Hulu, Colbert, And The Recentralization Of Video On The Web
Erick Schonfeld
Mar 3, 2010

When Hulu first launched, it was supposed to be the media industry’s answer to YouTube: a place where shows and movies from TV would find an audience online and make advertising money directly for the media companies backing it instead of sharing any of that video ad money with YouTube. All that professional quality video from NBC, Fox, and Comedy Central brought in a huge audience, helping Hulu grow into the second largest video site online with more than 1 billion video views a month.

Well, that formula is great for Hulu, but it isn’t working for one of its biggest media partners. Yesterday, Viacom decided to pull two of the top shows from Hulu: Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Both were regularly among the most popular shows on Hulu, which is a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp. When Hulu first convinced Viacom to allow it to distribute Colbert and The Daily Show back in June, 2008, it was seen as a major milestone for the young video service.

Just like on TV, the majority of video viewership on the Web is driven by hits. The Comedy Central shows were big hits for Hulu, as evidenced by Hulu’s blog post practically begging Viacom not to leave. But Viacom decided that Hulu needed Colbert and Jon Stewart more than they needed Hulu. Clips from the shows will still be availble for free online on TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation, where Viacom controls and sells all the video ad inventory through its own sales force.

The Comedy Central shows are not going behind some sort of Murdochian paywall. They are still embeddable and shareable across the Web, but with Comedy Central’s garish video player and its ads. When you have hit shows, people will find them even if they are not on Hulu or YouTube. Viacom made the calculation that it can make more money by recentralizing distribution of its hit shows on its own sites than allowing them to be streamed on Hulu. Why should they split video ad revenues with Hulu when they can have it all themselves. As Andrew Barron in an insightful post

In other words, whatever they get for ad sales over there at Hulu is going to be split up between Hulu and Comedy Central. Why should Comedy Central cut in Hulu on their ad money? They can sell their own ads for a premium and make 100% of the share if they do it themselves. Some shows may be glad to give Hulu 50% or even more of the rev share because Hulu brings an audience they dont already have. But eventually, for any top show, the leverage tide will turn and the middle person will be the first to go.

Hulu is good for shows that can’t attract a big enough audience to their own sites, but there is too much money left on the table by splitting ad revenues for the hits. If this trend continues, with media partners pulling their best content from Hulu once it becomes self-sustaining, that could turn into a long-term problem for Hulu. It’s also bad for consumers, who don’t want to have all of their videos in one or two places rather than have to jump from ColbertNation to TheDailyShow.com to HBO.com to CBS.com and so on.

The economic incentive is too great for media properties to centralize their videos on their own sites. But to consumers, this recentralization looks more like fragmentation and opens up the opportunity for someone else (Steve Jobs, Brian Roberts?) to once again bring it all together in one place. It is clear that consumers don’t want to hunt across the Web for all their shows, but the economics of video advertising are dictating otherwise.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1197071708 Brent Durling

    This makes me sad.

  • randy

    Ouch for hulu, those were 2 of the 3 or 4 only good shows on Hulu. Hulu apparently needs to revise its revenue grab.

  • Alex

    A real shame. I love Hulu & the idea of centralizing great TV shows on one website.

  • http://www.ArticlePlayground.com/ Article Playground

    Does that mean they are sharing ad revenue now with folks online? lol

  • Jim

    This is not good for people who use the Hulu plugin for Window’s Media Center. It will make it more difficult to cut cable for fans of these shows.

  • Matt

    you missed one of the Colbert Report thumbnails on your image

  • Matthew

    Your title is wrong. Everything in one place (Hulu) = centralized. Everything spread out = decentralized.

    Most people associate decentralization with being good, but in this case I want all of my video in one spot.

    Who wins here? Clicker. If I can’t rely on Hulu to serve all of my video needs, then the Clicker has a place.

  • evilbillcosby

    this kind of bullshit makes me feel even better about torrenting

    btw,
    in general, I love targeted ads
    just give me the content I want, the way I want it

  • anon

    “Why should they split video ad revenues with Hulu when they can have it all themselves.”

    Because Hulu provides solid infrastrucuture and UX. It all depends on the numbers, but if Viacom thinks that they can build and maintain a distribution platform for less than the lost rev from the Hulu ad split, then go for it. Personally, I think it’s a stupid long-term move, but it’s Viacom, so I don’t really expect anything else.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549800561 Jason Storer

    This really is too bad… seems like a step backward from internet TV. Just like you said, consumers don’t want to hunt for their TV shows, I’ll just stop watching the show. Lived with out cable TV for 5 years now.

  • baba12

    I would guess hulu will renegotiate with Viacom and take a lower percentage of the ad revenues. At the end of the day Viacom will also settle for it cuz as some have stated consumers like having their content available at a single site.
    It all boils down to middlemen and their ability to make money.

  • http://wonderfam.com Nathan Clark

    What’s to stop Hulu from embedding the Comedy Central (etc) version of those clips on their site and still showing preroll ads? If their value comes from being the centralized source (and having a better UI) then wouldn’t that still be somewhat of a win for them?
    That would also more clearly leave people frustrated with Viacom rather than Hulu.

  • http://iptiam.com iptiam (iPad Therefore I Am)

    Whats reqd. is consolidation of some sort, where you pay for the programme regardless of which device you watch it on. Some attempts have been done but the solution is far away.

  • http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog Kent Beck

    So why doesn’t Hulu reduce the percentage they take of the ad revenue for hit shows far enough that there isn’t incentive for clients like Viacom to go elsewhere? Or can Viacom make more money in any case by selling its own ads?

  • LH

    I kind of wonder if this has anything to do with the soon-to-be-and-much-dreaded Comcast involvement in Hulu. Content-providers and cable companies seem to be going at it a lot lately with carriage fee negotiations, and Viacom keeping total control of it’s online content may help it in future negotiations with Comcast.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1547971505 Sam Snelling

    The large companies don’t realize that they should NOT fuck around with whats working… You can look at all the digital content industries and they just don’t get it…

    Sorry Viacom, I’m not going to go out of my way to view your shitty content. If it’s not on hulu, I guess I will never discover your shows. Enjoy the loss in revenue, short term and long term.

  • http://www.nextwidgets.com Alex

    “If this trend continues, with media partners pulling their best content from Hulu once it becomes self-sustaining, that could turn into a long-term problem for Hulu”

    I believe these media partners are thinking rather short term. Long term, you can’t beat a distributed model.

  • Ron

    Brian Roberts is already doing this with Fancast.com – Daily Show and Colbert are on there.

  • http://elidourado.com/ Eli

    I don’t understand why Hulu doesn’t just offer to take a lower cut of the ad revenue from these two shows. Coase theorem and all that.

  • Skip Knox

    Anyone who wants to see the future of this need only look at the history of radio broadcasting. Radio was as wild and free as the Internet once upon a time. Then came regulation and centralization and corporate take-overs until we have the anemic result we have today. Sure we still have radio and sure plenty of people listen to it. But it’s nothing like what it could have been and once was.

  • acidboy

    Just to be clear, it’s “this kind of bullshit” of moving content from one place where it can make money for the content producers to another place where it can also make money for content producers makes you feel better about (continuing) to get your content from a place that can’t make money for content producers?

  • http://thestateofflux.com Damien

    I love the term “Murdochian”. It’s an adequate description of Rupert and his ways.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=703820733 Charlie Witkowski

    Pretty sweet stuff

  • JT

    Hulu: Wag of the finger

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506991550 Ivan Lazarte

    As a consumer I don’t care where it’s hosted, I just care if I can see it. If Hulu was replaced by a video search engine I wouldn’t care.

  • J. Ray

    It’s a minor change for most fans who wish to view the shows online since full episodes (not just clips) have been available on TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation.com for longer than Hulu has existed. In fact, the ENTIRE ARCHIVE of both shows (ten years of TDS) are available.

  • http://betweenthescreens.com Alejandro Sacasa

    Another component of Viacom’s decision was that Comedy Central is a cable network, that receives carriage fees from cable companies. Posting content online lowers the value of their cable content and threatens this revenue stream. The next chapter in this story may be Comedy Central putting up a wall around the video on their internal sites, allowing only cable subscribers to access the content, or perhaps at least full episodes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=536586409 Nino Tasca

    I agree 100%. I just want to go to one destination to find all of the shows I’m looking for. As long as the videos are high quality and stream fast, I could care less where they are hosted.

    If Viacom is willing to consider the affiliate model, they can share revenue for all leads that were sent directly from Hulu. Seems fair to both parties

  • Mark

    Piracy is just another force in the content market. Eventually content makers and entreprenuers will reach an equilibrium where getting content through preferred channels is easier (and safer) than getting it through piracy channels.

  • Mike

    If all the individual distributers would package their content in a HTPC friendly format like Hulu does (easy to naviate to and control with a remote, full screen, 720p, non-invasive ads, etc) then I would still watch it without it being on Hulu. Perhaps the future is one cetralized HTPC friendly app showing when shows are updated that links to various places where they happen to be hosted.

  • JL

    I’m guessing “this kind of bs” meant Viacom removing good content from a good easy to use website (or desktop player) to two piece of crap websites that aren’t easy to use.

  • JL

    In this case the middlemen (Hulu) are offering a great user experience and interface. If Viacom had good easy to use websites or one central location for all their content then users would already go there and they’d ignore Hulu. That’s not the case, Viacom’s websites suck, there’s many of them first of all, and they’re ugly and annoying. Hulu is great and the desktop player with the queue is awesome. This might be a barely more profitable route for Viacom but it’s a terrible decision for users.

  • JL

    If you give the #1 show more money then the #2 show will want more, then #3 and so on… Hulu provides a great service and they need to stay afloat. If they set a bad precedent today it will be used against them in all future negotiations.

  • Jax Dunbar

    “It’s also bad for consumers, who don’t want to have all of their videos in one or two places rather than have to jump from ColbertNation to TheDailyShow.com to HBO.com to CBS.com and so on.”

    Shouldn’t this sentence read:

    “It’s also bad for consumers, who WANT to have all of their videos in one or two places rather than have to jump from ColbertNation to TheDailyShow.com to HBO.com to CBS.com and so on.”

    And here’s another one:

    “The economic incentive is too great for media properties to centralize their videos on their own sites.”

    Should be:

    “The economic incentive is too great for media properties to centralize their videos on AD-SPLITTING SITES LIKE HULU.”

    -If you want, you can send your article to me before you publish it for proofreading. Aren’t there people that can help you with this on staff there?!

  • http://www.rivierapartners.com Anthony Kline

    You gotta be kidding me…not only were those the best two shows on Hulu, but probably the most intellectually stimulating. Way to go Viacom. I just got dumber

  • steve

    Going from site to site to see videos that I will enjoy is hardly an inconvenience, no different than changing the channel on my TV.

    I can create quick links on my bookmarks bar–I mean what the hell is the bookmark bar for, anyway?

    Should all TV shows be on the same TV channel? Someone should do a study and figure out how many seconds are saved by finding videos on Hulu vs. clicking from site-to-site. I’m guessing about five minutes a year.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=13926524 Ben Hargreaves

    This is a total boon for Clicker. I haven’t been using their service much, since I can get most of what I want from Hulu. But decentralization means I will be using a service like Clicker a lot more because it aggregates online videos to easily access them wherever they are (Hulu, Comedy Central, ABC, etc). Isn’t it fun watching the evolution of media distribution as it happens?

  • http://www.donationpeople.com Ankush

    I am boycotting these two shows now. The idea of watching them outside of my centralized Hulu database is not smart at all. You will not get the same audience and volume that Hulu did.

  • Steve K.

    Don’t use Hulu, but do use Miro. Give me an easily subscribed podcast and I’ll watch it.

  • EH

    Right, and now these two great TV shows are centralized on CC’s site. No big whoop.

  • EH

    I remember Miro, they’re still around?

  • http://www.michaeljung.co.uk Michael Jung

    Wait a minute. What is with discovery here? Marketing/Advertising uses the term cross-selling. I think there is a good chance that some ‘not so sophisticated’ people don’t look-up 2-3 blogs to read what is hot right now in the series/movie space and what they should watch. And where to go (ie brand recognition, how many of your friends know vimeo?).

    Then there are these sites like Clicker who want to solve the problem of fragmentation. And media/tech companies like Digg and Aol who want to take advantage of fragmentation and niche and their targeted audience.

    Hulu had an SuperBowl ad last year as far as I can remember. That says everything.

    What is happening, we are seeing is, that there are companies who have the “technology” and the advantage with that, to offer hosting, ad-network, audience and so forth. But Hulu, YouTube & Co. want a considerable cut of the rev by hosting your content, exposing it to a large audience. You as content owner want an as large as possible audience, but you want to max your profit too. These two things you have to somehow align.

    Most quality “IP owners/content owners” don’t have the “technology” or at least lagging behind considerably. They have to decide; do we invest +$10m into a new pilot or web series, creating new and compelling content. OR do we invest this money in an ad-network, marketing team, technology, CDN, admins, coders who run our ColbertNation.com/DailyShow.com!?

    So be it with each and every other content owner out there. Do we put our stuff on YouTube, like BBC Channle4 in the UK is doing, where our core audience is (12-35yrs old)? Or do we put it on the iPlayer only. Or create our own destination site and have the cost of IT/CDN/Marketing/Ads etc.?

    We are in a transition phase. Period. Hard decisions have to be made. Do I jump on the Internet train early on (GaryVee is praying that daily) and forgo revenues and aim establishing an audience and brand recognition? Or do I wait till the downside of the Internet diminished and the upside of the business is clearly on my side, for my shareholders?

    The one fact many empires like Murdoch’s don’t (to that day) realize is, that on the Internet – you are not able to control that empire, where your content appears and what people do with it. It is not the Wild Wild West, but OUR world is free of constraints (ie barriers of entry) many empires relied on in the first place to build these empires. Period.

    —-
    PS: Sorry for the chunky paragraphs. Written in a hurry/not edited.

  • http://www.mathewballard.com Mathew Ballard

    This is bullshit, what the hell is wrong with these companies? You should be supporting something like Hulu. Because, guess what, I’m not going to go the websites to watch the videos I’m going to go and download them.

  • Dave Hanna

    Well, Viacom got their free ride on Hulu to get noticed for online TV. If this keeps up fuck the networks, consumers will watch or do something else online.

    Next, they will start increasing commercials like on regular TV- they have started creeping up already on Hulu

  • http://david.dlma.com/ David

    This also sucks because Hulu provided a personalized lifestream feed of the shows you watched. That feature is now made less useful.

  • dave hanna

    +10- there is no comparison between Hulu and horrible Viacom sites- good riddens to Viacom.

    I hope Hulu decides to draw a line in the sand and make a rule once you pull this you are not coming back- Viacom, you’re gone for good, NEXT!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551968797 Ray Ray Angel

    I guess I won’t be watching these online anymore as the Comedy Central player on the web has to be one of the biggest pieces of crap online.

  • Danny

    >When you have hit shows, people will find them even if they are not on Hulu or YouTube.

    You forget as torrents. I’m actually not even sure that this statement is true. I watch Daily Show on hulu but would not ever go to comedy central to do so. In part this is because they site has been forsaken by god but also because having all the content in one place is really key. Prove your point by showing me that traffic has dropped at comedy central or that it will rise significantly after these shows are only found there.

  • http://alangerow.com Alan Gerow

    Depends on your perspective of centralized. They’re “centralized” on ComedyCentral’s site, but now that’s two sites that people need to visit if they were previously viewing those & other shows on Hulu, so it’s decentralized/fragmented for them.

    Personally, it just means I won’t be watching those shows on-line, and will likely forget about them most of the time. I go to Hulu to find something to watch, I don’t think of a show and go to that network’s video site. Hulu has become the on-line equivalent of channel surfing for professional TV content on-line for me … web surfing to find videos across multiple sites is lame.

    I’d go back to BitTorrent & one-stop downloading before I’d go back to having to visit a half dozen different network sites trying to find something worth watching. Pirate Bay, sort by seeders, download, done.

  • http://top-free-download-zone.com/?p=230 50 Game Copy Review |50 Top Free Software Download Zone.com

    [...] Hulu, Colbert, And The Recentralization Of Video On The Web [...]

  • Matt

    The real issue for me is that sites like hulu make viewing video simple on the web. While I like both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report I probably won’t go watch them at Comedy Central. Watching an entire episode with embedded ads is fine but I won’t watch an episode that has been chopped into clips to maximize the delivery of ad content. Having to interact with the web page every 2 minutes to load another clip and then be rewarded by enduring another ad (most likely one you’ve seen 5 times before) is too much pain for too little pleasure. I’d rather watch something that is less entertaining or nothing at all than jump through the poorly designed ad hoops that most television websites make you jump through for a morsel of their content. I must not find it as valuable as they do. I’d just as soon make my own damn show.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=732754453 Paul Jones

    Over time, I think aggregators such as Hulu will begin offering better deals to certain content producers that drive traffic to their site. Users that come to watch the Daily Show also likely watch other shows on the site, so the loss of this content may actually impact overall viewership of the content at Hulu.

    I am not aware of the exact economics of the deal, but I do think that Comedy Central is leaving some money on the table by taking their content off of Hulu. Perhaps there is more at work here though, such as carriage fees and complaints from cable companies.

  • http://wyman.us Bob Wyman

    If Hulu is smart, they will try to retain the right to list the remotely served programs even if they need to send viewers off-site to actually view them. Doing this should be a “win-win” for both Hulu and Viacom since it means that Hulu can continue to give the impression of being a comprehensive site while Viacom gets bleed over traffic from folk who scanned Hulu for other content. Of course, Hulu also gets the opportunity to make a bit of advertising revenue on the traffic that passes through it to Comedy Central’s site.
    The important thing here is to think of Hulu “two” sites, not just one. Part of Hulu is the directory of videos or “video discovery” site. There are all kinds of opportunities to monetize such a site. The second site is the “video serving” site. There are a distinct set of opportunities to monetize serving. The value of the directory is, to some degree, determined by how comprehensive it is. Thus, Hulu shouldn’t weaken their directory simply because they don’t have the serving business for some videos.

  • http://www.geekyclown.com GeekyClown

    To be honest, I am surprised that it took this long before someone took on Hulu for more money. Companies are starting to seriously look at online intellectual property as a commodity and are going to try to get the most $$ for it which means forcing traffic to their own sites and enjoying all of the revenue. Don’t be surprised to watch a whole lot of others follow suit.

  • Jim

    True, but you can’t get to it via remote anymore. I don’t want to sit at my PC to watch a tv show.

  • Adriaan Bloem

    I would love to weep for Hulu. But since it’s US-only, I can’t care.

    At least the Daily Show and Colbert Report are available on Comedy Central here in The Netherlands. (They even target the ads to us.) Hulu could learn something from Viacom.

  • http://jimeltringham.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/hulu-learns-content-is-still-king/ Hulu learns content is still king « JimEltringham.com

    [...] As Tech Crunch reported, a key factor was the share of the ad revenue – Viacom makes more money by selling ads for video content on its own websites because it doesn’t have to split that money.  At the same time, Viacom can still make clips of its shows sharable and embeddable. [...]

  • Etrigan

    How do you unclench your anal retention canal long enough to poo?

  • Greg

    I’m with you here, Jax. The first error broke up the flow of the article as I tried to figure out what he was suggesting. So I’m going to be “that guy” and weep for the loss of copy editors.

  • chris c

    Hulu needs to start to make broader output and package deals with the networks & producers. i.e. They get their premium titles but also have to take and actively promote the less popular titles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=549800561 Jason Storer

    Each site you’d have to navigate to probably requires its own username and password, then you have to actually find your show, then find the episode you want to watch. Then you would probably need to download the plugins for their proprietary media player that you would only use on their site. All the while losing the centralized discovery that Hulu offers.

    I hated searching Fox and using their crap FoxTV to catch the last episode of House. Made my day when I found out Hulu had them.

    What your suggesting is, in my opinion, even worse than flipping through TV channels. As an analogy, what you suggest is more like flipping to the network you wanna watch on your TV, then the show, then selecting your episode.

    I’ll pass.

  • cease

    get a wireless keyboard and mouse.. you’ll have more access than just hulu

  • cease

    I agree with steve, whats up with all this complaining,
    @Jason.. you’re complaining about free… boo hoo, i don’t have to pay $45 a month for cable, and have to click on some links, and have the browser remember usernames/passwords.. WAAAHHH!! I don’t know how to google House or bookmark direct link WAAHH!

    Anyways.. the premium content that the major studios offer is really the only thing watching most of the time, yes once in awhile you might find a good time killer, but if going to the networks sites means they will put up more quality content online .. im all for it.. Its better than having one episode at a time on hulu.

  • Raj Samtani

    This tussle between the distributor and the content owner about the relative value of audience aggregation versus content popularity is not new. It’s happened between networks and MSOs, between labels and distributors, between studios and theater operators etc., time and time again. Both Hulu and Viacom had to know this argument would come to a head sooner or later.

    We are in a period of transition and things will be fragmented for a while yet in the Internet Video space.
    1. We will still have unauthorized Torrents and P2P and the legal skirmishes will continue for the foreseeable future.
    2. Many Content Owners will try to do OTT video with the goal of keeping all the ad dollars (as well as the electronic sell thru revenue) and ultimately realize that it’s very expensive to maintain the infrastructure and the people at an acceptable quality
    3. The MSOs will do everything they can to preserve subscription revenue and mitigate their licensing fees through techniques like subscription walls such as TV Everywhere.

    Which leads me to believe that this “I’ll-take-my-ball-and-go-home” tactic on the part of Viacom may be a negotiation ploy. Or it could be driven by a desire for more control — which would ultimately manifest itself in a “TV Everywhere” style subscription wall with content access limited to households that subscribe to the CC’s tier.

    At some point, where the content is hosted is not going to matter. And yes, I agree that this should be music to the ears of Catalog/Guide services like Clicker will gain some short term advantages.

    These guys are playing chess and poker at the same time. Not easy to do.

  • http://www.udtek.com udtekadapter

    Hulu is good for shows that can’t attract a big enough audience to their own sites!!!

    Nonsense ! I hope Hulu is not the same as the http://bit.ly/djeq7X

    I love Hulu …

  • allstock23

    Glad to hear this, Viacom made the right decision.

  • chris swain

    posters in here who talk about the need for a comprhensive video search engine are right on. There’s one that just launched called clicker.com that is well executed and could take off.

  • http://vidli.com Sean Murphy

    Exhibit A why the world needs Vidli. There is not enough advertising money to go around.

    Vidli is the spot to buy, sell and rent videos. Ya’ll can grab a beta invite here…

    http://vidli.com/TC002A

  • http://onlinejournalismtest.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/links-for-2010-03-04/ links for 2010-03-04 « Onlinejournalismtest's Blog

    [...] Hulu, Colbert, And The Recentralization Of Video On The Web The Comedy Central shows are not going behind some sort of Murdochian paywall. They are still embeddable and shareable across the Web, but with Comedy Central’s garish video player and its ads. When you have hit shows, people will find them even if they are not on Hulu or YouTube. Viacom made the calculation that it can make more money by recentralizing distribution of its hit shows on its own sites than allowing them to be streamed on Hulu. Why should they split video ad revenues with Hulu when they can have it all themselves. (tags: tvi) [...]

  • Jim

    I use Air Mouse on my iPhone…it’s basically a trackpad with the iPhone keyboard. I’m just saying it’s inconvenient.

  • http://andrewjkaplan.com Andrew Kaplan

    Sad indeed. But here’s the good news. This article makes a great point that it’s crappy for viewers, who have to dance around from site to site searching for their favorite videos. But recentralilzation and aggrregation is INEVITABLE. If it doesn’t happen on Hulu, some geniuses will set up their own website/blog where they embed the best shows from across the Web in one place. It will become a shadow Hulu. This assumes that the networks and studios will keep their content embeddable, which they probably will. It would decimate their view counts if they didn’t. https://andrewjkaplan.com

  • http://nealabq.com/ Neal Binnendyk

    Hulu has to be careful. If they renegotiate with Viacom, then everyone else will also want a better deal. Which destroys Hulu’s revenue model.

  • http://nealabq.com/ Neal Binnendyk

    You can also model Hulu as three services:

    1. Video discovery (directory of vids) as you describe above.

    2. Video server, providing the infrastructure and hardware.

    3. Ad agency. Manages the relationships between content providers and advertisers. This is where Hulu wants to be.

  • catsfan

    I use zinc for watching both hulu and comedy central. it’s free at http://www.zinc.tv Zinc runs on a mac, PC, nettops, and yahoo TV’s. They don’t block ads or insert them. They just make access to all the sites consistent and uncluttered, and I can control it with my WMC remote or iPhone.

  • http://blogger4life.info/?p=557 Hulu, Colbert, And The Recentralization Of Video On The Web | Blogger4Life

    [...] some-more upon TechCrunch Share and [...]

  • http://www.rocketboom.com Andrew Baron

    Thanks Erick! The good news is that just because Hulu’s model may be in jeopardy, people looking to get all their content in one place are not at risk for the Comedy Central shows can still be aggregated with other material elsewhere.

    Now that they are gaining back 100% control of their advertising revenue, they will likely enjoy being aggregated by anyone who wants to aggregate them (boxxee, google, magma, etc), wherever an audience can be found.

    It’s just that now, when an advertisement plays on that embed, wherever it may be, Comedy Central will get all the $. Naturally, they will be incentivized to allow embeds and downloads and to allow their content to be viewed off-site because they will serve up the ads for the off-site views with 100% of the ad revenue to them (e.g. if you watch it on boxee, the advertisement will play through and Comedy Central will get to charge their advertiser for that view. Meawhile, boxee makes their money in other ways).

    Even as Comedy Central would prefer to get their audience at their own destination for more impact, obviously by increasing their off-site reach, they not only increase their per-episode revenue, they increase their on-site traffic through their own promotional referrals.

    This only hurts hulu because hulu’s business model, unlike boxee, e.g., is dependent on publishers to pay to be aggregated while leaving their own ad models behind.

  • http://web2go.fr/?p=6 Web2go » The Daily Show Reveals Chatroulette

    [...] clips like these that make Hulu wish Comedy Central didn’t pull its videos and go it alone. Subscribe to comments Comment | Trackback | Post [...]

  • http://www.ypulse.com/funny-thing-about-cable-tv Can The Onion News Network [And Other IFC Programming] Take On Comedy Central? | Ypulse

    [...] The Colbert Report from Hulu for another post (and redirect you in the meantime to this interesting take from TechCrunch in the meantime). Instead, for now, I'm going to suggest that hope is not lost for [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us