary is the first example of a TV show that started on the net in webisode format before getting picked up by a network. Its from some of the Stargate (SG-1/Atlantis) production team and even uses actors from the aforementioned shows.
Its also not that bad… but then I’m a sucker for SciFi. In fact the SciFi genre was proably the best genre to trial such an idea with as its pretty niche and SciFi’s following is very dedicated. So that suggests that specialist TV content can exist online and be successful.
7 Ben // Mar 31, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Another way TV content can go online is as a sort of vertical channel for one show. Those of us with nothing to do with our evenings can rejoice in the knowledge that Comedy Channel and South Park have agreed equally to split ad revenue on South Park Digital Studios, where one can now watch every episode of South Park, ever, for free. I might break a limb and stay at home for a while.
Of course, it helps to have a show watch by millions for a few years before trying something similar. Just a small issue.