Live data from Hacker News

Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

businessinsider.com

1–10 of 21 posts

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#5
Hulu is awesome and even more so lately, as they have added Disney content (ABC, History Channel).

This Five Years on Mars re: the rovers is great programming http://www.hulu.com/watch/91800/naked-science-five-years-on-.... I have not had cable in years since BitTorrent and now things like Hulu!

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#6
While this is impressive, they could have a huge audience, they just don't seem to care about capturing it. Their efforts to expand to other countries is visibly nil; the majority of networks from the US already broadcast in Canada, yet we're not allowed to get their programs through legal channels on the internet (you might get lucky with a few shows like Grey's Anatomy being available through Canadian channels websites).

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#7

While this is impressive, they could have a huge audience, they just don't seem to care about capturing it. Their efforts to expand to other countries is visibly nil; the majority of networks from the US already broadcast in Canada, yet we're not allowed to get their programs through legal channels on the internet (you might get lucky with a few shows like Grey's Anatomy being available through Canadian channels webs…

They care about expanding their audience. Justin Kilar talked about this in his interview with Charlie Rose. The problem arises from the legal complexities of differing cross-border ownership rights. Hulu has to get permission from the content owner and in many cases the content owner in America will be different than the owner in France (or whatever other country). In addition, they then have to work through the regulatory frameworks there. So it's not a matter of not caring, it's a matter of overcoming the legal hurdles.

From what I recall, Kilar's intention is to first try to expand into China. An admirable goal.

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#8
Can someone who knows the ins and outs of the advertising business tell me why advertising seconds are worth more on TV than online for the same content?

It sounds like advertisers are paying Hulu a lot less per viewer reached compared to cable providers. This is counter-intiutive since the PC audience is paying more attention to the ads in comparison.

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#9
post #8

Can someone who knows the ins and outs of the advertising business tell me why advertising seconds are worth more on TV than online for the same content? It sounds like advertisers are paying Hulu a lot less per viewer reached compared to cable providers. This is counter-intiutive since the PC audience is paying more attention to the ads in comparison.

I don't know anything about advertising but I do remember this article making the rounds a while back

http://gizmodo.com/5302448/advertising-during-the-simpsons-m...

Re: Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable

#10
To say that Hulu has more viewers than TWC is misleading. The graph is comparing apples to oranges. The "reach" for the cable companies is the number of subscribed households multiplied by the average number of people per house. Hulu's reach is the number of unique visitors.

Even assuming that (subscribers * average people per house) is a good estimate, unique visitors is certainly not.

If a household has five residents (two parents and three children, for example), and each of them are watching Hulu at home, the parents are watching at work during their lunch hour, and the children are watching it at school, then they will collectively count as 6 reaches for Hulu, but only 2.59 reaches for TWC.

Post reply on HN