MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Problem With Hulu

Why has Hulu once again jilted its suitors at the altar?

Because the trio of owners are correct… the value of the business is greater than the price anyone is willing to pay for it right now.

But the real big question is, what’s wrong with Hulu? Why is it continuing to do well, but not really blossoming on the level of Hulu?

The simple answer is, Hulu’s identity is poorly defined to the public. Start at the most basic distinction… what is the difference between Hulu and Hulu+? Answer: Hulu is an old idea that is on its way out but has a ton of attractive traffic that no one wants to throw away (some profits too) and Hulu+ is the future, but it not well defined enough at this point to define its own future.

There has been some evolution in this. Hulu started as a free browser-based tool that offered reruns of network shows. When HUlu+ came online, streaming to HDTVs, ipads, phones, etc, the amount of content that was available on both services was limited. But Hulu has refocused and it now seems that many shows from ABC, Fox, and NBC carry just the last 5 episodes of series on Hulu and the back catalog is only available with a HUlu+ subscription. But there are still networks, like ABC Family, that don’t have any presence on Hulu+. And more and more, shows that were turning up on Hulu+ are disappearing, getting paid more by other services that are cherrypicking (see: New Girl and Netflix… “Due to content rights agreements, only the five most recent episodes of New Girl will be available on Hulu Plus beginning July 1st. All previous episodes will expire June 30th.”).

Netflix, on the other hand, has been dropping content by the ton… but has everyone talking about their original programming, even when they aren’t watching it in droves (which has been true of all but House of Cards). That’s smart marketing.

What is Hulu?

It is giving value to both free and subscription customers, no doubt. But why is this product something YOU need to sign up for? If you have a DVR, you too can have the last 5 episodes of every series you like. This time of year, Hulu is dominated by Comedy Central… but not this summer, as Jon Stewart is out for 3 months and Colbert is taking long vacation periods. So there is very little new television content. And in the most recent version, there isn’t as much archive on Free Hulu and do people want to pay for it on Hulu+?

I have always felt that Hulu should just stick to being the TV version of Netflix… ubiquitous… as complete as possible. But Netflix has spent them out of that comfort zone and all the studios – including Hulu’s owners – see stream-dycation and pay-streaming paydays in this post-DVD environment as to o valuable to pass up. Hulu is always the hungriest kid at the end of the table, after all the food has been eaten as its passed down past everyone else.

Original programming is a dead end. But now, Netflix is leading that parade to that sewer. Everyrone has to do it because… uh…

Hulu tries to maintain the illusion they have been doing original programming… but they haven’t. They have been picking up international shows. Some quite good. But it’s not clear to the subscriber, much less the potential subscriber. Where is the game changing deal… like with BBC? The Beeb has a valuable cable net in BBC America, but the vast majority of content is still not coming across the pond. Delivering all of the BBC’s content to the US is a lot more sell-able play than, say Criterion Collection, which I love, but is the polar opposite of Family Guy reruns.

OR where is the deal when NBC shows are only available post-air via purchase or Hulu-Plus? Really clear. If you buy 3 or more NBC shows for your iPad each month, you’d be better off with a Hulu+ subscription. Or let it be ABC shows and with a Hulu+ subscription, you quality for WatchABC (if your market has it) and WatchESPN.

Hulu has a lot of great stuff, but there is no shape to the programming they want you to buy monthly. Netflix had the advantage of its history… huge advantage that Hulu missed the window to exploit themselves.

Yes, the reinvestment is important. But much more important than adding more and more content is becoming a dominant player in 1 or 2 areas of content… areas they can then sell to the public. That is the only happy future for this company, no matter who owns it.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “The Problem With Hulu”

  1. MarkVH says:

    I subscribe to Hulu+ for one reason and one reason only: Criterion. I realize that’s a niche market, but if that contract ever ended I’d be gone from H+ faster than a speeding bullet.

  2. scooterzz says:

    i think hulu’s first few original efforts actually were ‘original’…and, they were pretty good (richard linklater’s ‘up to speed’, morgan spurlock’s ‘a day in the life’ and the political comedy ‘battleground’)… all three could have been successful if they weren’t on hulu…for me, it’s a very user unfriendly service (the kindle app really sucks and the constant commercial breaks make tv shows even more unbearable than network) but i keep it for occasional research and, as mentioned above, the criterion collection….
    fwiw and slightly off-topic: netflix’ new series ‘orange is the new black’ is one of the best new shows of the summer… absolutely top notch…..

  3. Ryan P says:

    I don’t like Hulu+ because their “app” on Roku is slow, clunky and difficult to navigate.

    Netflix isn’t exactly awesome, but it works a lot better than Hulu.

  4. n says:

    Why bother? My shows expire before I feel like watching. The point was to be able to watch on my own terms. It’s not worth it anymore.

  5. Kyra says:

    Great explanation of this issue, well-written article!.. I’m not even interested in watching episodes 5 through whatever of my favorite shows’ current season if i missed 1-4 completely and now they r expired, WTF would I want to start watching anything mid-season?..makes no sense, and Netflix takes forever a whole year later to put a season up, only useful on rainy days or if another show conflicts with another you’re more dedicated to watching every week in the same time slot, but @ least they r getting better about posting new popular movies as soon as they finish off a few weeks with RedBox…H+ is slowly losing my impression, i got it in hopes BBC programs would be airing, so disappointed now…my main networks are ABC & Bravo, Bravo is stingy, u even gotta pay-to-watch real episodes on YouTube!!…and all the ABC episodes available on Hulu+ are available at the same time on ABC.GO!! what am i getting for my money @ this point?!

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon