The LA Times today has an article that poses the question of whether Comcast gaining a controlling share of NBCU will put Hulu's currently free content in jeopardy.
"Would Comcast put an end to the Hulu model of using the Web to distribute free TV content?" asked Michael Nathanson, senior media analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "Will Comcast continue to support Hulu?"
Hulu, a partnership between NBC, Fox and Walt Disney Co., has been a nagging concern among Wall Street investors, who see the site not as a hedge against Internet piracy or viral video phenomenon YouTube but as a threat to the economic underpinnings of the television business. The $22 billion a year in cable and satellite TV subscriptions paid to programmers underwrites the high cost of producing all forms of television programming.
Hulu already has limited users' access to certain cable programs, including FX's "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia," in response to an outcry from the television producers and cable companies that object to paying TV programmers hundreds of millions of dollars each year for shows that are offered free online.
Comcast Chief Executive Brian L. Roberts is among the cable executives who have made their concerns known to TV programmers, both privately and publicly. He and other cable executives fear that Hulu could become the free alternative to cable TV subscriptions.
"If I am any one of these programmers, not just ESPN, but the Food Network . . . and I have a business in that 50%, 60%, 70% of my business comes from subscriptions, I want to think long and hard before I just put that content out there for free and not think through what it is going to mean to my business," Roberts said at an investor conference in May.
Owning content would give Comcast some control over the matter.
"Arguably, their ability to shape online content distribution, and to recast windows for video on demand, would be an important attribute of any deal," wrote Craig Moffett, a cable industry analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein.
I'm not a fan of the Comcast deal, and the question has been raised in the comments previously, but Comcast is not going to be the deciding factor in whether Hulu continues to be free or not. There are two other media corporations involved in Hulu, and I don't see them agreeing to a change like that at this time. But I can easily imagine that when it is time to renegotiate current deals, NBCU content may not be available on Hulu any longer. For those of us who have gotten rid of subscription cable in favor of Hulu, let's hope Vivendi decides to keep NBCU.
isn’t GE saying that they will keep about 40-49% of NBCU
Daniel, that’s my understanding, but if the deal goes through (which is firstly dependent on Vivendi), Comcast will have a controlling share.
Isn’t Disney is already doing paid content, but i think network individual websites of recent episodes will always be free forever….
No more free lunch at Hulu maybe. Just means the trough moves to the torrent sites. In general, Internet users are the types who will drive 100 miles to save a dollar.
Why not offer a code to cable and satellite users that they must type in to access cable programing. Then offer a per network monthly subscription for any one who only has broadcast channels on Hulu. But since the big 4 are already free keep them free on Hulu.
No more free lunch at Hulu maybe. Just means the trough moves to the torrent sites. In general, Internet users are the types who will drive 100 miles to save a dollar.
Maybe, but the only things I watch streaming or download are things I can’t get any other way. For example, I watched Supernatural last Thursday and inadvertently deleted it. I would have been perfectly happy to watch it with her on the CW, with commercials, but it didn’t go up until today. I have watched things from other countries that aren’t being sold in the U.S When Torchwood Children of the Earth was on I waited like a good girl, because BBCA showed it only 1 week after it was broadcast in Britain.
At some point I hope that the studios realize that people don’t’ want to wait to see things. I’m perfectly willing to sit through commercials online that I can’t fast forward, but I want it when it is available not six months later or never if a U.S. station never decides to pick up a show. I am even willing to pay a certain amount to see something that is unavailable any other way. The Internet has increased knowledge of available shows and has increased accessibility to them. Hulu was a good place to start. Shutting it down will not stop people who want things when they want them. The studios need to be patient and work to find a money making solution to online distribution.
LindH is right, the move for most people who watch on Hulu will just move to another service (legal or illegal, probably illegal) to get their content, it’s free, doesn’t require people to really do much different other than wait for a bit. I do like Hulu A LOT, I don’t mind the ads since I don’t have to wait and some of the ads make me feel that I’m watching a little TV and makes some of the spots where they are design to cliffhang a bit more realistic.
Actually, I watch Hulu because I won’t pay for cable. I don’t watch tv enough to pay their prices for cable. Not to mention, with 100 channels of nothing I want to watch, why bother? If cable wants to remain relevant, get rid of 90% of the channels and lower their costs. If Hulu went away, no worries. I’ll either (a) get from a torrent the two or three shows I’d care to watch or (b) not watch anything. There are always video games and, heaven forbid, books.
Joe’s right – the major problem with cable is the packaging. Although I’d shrivel up and die without my ESPN or MSNBC, there are easily 200+ channels I don’t watch or need. Whatever happened to the new administration pushing for a la carte cable? Where’s the public outcry for that?
Because for me, it’d be the Broadcast 4, ESPN & family of networks, MSNBC, CNBC, MTV, HBO, Showtime, and BET (maybe). I’d pay about $25 a month for that, maybe even add on the sports pack since its so dang cheap. If cable wants us to stop hating it and their (lack of) service, they need to change their business model.
They need to have a service in which you can pick and choose which channels you want. Me it would be SYFY Fox News (I’m a conservative I admit it.) Fox Business The Disney Trilogy (Channel, XD, ABC Family) and TBS and TNT for Movies and a Christmas Story.
Maybe we should have an article where everyone picks which cable networks they would pick if they could go ala carte. For me it would be AMC, Comedy Central and TCM. HBO, Starz and Showtime I would need for a few months a year.
I wish in the UK, some channels would just air series the same time as America, like FIVE who are airing FlashForward only 4 days after, meaning I don’t have to watch it online… however One Tree Hill is still on season six here and Private Practice on season 2! I’m not waiting another year!!
if they make Hulu a subscription service, I’ll go to NBC’s website and Fox’s website for my shows. If all cable shows are taken off I’ll miss out on Psych and Colbert…
Joe says:
“If cable wants to remain relevant, get rid of 90% of the channels and lower their costs.”
I assume you mean “lower their prices,” since a la carte isn’t going to lower costs. You can moan all you want about bundling, but that doesn’t address the well-known arguments:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=889187
And the second link:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article-Capital-Currents-020109.aspx
That’s stupid! Making Hulu surfers have to pay for content that used to be free! I hate it!