Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hulu puts itself up for sale

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#31

Post by swilliams »

kenjackson wrote: post #30

Hulu should hire me as their CEO. Here's what I'd do: 1) Secure medium term content deals with all current partners. I'd like five years, but I'll make do with three years. 2) Start building my own high quality content. Try to grab someone like Sue Naegle or Carolyn Strauss (both HBO blood) to run this. 3) Pay crazy money to get DirectTvs NFL deal to Hulu+. With all that said, I think they've done a pretty good job w…

DirecTV pays $700M/year for Sunday Ticket exclusivity. Good luck getting past that.

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#32

Post by neworbit »

kenjackson wrote: post #30

Hulu should hire me as their CEO. Here's what I'd do: 1) Secure medium term content deals with all current partners. I'd like five years, but I'll make do with three years. 2) Start building my own high quality content. Try to grab someone like Sue Naegle or Carolyn Strauss (both HBO blood) to run this. 3) Pay crazy money to get DirectTvs NFL deal to Hulu+. With all that said, I think they've done a pretty good job w…

Hulu is simply too small to do #1 or #3. They would have to spend phenomenal amounts of money, which they don't have - without an IPO, or perhaps even with one. #2 is doable but not a slam-dunk, it still can be hit or miss.

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#33

Post by nitrogen »

jeffool wrote: post #26
sukuriant wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stargate.

And shows like Arrested Development, Firefly, and Jericho. Maybe not those shows in particular given the amount of time that's passed, but, the next time it happens.

I think Kings would be an excellent candidate for this approach, apart from the $x million per episode production costs... I watched all the episodes on Hulu, why not finish the show on Hulu?

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#35

Post by ianb »

Hulu feels technically sufficient to me. It's about content now. A sale seems like it could go two ways:

1) They've been getting by on sweetheart deals from their owners, and once departed their licensing dries up and they are useless. (Their licensing already look pretty pathetic IMHO - for god's sake there's shows you can view for free online that you can't view as a paying custom on a TV)

2) Separated from TV they can hire negotiators that are cutthroat and leave every negotiation making the content provider feel like they've been taken advantage of. Like negotiators who say "if you don't give your show A, I'm going to go to show B and give them everything they want and promote the hell out of them and bury you." And they mostly lie but sometimes do in fact destroy their opponent to make a point.

But if Yahoo buys them they are fucked, because Yahoo fucks everything up.

I assume Netflix's approach is to negotiate hard, but be willing to walk away from anything because the back catalog has become so large that no one thing is essential. Hulu isn't so different, but is strategically tied to current releases as a starting point.

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#37

Post by mbesto »

staunch wrote: post #3

Hulu with no content licenses is still valuable. The brand is established, they have significant traffic, the technology seems to be pretty well put together. Maybe even valuable enough to recoup their $100 million investment.

> The brand is established, they have significant traffic, the technology seems to be pretty well put together.

Disagree.

If google reader couldn't use the NYTimes, ChiTribune, LA Times, etc. would it be valuable?

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#38

Post by lucasjung »

samirg wrote: post #21
spydertennis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thought I had was that Hulu/Netflix should buy the rights to cancelled shows that have popular followings and pay to have new seasons made. Obviously this is fraught with potential problems (people are committed to other projects) but it could be cool.

The other obvious issue is that if the show was cancelled by the studio, what makes you think it would be profitable to pay for and produce new shows for distribution across a smaller network (Netflix vs. sum of cable/satellite distribution, which is the case for most major studios)? I suspect FNL/DirecTV may be a counter-argument here, although I don't know the specific economics of that agreement.

TV networks often cancel profitable shows because they aren't profitable enough. There are enormous opportunity costs involved in allocating a network time slot to a show: you only get 24 hours in a day, and only a few of those are prime-time. If a prime-time show isn't making big bucks, you cancel it and try another one, and you keep doing that until you find a show that makes you say, "Hmm...if I cancel this, there's a good chance I won't be able to do better." Television networks, like big movie studios, are in the business of producing lots of shows, hoping for the occasional big hit.

If you're running a streaming service, the opportunity costs of a small-viewership show are much less. As long as you're making some money, there's no reason to stop. Because streaming services do not have to allocate broadcast time slots as a scare commodity, they can go with an entirely different model: many more shows, each targeted at a smaller but more passionate audience.

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#39

Post by ssharp »

nitrogen wrote: post #33
jeffool wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And shows like Arrested Development, Firefly, and Jericho. Maybe not those shows in particular given the amount of time that's passed, but, the next time it happens.

I think Kings would be an excellent candidate for this approach, apart from the $x million per episode production costs... I watched all the episodes on Hulu, why not finish the show on Hulu?

Apart from the entire reason why Hulu wouldn't get into this business, why not? If you approach it that way, it's more of a fantasy than a reality.

I'm not seeing a compelling reason why Hulu/Netflix would be able to produce million dollar+ episodes and make money off of them.

Re: Hulu puts itself up for sale

#40

Post by jeffool »

ssharp wrote: post #39
nitrogen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Kings would be an excellent candidate for this approach, apart from the $x million per episode production costs... I watched all the episodes on Hulu, why not finish the show on Hulu?

Apart from the entire reason why Hulu wouldn't get into this business, why not? If you approach it that way, it's more of a fantasy than a reality. I'm not seeing a compelling reason why Hulu/Netflix would be able to produce million dollar+ episodes and make money off of them.

I'm not arguing for Kings mind you, but I will say that it seems all publishers want to become content owners. And if the current content owners don't want to run the site, I find it difficult to imagine they're going to stay with it forever.

The roles of creators and broadcasters are blurring. Not because of a squeezing from CEOs either to turn more a profit, but the necessity of the Internet.

If I owned Crackle, Rev3, YT, Netflix, or Hulu? You can bet I'd be looking to pick up properties with a built-in following.

Post reply on HN