Why Do So Many People Still Search for Hula

Is Hulu really a great brand name for the NBC Fox online venture. It would be fascinating to see how many times it is mistyped in the search as Hula instead of Hulu. Google rightly asks if you really mean Hulu. If I had only bought the Hula.com web site, I could have made a small fortune. Hulu has quickly grown and certainly more people are becoming familiar with its name. One day it may make for an interesting case study. A great aggregator of content, a crazy name.

If Cable Companies Start Streaming...

Except cable companies are already streaming web content, today, to our computers. If cable companies negotiate rights with programmers to stream content to the TV set, what really does that mean? Today ESPN sells a web based product called ESPN 360 that is only available through cable companies that license it for web access. Verizon customers get it, Comcast customers do not.

Will an internet stream of a linear network be superior to the current headend stream that consumers access today through their set top box. Will it bring better picture and sound, will it improve navigation and trick features, will it better enable interactive capabilities? Will an internet capable set top box be superior to the current assortment of boxes that connect today to the TV set?

Or does an authorized internet stream of a linear cable channel enable me to watch my TV on my laptop away from my home as well as inside it. Is it meant to compete with Slingbox so that your primary cable subscription can travel with you out of home through the web.

I am intrigued that cable is exploring internet carriage of linear networks, I just don't see how it prevents customers from still bypassing their cable box and just maintain a broadband stream to watch content through the web. Will content companies create exclusive content, like ESPN 360, that makes the cable stream of content more preferable and easier to view than the current means? And will it be done as a means to stop defection from cable service or as a means to incremental revenue. In today's economic climate, the latter may not be reasonable to consider.

SAG and AMPTP Still Can't Agree On A Deal

An agreement that should have been approved still seems bitter and antagonistic. It seems that SAG would have agreed to the terms presented had the AMPTP left the terms at three years. But a four year deal caused the SAG deal to vote 73% - 27% against approval. Clearly, a four year term puts the SAG union a year after the term expires on the other union contracts. To AMPTP credit, they are trying to avoid giving the unions the leverage of having all their terms expire simultaneously in order to present a more unified block the next go around. Could this deal be concluded with a three year term; unfortunately, "no new meetings are scheduled. It would take 75% assent from voting SAG members to authorize a strike vote."

The unmistakable truth is that advertising revenues are declining and new media has not created a model that presents that much incremental revenue. With so much uncertainty ahead, a shorter term deal makes sense for SAG. AMPTP clearly does not want all its deals expiring in the same year. It is time for all actors to unite under one union as a means to the end. SAG and AFTRA are jointly negotiating with the advertising industry; a taste of what a combined union might be like.

The Cable Companies' Plan To Take Down Hulu

A little more information on how cable will keep customers. One opportunity is hi def streams via cable instead of standard stream through the computer. Another potential means to keep customers, only measure streams of non-cable content. And a third means may be in building a library that is much more diversified and easier to search and navigate. Can cable do it? It certainly is in content companies best interest if their is more revenue opportunities available.

Cable Operators Continue Internet TV Talks

If you can't beat them, join them; cable operators may just allow the set top box to access internet programming. Per this article, operators are talking with NBC, Viacom, and Time Warner to enable video customers to secure distribution deals on this new platform. "The cable providers are looking to stave off defections by "cord cutters," a small but potentially growing segment of consumers procuring video content on the Internet and other non-cable sources." My question is how do these deals stop this defection. Unless these deals become exclusive and this same content is unavailable outside this distribution deal, nothing stops the consumer from continuing to defect from cable. In fact, it only encourages a faster adoption of internet viewing, causing more defection from cable subscription.

Along with this access to internet viewing on cable set top devices, what else is cable bringing exclusive to the relationship to the viewer that they can't get elsewhere. If cable can provide a fee to creators for this carriage as a means to build a walled garden experience, then maybe free web content may go away, only to be made available to homes that buy a cable and broadband monthly subscription. Otherwise, internet access by cable simply is a me too experience, replacing VOD with internet streaming. And what else gets affected -could it further erode local cable spots, VOD advertising, and even disrupt the linear model? How can cable monetize an internet stream through the set top box? Hopefully they have thought this through.

DVD sales plummet, Blu-ray unable to save the day

What does it really mean when DVD sales are falling. While prices have dropped, the unknown for me is whether the units purchased have dropped as well. I'm guessing they have too. For my family, I definitely have purchased less DVDs. When the kids were younger, many of my purchases were family-themed product, knowing that we would be watching these same films over and over again. And while movies are nice to own, I tend to first check out films on VOD. I can't think of a film that I need to own in my library. Perhaps people have gotten tired of filling up rooms with discs and might be more inclined to purchase digital copies that can be shared and moved among devices. I'd certainly rather bring a flash drive into the car for the rear DVD player than keep a dozen discs on the floor or in the door compartment.

"To be sure, Blu-ray is growing -- up 250 percent since 2007 -- but it still represents less than 3.5 percent of the overall market. Analysts now wonder whether Blu-ray will be able to pick up steam fast enough -- or if the future has already been handed over to online downloading and streaming alternatives. With companies like Netflix rushing into streaming as quickly as possible, that certainly seems like a strong possibility."

And Now Hulu Pulls Shows Off Boxee

First it was TV.com, and now Hulu will be taking its content off of Boxee. The problem is that the cat is out of the bag and it's hard to take a step back. Once content became accessible outside the confines of traditional TV, consumers were able to choose where they wanted to watch. That freedom of on-demand, coupled with the chance to receive this same content at a lower price meant that the old business model may not withstand the onslaught of new technologies. And who could lose - cable companies who depend on subscription revenue, DVRs who can be replaced by on-demand streams, premium networks that charge higher rates for newer movies, and TV networks that depend on eyeballs to charge high ad rates.

And while Hulu may lose eyeballs from restricting where its content can be streamed, customers are still seeking out alternatives to cable for their viewing pleasure. Why pull Hulu from Boxee? "One theory: Boxee makes watching video from sites like Hulu a lot like watching cable. As we noted a few hours ago, Boxee/Hulu means that paying $80 a month for cable TV is no longer necessary for some people. It also means we don't need to watch TV shows (and ads) live, or even fast-forward through them with our DVR." Comcast has already felt the effect of broadband viewing; while internet subs are growing, TV subscribers dropped in the fourth quarter.

Hulu may think it is stopping the drip from becoming a flood; today, the vast majority still watch content through cable or antenna. Boxee and devices like it that play video through the web onto the TV, are not going away. It may make it harder to watch Hulu on your TV set, but consumers are changing their viewing habits. I still believe that cable is the preferable way to watch content; cable companies need to step up and improve their set top box, their DVR and VOD functionality, and their access to web video so that its access to content remains most desirable.

Hulu vs. TV.com - Are They Really Rivals

Hulu is owned by NBC and Fox while CBS owns TV.com. And like broadcast channels, each is a platform for professionally produced content. In the world of TV, a series on one channel would never appear at the same time on another, but in the world of the web, the same content could be found on multiple sites. Till now. Hulu has taken its content off TV.com. "It's the first bit of powder to fly in what promises to be a feisty battle between the two Web TV destination sites." Have we gotten to the point where content doesn't have to be everywhere and viewers will build brand preference to sites that contain the content they prefer. "Hulu got a huge bump in September and November being the main place to find Tina Fey's SNL Sarah Palin impersonations on the Web." Why share that audience with your competitor; the viewer is likely to watch more than one video, why not keep them on your preferred platform.

TV survived with multiple broadcast channels each offering unique content. The same should hold true for the big video platforms. Each is defined by its content, Hulu as the home to NBC and Fox produced content, TV.com to CBS and CNET content, You Tube to user generated content. As their content libraries grow and with it their brand value, consumer will seek them out when tuning in to web videos.

So are Hulu and TV.com really rivals? Or are they each ultimately competing with cable companies for access to the viewer. In a separate article, the real question is "When Will Comcast Need To Worry About Hulu?" Younger customers are preferring a broadband connection to a cable line. Technology has changed the rules. Just as these same consumers have dropped landlines for mobile, cable may face the same dilemma. Last quarter, Comcast lost almost a quarter of a million subscribers. Did they go to telcos like Verizon and AT&T, or did they simply drop the cable portion of their subscription. Cable's triple play - cable, phone, and broadband - deals with two services that the younger consumer no longer desires. The broadband connection may be all that matters. How will cable survive? Can they still offer unlimited access for a monthly fee or will the broadband bill star to resemble a utility bill - like electricity, gas, and water - measured strictly by usage. As content moves off cable to the web, this may be the only means to stay profitable.

Liberty Beats Out Echostar for Sirius

The famous line in The Godfather, "It's not personal, just business" may not apply here. Clearly Sirius did not want to be ruled under Echostar and John Malone clearly wants to beat Charlie Ergan. And so, " Liberty Media Corp. will invest $530 million in financially struggling satellite radio company Sirius XM Radio Inc., the companies said Tuesday." As a shareholder of both companies, I am thrilled that my Sirius stock isn't completely worthless, although at pennies per share, it's not worth what I bought it at. As a Liberty shareholder, I'm not sure it's a good deal either.

Sirius faces too many challenges, a bad economy, a dropping auto industry, heavy competition from free radio, the web, and now iPhones and other cellular devices. Is there enough exclusive content to deserve a subscription or does the pricing policy need to be revisited.

And what happens when the next debt payment is due. Will Liberty still be there to drop more good money after bad. Are there synergies for Liberty to make the sum of the two companies more valuable than its individual parts. Liberty may have won the contest but was it only a booby prize.