So I’m going along, minding my own business, watching tv willy-nilly, when an article about Hulu.com catches my eye. So I click that link, which takes me to an LA Times article about how entertainment companies are whining like bitches because, for once, tv is doing what we, the viewer, want.
More tv. More accessible. On my time.
Hulu isn’t perfect, but it was rapidly going that way, by offering more seasons of current episodes so that those of us who missed shows could play catch up as we wait for DVDs to come out.
Yes, whining and complaining because we get what we want, yet they lose money. When did the point of programming stop being viewers? I know, I know, it’s always been about the advertisements, but when Hulu had approximately 42 million viewers in March, according to the LA Times article, which means that they have the viewers, how have they not figured out a way to monetize this? And why, then, is Hulu caving to cable and satellite companies crying?
Companies like Time Warner Cable Inc. and DirecTV Group Inc. pay cable networks billions of dollars each year to carry programming. Believing that they should have exclusivity because their payments support the enormous cost of producing TV shows, such companies have been pushing back against the Hulu freebies. (LA Times)
Yes, follow the money still exists. The advertisement options on Hulu are limited purposefully, and limited in a way that most people can deal with. If things like Tivo/DVRs are great joys to people because they can skip the commercials, doesn’t that put up some kind of red flag to the people who are trying to make money off of us poor, demented, television watching slubs who have nothing better to do than to go right out and buy KFC just because BSG told us to? And while Hulu is pulling well more numbers than traditional tv, they are still making concessions to “the entertainment companies”.
The conflict has forced Hulu to make concessions that have hurt users who have come to expect a rich menu on the video site. In recent months, entire seasons of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” were abruptly taken off the site, along with episodes of other cable TV shows such as “In Plain Sight” and “Psych.”
Hulu even blocked access to a technology that lets its users watch content on their TVs. The move provoked outrage among fans of the software, called Boxee, drawing 385 angry comments on the company’s website.
“Big Media had better come out of their hole and embrace the power of Internet streaming or they’ll be in big trouble down the road,” wrote one poster who identified himself as Lew Ciokiewicz.
Hulu’s pullback in the case of “Always Sunny,” one of the site’s early favorites, underscores the tug of war within established media companies over the wisdom of placing TV shows on the Internet for free.
The quirky sitcom about a group of slackers has become a signature of the FX cable channel. (FX is a division of Fox, whose parent company, News Corp., is one of Hulu’s founding partners.)
Even as FX acknowledged Hulu brought it new viewers, the cable network nonetheless demanded that the video site drop three seasons from its free online offerings over fears it would undercut the show’s ratings and hamper lucrative DVD sales. (LA Times)(bold emphasis is mine)
So, it is basically fear and the fact that Nielsen dictates what money goes where when it comes to viewers and shows. How many shows have suffered for Nielsen ratings? With the advance in television watching that Hulu offers and the specific ability to count hits, with the way Google and other online advertising has helped monetize plenty of sites base on hits or visits, I can’t see how coming on board in such a momentous time wouldn’t be anything but a plus? The article also points out that cable and satellite companies could benefit from the increase in High Speed Internet users.
If cable wasn’t so FRAKKING expensive, then maybe they wouldn’t be so worried about the threat that internet television watching poses. What’s refreshing is that with something that is the fraction of the cost, you can watch great shows. Even if Hulu doesn’t have it, the network site will have it. As long as they don’t go into the “tiered internet” strategy that has been threatened for the past couple of years, the system we have now with online viewing is fair and equitable to the person that can’t afford to pay $70 a month for their entertainment, but can get away with $20-$30.
Entertainment companies, get your head out of your asses and try to make yourself look good, for God’s sake. That’s the best way to make money off of us, whether you know it or not. P.S. if it’s not free (viewing tv shows online, full seasons, anytime we want…) they will download it and if you don’t like it when you can at least monetize it, you’ll frakkin’ hate it when you can’t even count it. </promise>
Cable companies are scared spitless. Why? Because people are turning off their cable to watch shows on Hulu. Now, if they are like me and watched 40 plus hours of television a week, you couldn’t do it. Most reality shows are not on Hulu (at least the few I like), some shows don’t play the same week they broadcast, and some shows only supply clips instead of the full episode. Of course, there’s iTunes, which offers the comfort of watching whenever, but you might as well keep cable for the cost (that is, if you watch 40 plus hours of television a week…)
