communication is essential to business making and it involves more than the ability to name your product, write a tag line or a press release. It's an intricate, rational and scalable effort and, let's face it, not anyone can do it.
TV online - I don't get it
I got all afluster with reading about Hulu (more here) and thinking how cool this may be if all the nice series I need to download off "legally-challenged" sources online would be free to view anytime and everywhere.
But the more I think about it the more two things nag at my logic.
1. It's a free website supported by syndication deals and advertising: soooo basically they make money the same way they do on TV by placing ads between shows or, as luck would have it, above and below the small screen on your computer screen.
True, there's only three ads/an episode but this begs the question HOW DO THEY SUPPORT THE PREMIUM CONTENT they brag about?
Because common sense says this: you have a script writer that writes a brill script. Cue money for that. Then you have Angelina and her kids and more money for her to play the script. Then you have the sound, light, props, nails etc etc etc people. Cue more money to make the script look good. Then you have equipment. So basically there's a lot of money needed to make a show. So when you sell it to a network, you need to sell it for a lot and the only way the network will get its money back is by putting a lot of ads in between the seconds of the show.
Now if the show goes online for free, and can only have 3 ads and 2 banners as it is being watched, the normal question is where does the money come from?
Truth is, there can only be one of two explanations: networks are trying real hard to deal with online and this is their silly way of doing it at the risk of losing huge money. Two, the shows will only be reruns or oldies but goldies which you might want to re-watch, in which case Hulu is really a threat to the DVD industry but not to the online revolution.
2. Why would two networks be kind enough to allow Hulu to search other networks' content if they did not have it on their website? Isn't this counterproductive to them working really hard to get exclusive content?
This smells like branded utility to me but I fear that in matters of "big bucks", branded utility may be the little hole that sunk the big ship. For two reasons:
- when you create an aggregator for content you need to treat all content the same which makes promoting and selling "better" advertising for your content almost impossible
- networks base some of their negotiation power on pure "cojones" driven by having owned best-selling formats which they syndicate at huge costs. When you support competitors' content also you are either sure you are the best or just plain dumb.
an interesting article on this here and also check wikipedia for Hulu (name by Interbrand) but if someone has the answer already please share