In a blog post, CEO Jason Kilar blames the shortfall on a “soft advertising market (economy) in the second half of 2011.”

The numbers: Hulu did $420 million last year, via a combination of ad sales and revenue from its Hulu Plus subscription service. But during the first half of 2011, it had told the world — several times — that it was “on pace to approach” $500 million.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see when sales started softening. In July, when Kilar reported his company’s Q2 numbers, he was still offering the same $500 million revenue guidance. But in early October, when he reported Q3 numbers, the guidance had disappeared from his update.

There are a whole lot of people who would like to report 60 percent annual growth. And the fact that Hulu revenue missed earlier projections by 16 percent  – “overall the Hulu ad business grew aggressively and Hulu Plus materially exceeded our plan,” Kilar notes in his post — isn’t going to be the biggest issue for the service by a long shot.

Hulu’s management and its owners — Providence Equity, Comcast, Disney and News Corp. — need to reach a fundamental agreement about the video site’s direction, and how the site fits into today’s entertainment landscape. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

But it’s still worth noting the miss, because Hulu is both a digital ad business and a digital ad business that sells very premium video.

It’s an article of faith among digital ad bulls that the industry will keep growing even if the larger economy takes a hit, because ad dollars will shift from old media, anyway. And advertisers are supposed to be clamoring for the tv shows and movies that Hulu sells — which is one of the reasons Google is trying to shift upmarket from dogs on skateboards, with its “channels” strategy.

We’ll start hearing other reports on the state of last fall’s ad market, and the outlook for the future, over the next couple weeks, when public companies start reporting their Q4 numbers.

And we’ll hear a lot more from Kilar himself, who will be appearing at our D: Dive into Media conference at the end of this month. If you want to see him in person, grab a seat.

Per earlier reports, Dish Networks’s big rollout at the Consumer Electronics Show today is focused on “The Hopper,” a supersized video recorder that lets users store two terabytes of data. In English, that means about 250 hours of high-def shows, or 1,000 hours of regular shows.

There are a slew of other bells and whistles, and Dish had other stuff to announce, too, like an expanded deal with Time Warner’s HBO to offer more programming to Dish customers who also pay for the premium TV service, more programing for its Blockbuster movie service, and a broadband Internet via satellite option.

Oh, and a kangaroo, which did duty as both mascot and onstage prop.

But if you were looking for an “over the top” service that lets you get pay television over the Web without getting the standard pay TV bundles, this isn’t it. It’s possible that Dish CEO Joe Clayton will offer that one day, but it’s not here now.

The chief focus here is on the DVR, which doesn’t seem like it’s the kind of thing that will attract new customers, but might keep existing ones happier. Nothing wrong with that.

The most interesting wrinkle here is the Hopper feature that will let customers automatically record the primetime lineup of the four broadcast networks — News Corp.’s Fox, Disney’s ABC, Comcast’s NBC and CBS — and store the shows for up to eight days.

Anyone with a DVR is already able to record any show they want, and keep it as long as they have space, so this isn’t an earth-shifter. But it seems clearly designed to poke a bit at other playback options, like the video-on-demand offerings that many broadcasters offer for free, or the Hulu/Hulu Plus service co-owned by Disney, Comcast and News Corp. (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

All of those options, for instance, make you wait at least a day after a program airs before they let you see it. And the networks only offer some of their shows through those options (and CBS doesn’t work with Hulu at all).

My understanding is that Dish didn’t ask the broadcasters for permission on this one, and the way it’s constructed — broadcast-only, with a time limit, etc. — make me think it believes it has created something that doesn’t require a signoff, at least legally speaking. But since all of the big pay TV providers — Dish included — are signing “retrans” deals with the broadcasters and their owners, and those deals include restrictions on how the broadcast shows can be used, it seems like Dish would want to make sure its partners are okay with this.

And they might be! As a network executive pointed out to me this afternoon, this doesn’t have to be negative for the broadcasters. If Dish, for example, can get Nielsen to give the programmers full credit for the shows stored on the Hopper, then that’s a good thing — they’d rather get paid for that eyeball, for instance, than one they sell on the Web.

But it still seems like Dish is playing this one deliberately close to the line.

[Shutterstock/Anna Jurkovska]

We saw the first signs of that last year, when Clayton bought Blockbuster out of bankruptcy, then used the video company to create a kind of Netflix challenger. Tomorrow we should see the next steps, when the company rolls out a big announcement at the Consumer Electronics Show.

Here’s a good bet on what that will be: A new broadband Internet service, along with a super-sized DVR.

Trade pub Multichannel News has the details, gleaned from a report that went up briefly on Dealerscope, then went away, presumably because it violated a pre-briefing embargo. (Thanks to Jason Hirschhorn’s very useful Media Redfined feed for flagging.)

Since we never agreed to the embargo, happy to summarize here (not surprisingly, Dish declined to comment):

• The Internet service will be marketed to 8 million customers, most of whom can’t get fiber or cable broadband.
• The giant DVR will be called “The Hopper” and is designed to save and transmit shows in different parts of your house, and presumably outside of it, via Slingbox. You can see a teaser page for that one here, or look at the screenshot at the bottom of this post.
• There’s a cool feature that looks like it will automatically record the primetime lineups for the four broadcast networks (News Corp.’s Fox, Comcast’s NBC, Disney’s ABC and CBS).

All of which sounds interesting, and useful for existing Dish customers. But it doesn’t sound like Dish is ready to try a true “over the top” Web-based pay TV service that would rival traditional cable.

A lot of people think someone, or many people — could be Dish, could be Apple, could be Verizon, etc., etc., etc — is trying to line up one of those. But figuring out how to do that involves lots of deals with TV studios and programmers, and I don’t get the sense that anyone has those pacts yet. If Dish does, and announces it tomorrow, then it will truly be a press conference worth tuning into. If not, no worries — I’ll be watching anyway and will report back.

MORE CES NEWS:

• Complete coverage
• HP’s Former CTO: Ultrabooks Are Nothing New, webOS Still Has Life Yet
• Walt Shows Off CES Gadgets for Fox Business News (Video)
• What Kind of Web Video Plans Does Sony Have? (Video)
• Fujitsu Seeking Way Into Crowded U.S. Smartphone Market
• Why Rhapsody Is (Probably) Bigger Than Spotify — In the U.S.
• Microsoft Beefing Up CeBit Presence Even as It Pulls Back on CES
• Inside the CES Lost & Found
• FCC Chairman Has New Tablet, but Same Script: More Spectrum!
• Verizon Wireless: We Want to Connect Five Devices for Every Subscriber
• Ultrabooks From HP and Lenovo That Are (Kinda, Sorta) Different
• Walt and Katie Take a Tour of CES (Video)
• Schmidt-Storm Alert: The Google Chairman Didn’t Like Your Question
• T-Mobile Expands Bobsled Messaging Service
• Intel Shows Just How It Plans to Get Into Phones (Video)
• Motorola CEO: We’re Going to Release Fewer Phones This Year
• Kinect Helps Keep Aging Xbox at the Top of Its Game
• More From T-Mobile CEO: On Pricing, LTE and That Ever-Elusive iPhone
• Exclusive: New Boss Acknowledges Windows Phone Still Has “Awareness Problem”
• And You Thought Jawbone UP Was Going to Miss the CES Party!
• Interview: T-Mobile CEO Says No Second AT&T Deal Out There
• Grover Is at CES and I Am Missing It
• BlueStacks Bringing Android Apps to Windows 8
• Why the Future of TV Won’t Be Here Soon
• Nvidia’s Tegra 3 Tries to Save Battery in All Sorts of Different Ways
• Dynamic Dual Coverage: Ballmer’s Last Act in Vegas and the BCS Championship in 3-D
• Microsoft Phoning In Its Last CES Keynote
• Myspace — Yes, Myspace — Says It’s Going to Sell You Web TV
• Samsung Unveils “Super” 55-Inch OLED TV
• Nokia Unveils That LTE Windows Phone It’s Been Dying to Share
• Steve Ballmer Gives Ralph De La Vega a Very … Vigorous Greeting (Video)
• Interview: AT&T’s De La Vega on LTE, Tablets and Life After T-Mobile
• AT&T’s De La Vega: Shared Data Plans Still in the Works
• LG: 55-Inch Glasses-Free 3-D Screen Is on the Way
• LG Pushes 4G Smartphone Through Verizon: The LG Spectrum
• Live: AT&T’s Vegas Act Stars LTE and, Making Her Return to the Stage, Nokia
• CES Notebook: The Constant Search for Power and Vegas’ Worst-kept Secret
• Belkin Bringing Mobile TV to Lots of Cellphones, Will Anyone Tune In?
• Acer Introduces “World’s Thinnest” Ultrabook and a “Me-Too” Cloud Service
• There Better Be Some Cool Stuff at CES, Because CE Holiday Sales Data Bytes!
• CES 2012: Snooki and Bieber Are In, Gaga Is Out!
• Coming to a Smartphone Near You: Gorilla Glass 2
• RIM Hopes Next PlayBook OS Will Impress at CES
• Ultrabooks, the Ultra-Fancy New Name for Laptops
• At CES, Expect More Gadgets Telling You to Get Off the Couch
• Intel to Detail Its Phone Plans at CES Next Month
• Microsoft Pulling Out of CES After Upcoming Show
• Intel to Detail Its Phone Plans at CES Next Month
• Dell Will Drop the Flashy Vegas Act for CES This Year
• Ultrabook Conga Line Preps for CES 2012

[Shutterstock/Marko Cerovac]

The carrier is partnering with a consortium of TV stations and broadcasters to be the first to offer Dyle — their live TV application. The initial phone running Dyle will be an Android device from Samsung, MetroPCS said.

Of course, this is hardly the first stab at mobile TV. Although very popular in Korea, such service has not really taken hold. Some of the major carriers offer a limited lineup from MobiTV. Qualcomm had bigger visions with its FLO service, but shuttered the mobile TV offering and sold the spectrum to AT&T.

“We’re excited to be the first mobile service provider to deliver a unique entertainment offering like Dyle, but more important than being first is our belief that this service will meet the needs of our customers and deliver an exceptional mobile experience,” MetroPCS President Tom Keys said in a statement.

Dyle Mobile TV is the brand chosen by a consortium of content providers and broadcasters including NBC, Fox, ION Television, Univision, Hearst, Belo, Cox, E.W. Scripps and Gannett. At launch, the group plans to offer more than 72 stations in 32 TV markets.

For its part, MetroPCS plans to offer Dyle in Atlanta; Boston; Dallas-Fort Worth; Detroit; Jacksonville, Fla.; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Miami; New York; Orlando; Philadelphia; Sacramento, Calif.; San Francisco; and Tampa, Fla.

If you’re reading this site, you know who all of these folks are. But just for formality’s sake:

Jason Kilar is CEO of Hulu, the video joint venture co-owned by Comcast, Disney and News Corp.’s broadcast TV units. The site has been a huge hit with viewers and subscribers, who have put it on pace to generate $500 million in revenue this year. But its owners aren’t quite sure what to do with it: They put it up for sale this summer, then decided to hang on to it after all. This will be Kilar’s first major public appearance since that tumult, so we’ll have plenty of questions.

Dick Costolo is CEO of Twitter, which has moved from Web oddity to a service used by more than 100 million people a month. Twitter’s founders didn’t like the notion of turning their baby into a media company, but that’s exactly what Costolo is trying to do now; he is ramping up efforts to attract more eyeballs and sell more ads. And he’s leaning heavily on big media companies — especially TV networks and movie distributors — to make that happen.

Martha Stewart is the founder of Martha Stewart Living, the multimedia empire she built from scratch, which now includes magazines, TV shows, a Web site and multiple lines of branded goods; her newest coup is a big-dollar deal with J.C. Penney. She’ll be joined onstage by Lisa Gersh, the president and chief operating officer Stewart brought in from NBC Universal nearly a year ago. At NBC U, Gersh had overseen the acquisition of the Weather Channel, among other duties; she had previously been chief operating officer at Oxygen Media.

They’ll join a lineup that includes ESPN President John Skipper, YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, New Yorker editor David Remnick, Warner Music Chairman Edgar Bronfman Jr., News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey, Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman, Legendary Pictures head Thomas Tull and Vevo CEO Rio Caraeff. And we may still have a surprise or two between now and the end of January.

All Things Digital’s first-ever media conference runs Jan. 30 and 31 at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel, an hour south of Los Angeles. See you there.

That seems like an obvious correlation. But, until recently, that wasn’t the case, for a couple reasons. Some Web video sites had held back a bit from shoving ads in front of users’ faces, for fear of scaring them off. And lots of folks who wanted to buy video ads couldn’t find places they wanted to place them.

This is changing now, and that means the Web video business might finally be catching up to the long-running Web video boom.

Here, for instance, is promising news for ad buyers and sellers, via FreeWheel, a start-up that helps serve and manage video ads for the likes of Turner, Vevo and Fox. FreeWheel says that last quarter, for the first time, the rate of video ad views grew faster than overall video views — 128 percent versus 97 percent:

Just as important is that viewers seem okay with the bump in ads, too. The completion rate for the ads seems to have held steady, even as the number of ads has increased.

That’s particularly true for “long-form” stuff — often TV episodes on Hulu and other sites — which have recently seen ad loads double. The longer you watch a video clip, it seems, the more likely you are to watch the accompanying ads all the way through.

Easy enough to cover this stuff with caveats, the most obvious being that FreeWheel is anything but an unbiased observer here. It’s also important to note that this data goes through the first part of this fall. And, as lots of glum Web publishers will tell you now, the Web ad business has gotten a lot less robust in the last couple months.

Big picture, the Web video business is still very much a work in progress, which you can see at a glance by noting the turmoil at Hulu, or YouTube’s overhaul. And there’s still a long way to go: Video ads grew 42 percent in the first half of the year, but still only make up 6 percent of the overall Web ad business. But if it keeps headed in this direction it’s going to quickly make up ground.

Speaking of YouTube, here’s a clip Google’s site tells me is a new favorite. Involves some standard-issue hip-hop swearing:

Netflix will foot at least part of the bill for an unspecified number of new episodes, which will be produced by News Corp.’s 20th Century Fox studio (News Corp. also owns this Web site) and will start running in 2013. The new shows will be exclusive to Netflix streaming video subscribers, at least for its initial “window.”

That fits the content strategy CEO Reed Hastings has been laying out for a while: He wants to create an $8-a-month version of HBO, delivered over the Web, stocked with stuff you can’t get anywhere else.

That’s why Hastings has spent the last year or so cobbling together a slate of exclusive movie deals (like a recent DreamWorks pact) and TV shows (like a recent deal with CW), and that’s why he’s already committed to a deal to produce “House of Cards,” a new Kevin Spacey/David Fincher miniseries next year. At the same time, he is losing a Starz deal that gave him access to movies from Sony and Disney.

Netflix has been noodling with the notion of using digital distribution to revive dormant TV shows or extend the life of ones that are about to be canceled, for some time.

Others are contemplating the same thing: Producer Jeff Kwatinetz, for instance, is trying to get financing to film new episodes of two ABC soaps — “All My Children,” which went off the air in September; and “One Life to Live,” which goes off the air in January.

Saving old shows that couldn’t generate enough viewers to justify a broadcast network’s support, but which still have a loyal following, has particular appeal to Netflix. The company’s executives believe they can “algorithmically bring an audience to a show,” using recommendation engines, over an extended period of time.

In this case, the company is bringing back a show that’s been off the air for five years, but which still has a very vocal fan base. In October, show creator Mitchell Hurwitz said that “nine or 10″ new episodes of “Arrested Development” were in the works, which would function as a prelude to a to-be-filmed movie.

The study, by ad-buying firm Optimedia US, one of the first to examine the issue, raises questions about the effectiveness of social media as a promotional tool for TV.

It found that the top five new shows in terms of online buzz — Fox’s talent show “X-Factor,” the NBC drama “Playboy Club,” the Fox comedy “New Girl,” the NBC comedy “Whitney” and the ABC action show “Charlie’s Angels” — didn’t rank nearly as high in terms of viewership.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Disney has re-upped a two-year-old deal with Netflix to stream older shows that aired on ABC, ABC Family and the Disney Channel. And it announced what is essentially the same deal with Amazon, which will make the shows available via its Amazon Prime streaming service.

The Amazon deal also includes animated shows featuring Marvel characters, and it’s possible that the two deals have minor differences. The Netflix release, for instance, says that some shows that are still on the air — like “Grey’s Anatomy” — will be available 30 days after the last episode of each season runs on TV. There’s no reference to window length with Amazon.

But for the average Web video viewer, this stuff is going to mean the same thing: Both Amazon and Netflix are going to have a bunch of old ABC shows. A few of them will be programs that are still running on TV, but they’ll be from previous seasons, not this year’s reruns. And everything else will be even older.

That’s now the standard for most Big TV Web-video licensing deals. The networks and studios are quite happy to sell their shows to digital distributors, as long as they’re a bit musty.

It’s basically found money, and it will drop straight to Disney’s bottom line, just like equivalent deals at Comcast’s NBC, News Corp.’s Fox, etc. (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

And the networks are finding ways to sell the same stuff multiple times, like today’s pacts, or deals announced earlier this month to show CW Network shows on Netflix and Hulu, which (could) bring more than a $1 billion in new revenue to owners CBS and Time Warner.

The deals also show that Amazon continues to cut into the lead Netflix has built up in its Web video catalog. Netflix is moving toward an exclusivity strategy, where it pays a premium for stuff you’re not going to be find anywhere else on the Web. But it can’t fill its 20,000-title catalog with exclusives alone. And in this deal, at least, it doesn’t appear to have carved out any exclusives at all.

Now on his own, Chernin is doing the same thing: He’s producing TV — Fox’s “Terra Nova” and “The New Girl” — and movies — “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” — and he’s making digital investments in highfliers like Flipboard and Pandora. And last fall, Chernin made a strategic move outside of the U.S. by opening up CA Media, an operating and investment vehicle focused on China, Asia and Indonesia.

8:57 am: Good morning from Hong Kong. Peter Kafka takes the AsiaD stage and after a few introductory remarks is joined by Peter Chernin.

A bit of patter and then the first question:

Peter Kafka: So you were the chief operating officer at News Corp for many years. A couple of years ago you left, you’re in TV and movies — seems to be doing quite well. What are you doing in Asia?

Peter Chernin: Well, I had been in the same job at News Corp. for 13 years. So when I made a decision to leave, I started thinking about — what I really spent most of my time thinking about was, where do I think growth is likely to occur? And what I set out to try and do was build a company in — you know, I had the luxury of starting with a blank piece of paper, and I decided to use that luxury to try and build a company that really focused on areas of the media that I thought had growth potential.

So it ended up in a couple of buckets. So I’m clearly in the premium content business, I’m producing –

PK: And you left with deals in place with News Corp.?

PC: I left with deals just for movies and television, so I produced movies, I produced television shows. I’ve been doing a fair amount of investing in digital, which is an area of growth. And then the other big area of growth, I believe, in the world, is going to be the developing world. And so one of the things I did was I hired a colleague of mine, a gentleman named Paul Aiello who had run STAR TV for me. And our thesis was that, between the two of us, we probably had more media experience in Asia than just about anyone else, and we felt that this is likely to be the sort of nexus of growth in both the immediate world and the tech world in the years ahead. And we thought there was an opportunity to bring sort of our — a combination of our expertise and at the same time not having any other legacy issues that come with these big companies as it relates to regulation, as it relates to partnership, etc.

So we started a company called CA Media about 10 months ago. We’ve opened offices here, we opened an office in Mumbai, we’re about to open an office in Beijing and we’re going to open an office in Djakarta.

PK: You’re not the first Western media executive to go, “There’s going to be a lot of growth in Asia; I should get over there.” Does your thesis differ from the NBCs of the world, Warner, Fox, lots of people who have tried to put stakes in Asia?

PC: Well, I guess I’d say, immodestly, the thesis differs in the sense — you know, I’ve had 15 years of experience of businesses, you know, we essentially built the largest media business in Asia in STAR TV. So I’m not sure the thesis is all — I’m not sure it’s an act of genius to say there’s going to be growth in Asia, and I don’t take credit for that; but I do think hopefully our thesis is different in that we have experience in there.

Paul, before running STAR TV, he’d spent 15 years in Hong Kong running T&T Banking for Morgan Stanley. So we’ve got a pretty deep experience base here.

PK: And this is the AsiaD conference, but obviously, territory by territory, things are radically different. So give me an idea of how you’re going to approach China differently than, say, India?

PC: Well, I think — look, so we’re going to approach all these places opportunistically. I’d say, on a superficial basis, I think the opportunities in China are likely to be more digital; there are more regulations as it relates to traditional media: You can’t own a platform, you can co-produce but you can’t own a content business.

On the other hand, there are much looser regulations on the digital side, although the first deal we’ve done is we made a deal to buy a significant portion of a sports business in China. We bought a mixed martial arts business in China.

India, I think, is likely to be more of both. India, there are big content broadcast platform opportunities, and also very significant digital opportunities there.

PK: And to be clear, this isn’t about exporting content that you’ve made in the U.S.

PC: No, this is trying to buy local businesses, buy and build local businesses.

PK: And do you think about — well, obviously you do — so in terms of the way that your customers are going to consume this stuff, do you assume that mobile is going to be more important in one country versus traditional TV, or is this all sort of up in the air?

PC: Well, I think that these are arguably the two most significant mobile markets in the world. They both have a little over 700 million –

PK: It’s India and China?

PC: India and China, they both have a little over 700 million mobile customers. And I think the interesting — the very interesting thing, particularly — I think the big difference beyond that is China has a pretty decent Internet infrastructure; India does not. India probably has 10 or 15 million broadband customers today, probably going over 100 in the next several years, but still, on the basis of population, very limited broadband distribution.

So I think what you’re going to see in both these places is the real growth of the mobile Internet; on some level leapfrogging the traditional Internet. And, I would conjecture, probably setting a standard for the growth in mobile Internet. And I think, in my mind, one of the questions that’s going to be very interesting is, traditionally, I think people have thought that the digital businesses here have largely taken U.S. models and copied them. I think the really interesting question is, are we going to see developments — particularly in the area of mobile Internet — from this part of the world, which ends up getting copied in the U.S. because it has so much more of a dominant presence in people’s lives.

PK: And you weren’t here earlier, but this has been sort of a running theme, sort of the idea at this conference, that China in particular, but lots of Asian territories are sort of replicating stuff they’ve seen in the U.S. and the West, and iterating on it versus creating new stuff. And we haven’t seen much of the latter, but you think some of that’s coming?

PC: I do think some of that’s coming.

You know, I think the other thing that’s fascinating is India. India is a fascinating place because, as I said earlier, low Internet penetration, right? Huge mobile penetration, launching 3G right now, supposed to launch 4G at the end of this year, and what does a country look like that has 3G/4G distribution and cheap tablets? And they are about to launch a $50 tablet, $45 tablet in India, subsidized by the government to $30 for students. And there are 700 million people with cellphones there, so there’s clearly a lot of mobile connectivity. But what does a country look like that’s got 300, 400 million low-cost tablets, and that becomes the dominant distribution infrastructure?

PK: And you think a tablet can be a dominant form — a primary form of media consumption, of video consumption? In the U.S., so far the iPad seems to be ancillary; it’s something you hold while you watch T.V. Maybe it’s a remote –

PC: [Interposing] Well, I think — what’s really interesting to me and — it’s a little esoteric, but one of the dominant things about the Indian television business, and there are 105-110 million paid television households in Indian — probably up to 150 — but the average Indian home has one television set. So if you look — to me, I think the really fascinating content question is, if you have a country with one television set — generally controlled by the mother in the family — you have a country with 350 million people under the age of 15 all about to sort of become teenagers, clearly not dying to watch T.V. with their mom and dad and low-cost tablets. What does that say about a potential distribution infrastructure? So I do think — and very limited Internet infrastructure. So I think — it’s a recipe, I think, for absolutely a very different content delivery experience.

PK: Let’s go back to the U.S. for a minute — for a bit. You are one of the key architects of Hulu, back when you were at News Corp. And, if anyone doesn’t know, Hulu is perhaps the most successful media company formed by a giant media conglomerate.

PC: It’s a low bar. [Laughter]

PK: It’s a low bar, but a genuine success. I think this year they are on track to do $500 million in revenue. And in some ways you can argue that Hulu became too successful and now there’s a lot of flux around it, but — bring me back — when you were kicking around the idea for Hulu with Jeff Zucker at NBC, what was the original thought? Why did you guys want to create a video Web site?

PC: You know, I had several thoughts in mind. One was, I felt that IPTV was going to be a big phenomenon and, you know, I didn’t want to see a replication of, essentially, HBO, where a third party had built a dominant business on the back of the studio’s content. I felt like we should build it ourselves.

PK: Are you speaking about YouTube specifically, or a player to be named later?

PC: A player to be named later. Secondly, I was concerned about YouTube, although the Google-YouTube acquisition was sort of in the middle of our thought process of — so I wasn’t concerned about it at the beginning, but — and what I was concerned about was I didn’t want to have one dominant video distributor, I felt it was really important to have a second. And then the third thing I was concerned about was — it felt to me, you know, one of the dominant issues in the television business in the U.S. is PVRs. You have 50+ PVR penetration. You have people skipping ads, and what I felt was, that’s in some way the least valuable … sort of chink in the value chain for traditional media, and I felt like if we could get people so that rather than PVRing things and skipping commercials, if it was all available the next day on an online platform with limited commercials, we would monetize, at higher levels, DVRs. And so I thought that was an important part.

PK: So you guys built this — so you hired Jason Kilar and a team, and they built a very successful service — very successful, out of the gate — and one version of the narrative is it almost became too successful right away and that it caused the studios and the networks to go in it and were actually going to pull some of the eyeballs away from our own viewing. And the other part of the narrative is that while this was happening, you guys were starting to see real money from the MSOs and cable operators in terms of retransmission — they were starting to pay you for stuff they hadn’t paid for before, and the idea of giving it away for free over Hulu became a lot less attractive. The third part is that you left Hulu — you left News Corp. — and the chief advocate for the company sort of went away, and Jeff Zucker sort of left NBC. Does that narrative — all the narrative … First of all, is that the correct narrative? That all those three things happened at the same time, and that’s why the people who own Hulu are no longer as excited to own it?

PC: Well, I think — first of all, I have a different point of view. I don’t have a different point of view on that narrative, but I have a different point of view than — which is that — I think that sequential IP distribution of product is a huge opportunity for the studios.

PK: Explain what you mean by “sequential.”

PC: Well, I think that you can figure out ways to window it in ways that you don’t destroy your existing businesses, and I think the DVR example I used is the right … The stuff is available the next day on a platform anyway with zero monitorization, so the idea that you are giving — this notion that you are giving away stuff for free, is free anyway. Eighty-five percent of Hulu viewing is stuff that was on for free for broadcast television the night before. So this notion that you are going to put it in a bottle and somehow — I think is silliness. The other thing you’ve seen — it’s out of the bottle and it’s available, and I personally believe the media companies ought to monetize it. I also genuinely believe that more distribution has always been better. You know, I will give you a very good example: Fox did something — which I thought was very smart and I take no credit for it, they did it entirely by themselves — which is, we premiered a new comedy series, that I produced, in September, called “The New Girl.” Fox gave away the pilot episode for free on iTunes, and on Hulu for a week or 10 days before. Most people inside the broadcast industry said they were crazy. Why give it away for free — all you are going to do is take away ratings from the pilot. By the time it came on it was — something more than a million people had downloaded or streamed it — it was the highest-rated new comedy in 10 years on Fox, and it’s clear lots of those people watched it again, talked about it again. So I am a big believer that don’t put it back in the bottle, number one. I think you are competing with PVRs, and I think you can figure out a way to sort of sequence the distribution that maximizes it. The other thing, to be fair, is — and the media companies, I don’t think want to talk about this that much, unless they have a viable, legitimate means of distribution — consumers are going to steal the stuff and, nobody may like that, but there is not a single episode of television, not a single movie, that is not available on a pirated site.

PK: It’s still harder to get to it than it was to get a song from Napster in 1999, but it’s not very hard.

PC: It’s not so hard that if you don’t — look, I think historically piracy has always been the same thing, which is the bulk of people, if you give them an easy, straightforward way to do it legitimately and at rational costs, they will do it legitimately. If you don’t, they will steal it from you.

PK: I was surprised that — as an experiment, I am not endorsing it — but I was able to start watching a pirated stream of “The Daily Show” while “The Daily Show” was still being broadcast live in the U.S. I mean, it goes up that quickly now.

PC:: So the idea that media companies should put this away and make it so it is not available, I think is a recipe for disaster. To be fair to them, I think that, you know — they just took it off the market; so they decided to keep it now so they seem to be this month back in the “embrace Hulu” mode.

PK: If you were there, if you were running News Corp, if this was one of your properties, what would you want to do with Hulu now? They have now split the business into a free business, where there is really going to be less content available and it’s going to take longer to get there … In business –

PC: [Interposing] I would want to do everything I could to support Hulu, and the reason I said that is, I think — you know, I am sure most people … it’s not easy to build one of these things, and Jason and his team have done a spectacular job of building a significant business in three years. But secondly, I think if you’re the studio, what you want more than anything is you want an important and significant competitor to Netflix. The last thing you want is for there to be one dominant online subdistributor, because right now, you know, there is huge money being spent, but if they own the world, the money is going to come down –

PK: But you were specific. You said Netflix. You didn’t say YouTube, you didn’t say Apple, you didn’t say Google.

PC: Well, right now it’s Netflix. I think Netflix, in terms of the IP distribution of studio content, they have a pretty big leadership. In terms of IP — streamed IP distribution and studio content.

PK: Netflix had a very rough summer. They raised prices. They’ve moved back and forth in terms of some strategy. The stock price is down 60%, and a lot of people say, alright, they had their moment in the sun, they are knocked out. You seem much more optimistic about their prospects.

PC: Well, from their prospective, yes. You know — I think they’ve built a terrific business and they have reached a point of general critical mass. They are approaching right below 30 million subs. That ‘s a lot of cash being generated; a lot of cash to spend on the content business, and they are out there making big aggressive deals, buying exclusive content, and so I think they are a real source.

PK: They are buying some exclusive content, and then primarily what they are buying are repeats from the big studios.

PC: I meant, but they are buying those repeats exclusively. You know, they are out there buying those “Mad Men”s of the world — they just did a big WB deal exclusively, they just did a DreamWorks.

PK: And from the network’s perspective, this all seems like found money. These are repeats, we have extracted all the value we can, you are going to give us more money that falls to the bottom line. We win if you want to buy our repeats, great. Do you think that’s shortsighted on their part?

PC: I don’t think that’s shortsighted. I think what’s shortsighted is, I think they should be doing everything they can to make sure there is a competitor, because if there is not a competitor, at some point the amount of money they are spending will come down. And I think their best hope for a competitor is Hulu.

PK:: So you spent a lot of time at a very big media company; you pushed a lot of the digital efforts there in addition to Hulu; you did several … You oversaw Myspace, and News Corp. in particular seemed to have unwrapped all of those investments. They sold off Myspace for spare change. They bought a company called IGN; they are spinning that off, and Hulu they seem to have boxed off. Do you think News Corp.’s uncomfortableness with digital properties is specific to them or do you think that’s reflective of all of the established media companies?

PC: Look, I think these things end up being a combination of both. I think there is an overall discomfort on multiple … there are specific issues going on.

PK: We will leave it there. Speaking of digital — I said this yesterday and it’s still true — everyone who was on stage with me has either worked at Yahoo or wants to buy it. Your name has come up several times as a potential Yahoo buyer. Is that still something you are interested in?

PC: I heard Jerry [Yang] yesterday say it’s not for sale, so it’s kind of a moot point.

PK: I think he said all options were on the table.

PC: Look, to be honest, I spent a fair amount of time looking at it a year ago. I’ve done very — and it seems so confusing to me, at least, right now — that I’ve spent very, very little time in recent months on it and, you know, I don’t want to rule out anything. On the other hand, I’m not — you know, it seems like such a confusing situation, it doesn’t seem like right now it’s worth … investment.

PK: Can you see putting energy and time into building a brand-new digital asset? Could you create a new all-digital distribution channel in the U.S.? Is that possible for someone like yourself, sort of standing outside the … companies?

PC: Well, I think there are numerous different ways, you know, one of the things I — I am certainly very interested in the area of digital media distribution, and I think that, you know, you’ve seen the Internet create dominant players in so many areas, you know. A dominant search business. A dominant e-commerce business. A dominant social networking piece. And I still think that media distribution is fairly fluid and wide open, and so that’s appealing to me. I think some of the investments I’ve made are absolutely playing that. I think Flipboard — which is an investment I made a year and a half ago, almost two years ago — is a fascinating model for digital distribution of content. You know, I just made an investment in Tumblr, which I think is a really interesting model. So I think those things are interesting.

PK: Can I ask about those two before we go any further? Because Tumblr — I’ve used it and seen it grow, and the best I can tell it’s sort of a dumbed down, in the best way possible, version of Blogger. It’s a blogging platform. It seems hard to understand what they’ll do with that business. They’ve made no real efforts to monetize that in any way. But you, obviously, seem comfortable with that, you’ve put money in there. Where do you think that company goes?

PC: I think that — what interesting about it to me — first of all, the growth trajectory is … It’s astonishing right now, the growth trajectory that we’ve seen with Facebook, we’ve seen with Twitter, etc. And to me, what’s interesting about it is a couple of things. One is, it seems to fall in between Twitter and Facebook, which is that it’s an opportunity to — it’s Twitter-like in its ability to express yourself, but without — and I don’t say this negatively — without the sort of restrictions in terms of number of characters and the ability to add photos and video and to add a much deeper, richer level of self-expression. And it’s Yahoo-like in the ability to communicate as your real self and express yourself. I think what it says about the content distribution business is that — what’s most interesting about it is that it is ultimately a way of — it’s a self-publishing content business, and I think where it has really gained traction is people retweeting, resending tweets, resending other people’s blogs, resending other people’s photos and resending other people’s videos. And I think this notion of self-publishing just in content is very, very profound and significant. And so I think that I look at that as being interesting.

PK: So you’re fine with that notion — build the service, build the platform; we’ll figure out ads as we go or monetization as we go. And Flipboard is a different take on this — it’s sort of a shell for existing content companies to distribute their stuff via tablets.

PC: Well, I think, to me, what’s most interesting about Flipboard is two things, which is, one, in a very much Steve Jobs sort of sense, a most beautiful content interface I think that we’ve yet seen created. I think it’s an absolutely beautiful interface to present content, and I think products matter. I think people want — the products that deliver a service are absolutely critical to people, so I think that’s one. The other is, I think it’s a very interesting sort of proxy for social distribution of content. The ability to sort of tie in your Flipboard feed to your Facebook feed and ultimately… You know, to me what feels extraordinarily interesting is –

PK: The progress …

PC: There’s so much content available right now, and I think that consumers are and will become more interested in organizing principles that allow them to figure out ways to navigate through all that kind of — it’s a sort of next generation of portals, which is, portals were early on … I think that what consumers are really looking for is, how do I wade through all this stuff and how do I discover this stuff?

PK: And you want to make those choices, as opposed to having stuff served to them.

PC: I think that they want to — they want to have stuff served to them in a … targeted way. So I think whether you see it — Pandora, which is another company I invested in –Pandora has clearly figured out a way to serve music content in a very specific way. Flipboard is using your social network as a way of doing that. I think that you begin to see that there are other targeting things, that are other recommendation engine things, but I think that beginning to put these technological tools around products that deliver content that’s relevant, is meaningful to consumers and has a lot of potential.

PK: So these are investments in other people’s digital projects that you’ve made. Could you imagine creating — I mean, is there opportunity to create the equivalent of a digital HBO, given the new distribution channels?

PC: I think there is certainly next-generation original video distribution platforms. I think it’s challenging, it needs serious work and I think that part of the issue in my mind is that what you’ve seen in Web -based original video product is that, for the most part, it’s been low budget, low-risk stuff, and I think the key is to do stuff that (a) feels like it specifically takes advantage of interactivity, etc., and (b) to start delivering premium content because, you know, consumers are very, very sophisticated and they are not interested in cheap, they are interested in better.

PK: There are lots of people watching very crudely made stuff. They seem happy with it but one of the reasons it’s very crudely made is there’s no ad budget that supports …

PC: Well, one of the other investments that we’ve made is that we’ve backed a gentleman named George Strompolos, who was in charge of all the content relationships at YouTube … really an attempt to aggregate some of the key individuals sort of, these guys who are getting 10-15 million views of low-budget content. But I think it is a way of trying to aggregate additional advertising resources, allowing them to promote each other, almost to think about … dirty word but network-izing them.

PK: And YouTube is trying a version of this themselves, they are going out to Hollywood and trying to seek content. What about the idea of going to someone and saying, alright, we are going to give you original content, it’s only available on the Web or digital distribution — we would like you, the consumer, to pay for it. Do you think people are willing to pay for that stuff?

PK: I think — I personally believe people will be willing to pay for it, but it needs to be genuine premium content. Look, the interesting thing I would think about is, HBO spends about $500 million a year producing original content. They spend a huge amount of stuff, you know, the core HBO series that we all think about, they probably spend about $200 million or $250 [million] because they are doing being movies and miniseries, they’re doing sports, they are doing kid’s programs. One of the interesting questions is, could you get 10 million people paying you $2 a month for HBO original content? For $200 million could you create a suite of content that is of that level of quality, and could you get 10 million people paying you $2 a month? I think you could.

PK: So why not do it?

PC: I think there’s a lot of chicken-and-egg things in there. It’s something I have sort of been playing around with and thinking about but, look, I personally am a big believer in –

PK: I think you would have people flocking if you could say, here is HBO-like stuff that’s $2 a month. There are lots of folks. Just anecdotally from my readers that say, I would love to get HBO but I don’t want to get a cable subscription, or I don’t want to pay $15 a month.

PC: And I think if you — HBO is not my business, and I’m by no means putting them — I don’t think the movies are why people are buying HBO at this point.

PK: What about sports … you were at News Corp. when they broke … Fox via the NFL. Does the NFL or any other sports league, is it worth overpaying a premium to create a digital window?

PC: Yes.

PK: How much would you pay for the NFL?

PC: Well, given that ESPN just paid $2 billion for “Monday Night Football,” you would be paying probably $3 billion.

PK: Could you make that work though, on an all-digital platform?

PC: Well, you certainly couldn’t make it — first of all, nobody can make NFL work other than the NFL on a standalone basis. I don’t think there has ever been an NFL contract that has been profitable on a standalone basis for the person doing it. So you have to look at it as a strategic weapon. So, you know, if you look at Direct TV, it clearly looked at Sunday Ticket as a weapon to sell overall subscribers. They are not making money selling Sunday Ticket for … they are making money selling that many more Direct TV subscriptions. You know, at Fox we never made money on the individual contract, but it allowed us to significantly rejiggle our affiliate base, it allowed us to start Fox Sports, it gave us tremendous leverage in the cable channel business. So I think that if you are an online distributor, you need to look at it strategically, and that’s a big bet.

PK: So it seems pretty clear, Google and YouTube ought to buy NFL rights? That’s my theory.

PC: It’s a big bet.

On to questions from the audience …

Q: Yes, good morning, Peter. My name is … with … Communications, we are a mobile Internet operator in Malaysia. So, two questions. The first one is, programming grid: In light of all these new ways to discover content, is there still a role for programming grid? For the linear notion? Those days are numbered, right?

PC: By programming grid, you mean what show follows what show. I think those days are highly, highly numbered. I’ll give you an example. We premiered this “New Girl” show, brand-new comedy, historically very difficult to launch new things. We premiered it behind “Glee,” No.1 drama on Fox, probably the No. 3 drama on television and, you know, I was thinking about expectations the night before and I kept saying, if we can hold 75% of the “Glee” audience, I would have been thrilled. And we did 30-40% more then “Glee” on a brand-new show no one had ever seen before. Is the grid as important as it used to be?

No, I think the grid is no longer as important as it used to be. That show was clearly quite capable of — an audience, and you see the same thing on the other side — which is shows that come after the No. 1 show on television, which lose 40, 50, 60% of their audience — and I think that the grid becomes less important every single day. You know this is really sort of silly jargon but, you know, as in relation to the media business, the one truism I have always felt is, no one can predict where technology is going to go and no one can predict … what I can tell you with absolute certainty is the effects of technology and the effects of technology are, consumers have more choice and more control. That’s what happens with every single piece of additional technology — there is more fragmentation and more choice and you have less ability to control them to get them — and in that sense, the single most overwhelming piece of technology for the television business was the remote control. When they didn’t have to get their ass off the couch and go change the channel, it really changed the amount of control that broadcasters had … and every single step gives you less control. And the grid was about control.

PK: This season is the first season that Fox has started window content online. For the last couple of years, you could watch any Fox show the day after on Hulu; now they have made that only available to Dish TV — it’s called authentication. As someone who is putting on new shows — you’ve put on “Terra Nova” and “The New Girl” this year — can you see that effect one way or another on your shows?

PC: Yes, I would prefer they didn’t do it.

PK: You would prefer your shows be available on Hulu or —

PC: Well, certainly for a new show you would prefer as much circulation as possible. Look, I think that they have their own reasons which is, you know, they have a gigantic multibillion dollar distribution infrastructure which they are trying to protect. But speaking as the producer of a show, I would rather –

PK: You think you lost eyeballs.

PC: I would rather it be ubiquitously more available, so more people have a chance to sample it.

Q: My following question — just a quick following question. So, digitalization of broadcast TV … hasn’t created much new business models or innovations in the Western Hemisphere. In the emerging markets in Asia, do you see digitalization of … opening up new business models and innovation opportunities, and if so, how?

PC: Well, I see it opening up more innovation than it did in the West because, you know, the West’s digitalization came into an existing, enormously rich and vital distribution infrastructure. It was a world in which there were already 200 or 300 cable channels, satellite distribution, cable distribution, and so digitization wasn’t offering anything that spectacular to consumers. I think in a less-developed television ecosystem, digitization means more. I think one of the most significant things that’s going to happen in the television business on the globe in the coming years, in the next two to three years, you are about to have — there is no digitalization of cable content in India. India is about to go digital on the cable business. One of the fascinating things is most — 85% of the average cable subscription never gets up to the channel or the cable operator. It is kept by the local operator, who just pretends … operator will have 200 subs and it will tell STAR, well, I actually have 80 subs or 200 subs and pay for very few — and pay for 10 or 15% of the subs. With digitalization you are about to have a huge influx of capital coming back up the chain, which is going to lead to clearly more money to be spent on content, but also the beginning an explosion of niche channels, an explosion of additional content. So I think digitalization in this part of the world where a West-developed television ecosystem is going to be quite meaningful.

Q: You talked a lot about how Netflix needs a competitor like Hulu. I am curious — Amazon didn’t come up, I mean, and they obviously are going to be a big player in the Android tablet business and what they have done in books. How do you see them as a factor or nonfactor in terms of movie/TV content?

PC: Well, I think that there is — there are several people who have an opportunity to play a meaningful, meaningful role. Clearly Netflix is already there. Amazon has an enormous opportunity. It’s very powerful, has hundreds of millions of credit card accounts and people already going there for content. Less video content now, but — clearly, Apple is a very, very important player and is going to continue to be an important player. YouTube — whatever the current number is, a gazillion video views, so an enormous amount of people — the dominant video distribution platform on earth, not yet for premium content, but a huge opportunity. Microsoft, currently today the No. 1 premium online video should be 50 million Xbox Plus subscribers. So I think there are a number of players, all of whom can be significant. So I don’t think Hulu is by any means — and I think if you are sitting in a studio, you hope that they all get aggressive about it.

Q: And the follow-up questions, in the previous discussion with … and Sony … some discussion on Internet TV, there was also a lot of discussion on Apple and what others can do. How do you think about Internet TV, both in the developed and the developing market? More in the developing market here?

PC: Well, do you mean from a hardware prospective, or do you mean from the distribution platform?

Q: We’ve got all these hardware folks in Asia creating all kinds of … T.V. The problem is there is not as yet a cohesive content strategy, and then you’ve also got this emerging competition from tablets and so on, and then the whole lean back, lean forward — I was just curious, if remote control was the biggest innovation for controlling the previous generation of television, how do you think that Internet TV becomes a real business?

PC: I think, clearly, the hardware guys are going to ship lots of connected television sets, and I think the point you raise is exactly the right point — it needs a content services layer and whether — and I think the question is, does that layer come from the hardware guys — you know there are three or four places it can come from. It can come from the hardware guys, particularly if they ever figure out a way to form a consortium.

PK: Samsung, Sony, LG.

PC: Right. It can come from the pipes, you know, AT&T, in the U.S. AT&T, Verizon and the cable guys could decide we are going to be the ones to figure out our way … It could come from the big tech players, and ultimately the content guys could play a role. So any number of those people can play a role in it. I believe –

PK: Who’s got the most leverage there?

PC: Everybody — every one of those players has got some real leverage and a real position to play from. I think it takes leadership.

Q: My question is about the Nielsen rating system in the States that has historically been what … defines success. With the digital age, with people watching content online and the Nielsen ratings doesn’t actually count that into their statistics. How would you … update themselves and track those things, because a lot of shows that are good and have a big following online … doesn’t get counted, so the shows get canceled. Should they really start being a little bit more proactive in following the online site viewers?

PC: First of all, let me say two things. The guy who runs Nielsen is one of my best friends, and we went to war with Nielsen and Fox. We had a big public war with them three years ago, so we have been as aggressive about their shortcomings as anybody. To me the issue — first of all, they have started to count these things. I think the question for Nielsen going forward is the following, which is the sort of hardware to collect viewing information which was originally Nielsen’s platform, they were able to deliver … and then they were able to deliver meters in households. That’s no longer an issue. You can ultimately track ratings exactly from set-top boxes, from IP addresses. There would be absolutely perfect rating information and Nielsen has started to get quite aggressive about measuring other screens. I think the real challenge and the issue for Nielsen or anybody else is going to be the analytic side. And there is going to be so much data available; I think the real question is going to be the level of sophistication on the analytics of all that data because the days when — 50 years ago when Nielsen got started, that data was at a real premium. Nobody else was capable of delivering diaries and extrapolating that. The data right now is the easiest thing in the world to obtain. Every set-top box in the world knows exactly what each person watches. It will get even more sophisticated with IPTV and individual devices, but there will be so much data, the analysis of that data will become that much more demanding and demand that much more sophistication. And to be fair to Nielsen — and, you know, I have been very public with annoyance with them — they are a pretty good analytics company in many ways.

Peter Chernin Session Photos

HULU EQUITY OWNERS ANNOUNCE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE HULU SALE PROCESS

Los Angeles, New York & Providence, RI – October 13, 2011 – The following is a joint statement from Hulu owners News Corporation, Providence Equity Partners, The Walt Disney Company and the Hulu senior management team:
“Since Hulu holds a unique and compelling strategic value to each of its owners, we have terminated the sale process and look forward to working together to continue mapping out its path to even greater success. Our focus now rests solely on ensuring that our efforts as owners contribute in a meaningful way to the exciting future that lies ahead for Hulu.”

So that ends one chapter of the odd Hulu story. Not a shocking end, because it has never been clear that Hulu’s owners — who include Comcast, Disney and News Corp., which also owns this site — actually did want to hand it off to someone else.

I can save myself some work by quoting from the piece I wrote back in June, when the sale process kicked off, sparked by an overture from Yahoo:

… while it’s natural to think about who might be interested in buying Hulu, it’s the wrong question. The right one: What are Hulu’s owners selling?

More specifically, what kind of content licenses are Hulu’s three broadcast owners — News Corp.’s Fox, Disney’s ABC, and Comcast’s NBC — willing to part with?

Because it’s the TV shows from those three companies that give Hulu almost all of its value. And while those shows have helped Hulu build a big Web business very quickly — Hulu has said it’s on track to generate $500 million in revenue this year — that’s not nearly as important to Hulu’s owners as their core TV business.

That fundamental tension is what led to Hulu CEO Jason Kilar’s Web outburst in February this year, and it’s what has underscored the networks’ recent renegotiations of their distribution deals with the site.

And all of that has been going on while the networks own big equity stakes. If they sell that, then those tensions only increase. Or, put another way: They’ve got even less incentive to make Hulu work. …

So once again we’ve got diverging interests at Hulu. But if push comes to shove, I’m betting on the guys who own the content. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t end up selling a thing.

Next up: Now that Hulu’s owners are keeping the site, what will they do with it — and who will run it? Jason Kilar is still CEO, but prior to this summer’s auction he’d spent months butting heads with his owners, who don’t see eye to eye with him on many things. My gut is they’ll offer him a significant incentive package to stay, but that it won’t be enough.

The biggest broadcast and cable-television channels are racing to launch tablet apps linked to their broadcasts and used simultaneously with the TV shows. The hope is that viewers will tune in live and interact.

The offerings include apps from NBCUniversal’s Bravo and News Corp.’s Fox that present material such as photos, quotes, polls or background about particular scenes as a show plays. Viacom Inc. and CBS Corp. have apps that display updates about shows from Twitter or Facebook in real time.

USA Network’s TV comedy-mystery series “Psych” has an app that asks users to enter keywords that flash during the show’s graphics to unlock content like behind-the-scenes footage and games.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The shows are available via Prime Instant, the on-demand video service that’s free to anyone who pays $79 a year for the Amazon Prime shipping service. But with Amazon set to unveil a new iPad-like tablet on Wednesday, lots of folks assume that the company’s video offering will be tied to the new gadget as well.

Like other programming deals Amazon has signed with the likes of CBS and NBCUniversal, the Fox pact is for library shows the network no longer airs. Deals for “in-season” shows are exceptionally rare, and generally the only (legal) place you can find them online are on the networks’ own sites, as well as Hulu.

Amazon says the Fox deal brings its streaming library up to 11,000 titles; Netflix offers around 20,000. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Fox, as well as this site).

UPDATE: An Amazon press release says the deal includes old Fox movies as well, like “Office Space,” “Speed” and “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”

I think networks are a thing of the past. I don’t know anybody under 30 who is watching television the way I watched television. Technology has allowed people to change the way they consume the news, and we want to be where people are going.

Former Fox commentator Glenn Beck, whose first show airs Monday on his Internet-only GBTV channel

That’s the real story behind the Netflix/Starz breakup, says the Los Angeles Times. The paper says that Netflix was willing to pay some $300 million a year to renew the deal — more than 10 times what it’s paying now — but that Starz insisted that the video service change its pricing, too:

“Representatives for the cable network owned by John Malone’s Liberty Media were insistent that Netflix create a new “tier” for subscribers who wanted its movies at a higher price than the $7.99 it currently charges for online video. That would have put Netflix more in line with the pricing of cable and satellite companies, a step the video company apparently wasn’t willing to take.”

That is: Starz was willing to sell access to its stuff (and stuff it controls from Disney and Sony), but only if Netflix was willing to make its service less compelling to consumers, via a price hike.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same reason, more or less, that Hulu introduced a pay service last year.

And it’s why Fox (and soon, ABC and others) has started pulling back some of the free TV it puts on the Web: The people who make money from the traditional TV/video business don’t want that business to change. Or at least they want to slow change down as much as they can.

So they’re willing to make real sacrifices to make that happen. The TV networks, for instance, are willing to give up Web advertising dollars by walling off their stuff online. And Starz, theoretically, is willing to give up $300 million a year in order to placate its cable distributors like Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

If that’s really the case, I’m hedging because it’s possible there’s a different backstory at play here (but note the LAT has excellent entertainment-biz reporters, and the spin syncs up with the official commentary from both sides).

A more practical reason to hedge is that even though both sides have pushed back from the bargaining table, there’s still quite a bit of time left before the deal expires in February.

And both sides have very good reasons to come back: That $300 million could have been about a fifth of Starz’s 2012 revenue, says Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney.

And while Netflix says it doesn’t really need Starz’ stuff, because it’s now so diversified, that’s a little hard to stomach — after all, it was willing to pay $300 million a year for it.

Apple has completely removed customers’ ability to rent shows from iTunes; the remaining options are to buy individual episodes or in some cases a “Season Pass” for a year’s worth of shows.

This doesn’t come as a huge shock, as by all accounts few customers have been interested in rentals, even after ABC and Fox dropped the prices on some of their episodes from $1.99 to 99 cents nearly a year ago.

And Apple has recently given customers the ability to watch shows they purchased via iTunes any time they want, on any Apple device, by streaming it from its “iTunes in the Cloud” service.

“iTunes customers have shown they overwhelmingly prefer buying TV shows,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr said. “iTunes in the Cloud lets customers download and watch their past TV purchases from their iOS devices, Apple TV, Mac or PC allowing them to enjoy their programming whenever and however they choose.”

A statement from Fox (which like this Web site is owned by News Corp.) suggests that the studio was no longer interested in rentals, either: “After carefully considering the results of the rental trial, it became clear that content ownership is a more attractive long-term value proposition both for iTunes customers and for our business. To further enhance the value of ownership, we are working with Apple to make content available within their new cloud-based service.”

If customers have proven resistant to the idea of rentals instead of purchases, the TV networks and studios have always taken that stance.

Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs and his lieutenants worked hard throughout 2010 to get studios on board with the idea of cutting their rental prices to spur more transactions. But in the end Apple was only able to get two major partners to sign up: Disney, where Jobs is on the board of directors and is the company’s largest individual shareholder, and News Corp., which at the time was working closely with Apple to launch The Daily iPad newspaper.

But Jobs had insisted that pricing was the key to increasing content consumption, and that if his partners would charge less, he could help them sell a whole lot more. “Price it aggressively and go for volume,” he said in an onstage interview at the D: All Things Digital conference in June 2010.

Right now the TV business seems to be going the other way. Here’s what your options looked like yesterday if you wanted to pay for an episode of last season’s “Simpsons” on iTunes:

And here’s what it looks like today:

The big media companies have all failed when it comes to digital … Hulu is the exception to that rule. It has flourished, despite ownership by the major media companies. Yet, this is the business that the media companies are looking to sell — does that make sense?

BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield, in a note urging Hulu’s owners, who have put the site on the auction block, not to go through with the sale

Yesterday Fox followed through with its previously announced plans to keep its new shows off the Web for eight days, except for Hulu Plus and Dish Network subscribers. (Fox is owned by News Corp., as is this Web site.) Disney’s ABC is now set to do the same thing, according to people familiar with the company’s plans.

Disney hasn’t formally commented on its plans for “authentication” for ABC broadcast shows on ABC.com and Hulu, but CEO Bob Iger pretty much spelled it out last week during his company’s earnings call.

Asked repeatedly about his Web and digital video strategy, Iger said he was all for distributing his stuff via nontraditional outlets like Hulu and Netflix — as long as it didn’t disrupt his existing relationships with the cable guys who are paying him big money for his shows. And that’s the main point of authentication — keep the cable guys happy.

Some Iger quotes from his call, via Seeking Alpha:

“The relationship that we have with the distributors is a very valuable one, and it’s one that we aim to respect by both protecting what we currently have and determining or figuring out ways that we can expand on it.”

“Our overall approach of late has been to make deals that increase revenue, while at the same time, protect and respect basically the multichannel or the channel distribution value that we see today. So, we’re looking at deals that are largely library in nature, meaning very little if any content that would be in season, mostly prior season. But also, trying to build into at least some of these deals, some form of authentication, [that] … will allow access to our programming faster or in a more aggressive window, if the customer is a multichannel subscriber.”

“You are right in your assessment that we’ll basically push the window back or make access to the programming more difficult or later, except if customers are authenticated as a subscriber.”

You won’t hear much carping about the pullback yet, but that’s because there’s barely any new programming going up in August. Right now, this only affects folks who want to catch up on “Hell’s Kitchen” and “MasterChef” (Team Adrien!). You’ll hear plenty more griping once the new fall shows go up next month.

On the other hand, this is good news for “Modern Family” creator Steve Levitan, who is going to get his wish.

Prior to today, I kept hearing chatter, none of it stronger than word-of-mouth gossip, that Google really did want to make a run at the video site. That struck me as a stretch, given that Google was already facing a wide-ranging federal antitrust probe, and that adding the video site that dominated the market for “professional” content would be a giant red flag for regulators.

Now it seems like a really, really long stretch.

Google could easily afford to shell out a couple billion for the site, owned by a consortium that includes Disney, Comcast and News Corp. (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

At the end of June, Google had $39 billion lying around, and it makes a couple billion more in profits each quarter. And Google biz dev boss David Drummond made a point of telling investors this morning that the $12.5 billion Google wants to spend on Motorola won’t slow it from making other deals.

But Motorola makes Hulu that much more unlikely for two big reasons:

• Google could certainly argue that it wouldn’t break antitrust rules with a Hulu deal for a lot of reasons. They could note, for instance, that Hulu doesn’t have truly exclusive rights to its programming, but shares the licenses with content owners who show the stuff on their own sites (i.e. Fox.com, NBC.com, etc.). But TV is different from mobile advertising or flight search software — people have an emotional attachment to it, and regulators respond accordingly. Note that Comcast had to abdicate any control of NBC Universal’s Hulu stake as a condition to getting its merger done. It’s that much harder to imagine Washington giving Google the go-ahead to control the online output of three of the four broadcast networks at the same time it is asking for control of a giant handset-maker.
• Even if Google thought it could get the deal done, it would have to convince Hulu’s owners, too. Google says it thinks it can get Motorola approved by Washington by the end of the year, but that seems crazily optimistic — as Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney notes, both ITA and DoubleClick took 9 to 11 months for sign-off. If you’re Disney/News Corp./et al and you decide you do want to sell, you want to find a buyer who can actually make it happen.

Then again, perhaps Google could offer a 63 percent premium and a gazillion-dollar break-up fee as insurance, just like it did with Motorola today, and Hulu’s owners would be willing to take the non-risk. Goohulu may have a very, very low chance of survival, but I can’t call it DOA just yet.

The game, which will be available on iTunes later this evening, will be free.

Fox Digital Entertainment had to partner with Tapulous, which is owned by Disney, in order to get the app developed.

(That’s a little like Sue Sylvester, the show’s scheming cheerleading coach, playing nice to Mr. Schuester in order to get what she wants. But hey, at least Fox can now say it has a Tap Tap Revenge game of its own.)

As with other Tap Tap Revenge titles, players are challenged to tap notes with their fingers to the beat of a song.

This app will come with three free tracks, including the cast’s rendition of Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’,” which has been downloaded more than one million times on iTunes.

Another 50 tracks will be available for download for about 50 cents apiece.

Andrew Stalbow, SVP of Mobile for Fox Digital Entertainment, said the game will be heavily promoted in conjunction with the Aug. 12 theatrical release of “Glee: The 3D Concert Movie,” and again when the show’s third season kicks off on Sept. 20.

The game will be featured on movie posters, it will appear in TV promotions during “Glee” reruns, and it will even be plastered on News Corp.’s jumbo screen in Times Square.

“We’ve gotten better at cross-promoting big launches,” Stalbow said. For example, Fox teamed up with Rovio to make a special game edition of Angry Birds tied to the movie “Rio”; Stalbow says the game has “been downloaded 60 million times since we launched it three months ago. Everyone has seen the benefit of cross-promotion.”

So far, there have been four major Tap Tap Revenge releases and numerous specialty versions, which have been downloaded a total of 75 million times.

Tapulous has previously teamed up with such artists as Lady Gaga and Metallica to create special editions of the app, but Tim O’Brien, VP of Business Development at Tapulous, said this launch will be a big deal.

“This is going to be a big launch for sure,” he said. “I’ve been watching our community of users for years, and we get ‘Glee’ requests almost every day.”

He considers the “Glee” version a big release in part because of all the new features.

For example, players will be able to connect to a Gleeks vs. Jocks Facebook wall, where they can choose whether they want to be a Gleek or a Jock, and then click on a friend’s profile to throw a slushy at them by posting to their wall.

The app will also include exclusive video from the upcoming 3-D movie, and the ability to look up information on favorite characters, including bios, quotes and photos in the McKinley High Yearbook. It will be updated with fresh content again in September when the new season begins.

In addition to selling games from inside the app, Fox said the advertising partner for the launch is eBay Mobile.

And they do! But they also require subscribers to do some work.

Part of that is because the cable guys really haven’t worked out the technology yet (Facebook could help here).

But it’s really because the point of The Great Free TV Web Pullback of 2011 (alternate title: The Great Web Video Piracy Boom of 2011) isn’t to make it easy to watch TV shows on the Web. It’s meant to protect the traditional TV business.

And it looks like the new “authentication” program that Fox announced last night, which will pull back free TV shows on Hulu and Fox.com, will follow form. (News Corp., which owns Fox, also owns this Web site.)

Take a look at the Web site that Fox rolled out last night in conjunction with the move. It warns surfers that in order to watch shows on the Web, they’ll need to:

• Be a Dish Network subscriber.
• Create an online Dish Network subscriber ID and password, which will require them to dig up their account number from their paper bill.
• Be prepared to log in again every 30 days.

This is about standard for authenticated TV, and while it’s not rocket science, it’s also not much fun. (Quick quiz: Where is your most recent cable bill?)

On the other hand, it is easier than being waterboarded, as “Glee’s” awesome Jane Lynch reminds us in a 15-second video. But it’s certainly nowhere near as easy as the instant gratification you can get by going to Fox.com or Hulu.com and watching last night’s “MasterChef” (or just stealing a peek from a pirate site).

Speaking of Hulu — it’s interesting to note that there’s absolutely no mention of the site on Fox’s Web page, even though Hulu Plus customers can also get access to the Fox programming. But also not surprising.

Except for the part about it not working.

On Aug. 15, Fox will stop distributing its shows on Hulu and Fox.com a day after they air, and will make most Web surfers wait eight days to see them. The only legal way around this, for now, is to pay for a subscription to either the Dish Network or Hulu Plus.

Expect ABC to follow suit, and then NBC. CBS is a reasonable bet, too.

I walked through the networks’ rationale for this last month, when word first got out that Hulu’s broadcast owners — Disney, Comcast and News Corp. — were going to start requiring “authentication” in order to watch shows online the next day. You can read an excerpt at the bottom of the post if you don’t want to click through.

The problem with the networks’ logic: Sidereel.com. And Sceper.eu. And Twitter. And Google. Etc.

All those sites will lead you, quite quickly, to anything the networks air, for free, on the Web. And you don’t have to wait eight days to watch them, or even a single day. You can see them within hours, or less, of their original airtime.

Video piracy is nothing new, of course. But if you haven’t tried watching a TV show from a rogue site recently (and I’m not advocating you do so for any reason other than a professional one — I don’t want a “Wolverine” incident) you might be astonished to see just how fast, and easy, it’s become.

As BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield pointed out to Wall Street earlier this year, it’s now a cinch to download pirated copies of any movie you’d like, in very high quality, using free online storage lockers.

But it’s equally easy to grab TV shows, and you don’t have to worry about downloads if you don’t want to clog up your hard drive: Sites like Videobb.com will offer free streams, without commercials, the same night they air on TV.

Here’s a screenshot of last night’s episode of “MasterChef,” available a couple hours after it aired on Fox (which, like this site, is owned by News Corp.).

And here’s a grab of Tuesday night’s “The Daily Show,” which I was able to watch less than 30 minutes after it finished airing on Comedy Central.

Downsides? Sure. The streams aren’t HD quality — if you got it onto your 42-inch LCD, you’d be disappointed. And the sites seem to require Flash, so they won’t work on an iPhone or iPad. And you may still need a bit of trial and error to get a working version.

And they’re illegal, of course.

But again: They are free, totally serviceable, and very easy to find for anyone who’s remotely motivated.

That was the case before the Great Free TV Web Pullback of 2011, too. But back then (as in, now) if you were a middle-of-the-road TV and Web video fan, it was easy enough to head over to Hulu to watch last night’s “MasterChef.” You’d even put up with commercials.

Now Fox, and very likely the rest of the broadcast TV business, are telling non-pirates to go ahead and grab what they like, when they like. I think they’re going to find lots of takers.

—–

So why do the networks think this is a good idea? They probably don’t. But it’s a way to prop the business up in the short term, at the expense of the long run.

From my June 23 piece:

Why would Hulu’s owners push to make the service less attractive? The justification I’ve heard is that most Hulu viewers are paying for TV anyway, so this really wouldn’t be a big deal.

But the real answer is that this is meant to appease cable TV providers who are paying Hulu’s owners — via “retrans” deals — for the rights to provide the shows that Hulu is giving away on the Web. And it’s also meant to protect the value of broadcast TV advertising, since the ad business still doesn’t value a Web eyeball as much as one that watches on a TV.

Again, this is the kind of tension between business models that has been a problem for Hulu almost from the get-go. And it has been the source of many of the disagreements between Hulu CEO Jason Kilar and his owners for some time.

Here’s a handy helper for those following the fate of the Hulu premium online video service, whose noisy efforts to sell itself have gotten a lot of attention of late:

“In preliminary talks” = “hawking itself to one of a half dozen big moneybag tech companies who will visit with Hulu’s bankers and management to see its presentation at Morgan Stanley’s office in Century City in Los Angeles.”

Last Friday, for example, that meant a look-see for Microsoft execs, to show the software giant the story of how paying top dollar for the popular Hulu would be a great investment.

This week, sources said, Yahoo will get the expected gander at the books too, among the other companies targeted by Hulu as part of a sales process in its very early stages.

Among those companies on the short list, sources said, along with Microsoft and Yahoo are: Google, Verizon, AT&T and Amazon.

None of these should come as a surprise, since they all have a big interest in the digital distribution of content business.

Google is perhaps the most interesting and difficult of the group, due to both its massive YouTube unit and the even more massive interest by government regulators about its disturbing massiveness.

Amazon is the company that seems most suited as a Hulu buyer, since it already makes its business selling and distributing content. In addition, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar was a former exec — bringing a certain level of familiarity and presumably much less of the grumpy disgruntlement that he experienced with Hulu’s current media giant owners.

Microsoft seems like the longest shot and least enthusiastic, although it certainly could afford it.

As for Yahoo: Good lord, it needs something sexy to tell weary investors.

Not in the initial round, but other possible acquirers Hulu is targeting: Facebook, Netflix, Samsung and Liberty Media.

And definitely not among those kicking the tires: Disney, News Corp. and Comcast, the trio of partners who own Hulu, along with Providence Equity Partners.

The big question, of course, is whether media-focused Apple — a notorious buyer of almost nothing — would be interested in Hulu.

These blind dates with the best possible buyers will presumably give each insight into Hulu’s business and give Hulu information on what they are looking for.

Sources who have heard the pitch said Hulu is positioning itself as an inevitable competitor to cable, which seems an odd position to take, unless it can get regular access to the kind of top-drawer content that consumers want.

And that will be the most important issue for anyone buying Hulu: The time and terms of rights to the television and movie content on the site, which has been a critical part of its success.

Buyers I have interviewed said Hulu has to offer at least an 18-month license for its content and a pile of rights to hit shows to differentiate itself from competitors.

As Peter Kafka wrote, Hulu buyers would indeed get exclusive content, but with strings attached.

He also noted that the latest content licenses for Hulu’s owner/partners — Disney’s ABC and News Corp.’s Fox — have recently been completed, deals that will stay intact if Hulu is sold.

Unlike Netflix, which has had to pay top dollar for a small pile of premium content while deftly using a large archive of older content to attract subscribers, Hulu’s success has had a lot to do with more access to popular current shows offered by its media giant owners.

Those shows include TV hits such as “The Office” and “Glee.”

That access has become a point of contention with those owners, who have differed with Hulu management about what comes next for the mostly advertising-supported site, even though its slick product has been a clear hit with consumers.

Of course, some speculate that Hulu might not sell at all, just as it never went public as it had said it might do previously. In that case, it will be interesting to see what will become of Hulu once the music stops.

(And, if anyone would like to email me the Hulu presentation or notes on it, please do, so I can formulate a bid myself!)

But, until this deal churns slowly, leakily and loudly forward — let’s enjoy some apt Hulu content. As usual, the fun version of ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” by the kids from “Glee” was not available on the site.

Thus, I selected frequent “Glee” guest star Gwyneth Paltrow belting out Joan Jett’s “Do You Wanna Touch Me” on the show, as a good alternate metaphor for the sales process: