So here’s a candidate: “The Event,” a “Lost”-style serial that NBC had big hopes for last fall, but doesn’t want anymore.

Comcast’s broadcast network has cancelled the show in advance of Monday’s upfront presentation, where it will try to sell its new stuff to advertisers. But Deadline.com floats the notion that the producers of “The Event” will find a new home for the show, and reporter Nellie Andreeva says she hears “new original programming player Netflix’s name tossed around.”

Netflix spokesman Steve Swasey won’t comment on the report, but I’ll go ahead and file it under “possible but not likely.” That’s because:

• It’s not unheard of for shows that start out on one network to find new life somewhere else. But those are usually shows that have lasted multiple seasons. “The Event” just limped through a single one.
• That short run also makes it seem like “The Event” would be a hard sell for Netflix. If the service had access to past seasons of the show, and had seen significant subscriber interest, it’d be easier to justify. But in this case, it would have to guess that something that didn’t appeal to NBC’s audience would resonate with Netflix users. That’s a pretty big leap.

Then again, I said the same thing about reports that Netflix was going to foot a big part of the bill for a “House Of Cards,” a new HBO-style series from Kevin Spacey. And that turned out to be true. So I’ll leave myself just a bit of wiggle room here: Ya never know!

Here, as a reminder, is the show that few of you have been watching:

An agreement to extend the content licenses that owners News Corp., Disney and NBCUniversal signed two years ago should be in place within a week, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The pact is being negotiated by Hulu managment, led by CEO Jason Kilar, and officials from News Corp. and Disney. Investor Providence Equity Partners also has a say.

But NBCUniversal, one of the site’s original owners, gave up its board seats and management role in the joint venture earlier this year as part of its Comcast merger agreements; it will have to accept whatever terms its partners arrange.

A Hulu rep provided this statement from Kilar, and said it represented the view of all four companies involved in negotiations:

News Corp, Disney, Providence and the Hulu team have been engaged in productive discussions to extend our existing content agreements a number of years. Keep in mind that our existing Hulu.com content agreements already extend for several more years; these discussions would extend the term further and also extend our separate Hulu Plus content agreements.

Between the operating results and formalizing the above, it is shaping up to be a big year for Hulu.

I don’t have details on the new pacts, but people familiar with the negotiations tell me that the joint venture’s basic structure will remain the same: Hulu.com will continue to be an ad-supported site, while the Hulu Plus subscription service will offer more programming and the ability to watch it on devices like Apple’s iPad.

The new deal terms are unlikely to change things that will be obvious to casual Hulu users. It’s possible that some programs may be withheld from the site, but it’s more probable that the changes will affect things like programming “windows,” which determine when a show turns up on the site and when it disappears, and how much Hulu pays for the content it shows.

The terms may also give content owners more flexibility to distribute their programming on other digital outlets.

Hulu’s original premise was that the site would would have co-exclusive rights to programming from its networks’ partners/owners–shows would stream on the networks’ own sites and Hulu.com, and nowhere else. But my hunch is that programmers will want the ability to offer their stuff to other distributors.

Disney CEO Bob Iger seemed to hint at this during his earnings call this week, when he said that Disney supported Hulu, but not exclusively: “We don’t intend to let a platform—even one we own—get in the way of doing what we think is right.”

The new deal will put to rest any idea that Hulu’s network owners want to kill off the site. That notion has been floated in part because some of Hulu’s original backers, like former News Corp. COO Peter Chernin and NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Zucker, have left their jobs. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

More important is that the media landscape has changed since Hulu was assembled in 2007. At the time, NBC and News Corp. officials were primarily interested in building a site that could compete with Google’s YouTube.

Now, Hulu’s owners are trying to extract new and/or increased fees for the programming from cable and satellite services, as well as services like Netflix; offering their shows for free on Hulu makes that harder.

And yet one more question mark about Hulu’s future popped up in February, when Kilar wrote a blog post challenging the TV industry’s business model. The move angered some of his bosses, and led to speculation that he would quit or be fired.

Tempers have cooled since then, but that doesn’t mean Kilar will stick around indefinitely. I’m told that his contract expires in July, and that if he wanted to he’d be able to stay on. I wouldn’t be surprised if he left for something else.

As I wrote in April, YouTube is adding movies from big studios including Time Warner’s Warner Bros., Sony and Comcast’s Universal to existing service, which has previously had a limited selection of titles from small studios.

For now, the YouTube movie store appears to be a work in progress: Google says it will rent newish movies like Inception, The King’s Speech, Little Fockers from the store, but so far I can’t find any of them. Same goes for new old titles like Caddyshack, which are also MIA.

Once YouTube gets this thing ready for prime time, though, it’s going to look very similar to what consumers can already get from competitors like Apple and Amazon: The ability to rent a movie that they can watch anytime over a 30-day period, except that once they start watching it they’ll have 24 hours before it evaporates. Pricing should be comparable to YouTube’s peers — $3.99 for new movies $2.99 for older ones.

Beyond that, the only wrinkles of note here:

• As I reported last month, the movies will be streamed, not downloaded. So presumably you’ll need a live Web connection to watch them, unlike Apple’s videos, which reside on your device for the duration of the rental.
• It’s unclear whether consumers will have to sign up for Google Checkout or some other Google-specific e-commerce platform to rent the movies; a FAQ sent out by Google only mentions that “the service accepts all major credit cards.”. Not linking the service to a Google account may make things slightly easier for consumers, since it’s an extra step they won’t have to take. On the other hand, you’d think Google would be very interested in establishing a credit card relationship with their customers, like Amazon, Apple and Netflix do.

By all accounts, this is an intermediate, incremental step for Google, which has had movie rentals for a year but hasn’t had much to show for it. Now it has the backing of some big studios, but is missing others, including News Corp.’s Fox (News Corp. also owns this Web site), Viacom’s Paramount and Disney.

Even if YouTube does bring on more partners — Paramount seems like a particularly long shot, given the ongoing Viacom/YouTube lawsuit, but the rest could show up one day — that will just bring Google up to par with other online a la carte movie rental outlets, which haven’t gained much traction yet.

Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn’t seem to be the end game for either Google or the studios. Google seems interested in building up YouTube, period. And if making video rentals available as part of the huge swell of content that lives on the site helps, then great.

The movies will also work on Google TV, which can use any help it can get. So that’s good, too.

At least part of Hollywood, meanwhile, seems to believe it can keep its DVD business alive by launching a locker/cloud system that would give disc owners the right to watch their movies whenever they want, on different devices . They’re also gung ho about anything that isn’t a Netflix all-you-can-eat subscription plans.

I’m doubtful that can work. Because beyond kids’ movies, which get watched hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times (I know the name of every character in Cars – try me!) most consumers don’t want to watch a movie multiple times. It’s not like a music collection, which does make quite a bit of sense in the cloud.

But the studios seem to like this idea, and at least some of them are convinced Google can help them do it — or, at least, provide leverage with other potential cloud partners, like Apple or Facebook. Watch for more developments in this vein.

And while you’re waiting, you can try renting a movie from YouTube.

And if you like seeing how the head of a giant media conglomerate fares when he shows up on a taped comedy bit, pay attention around the 4:50 mark. That’s when NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke shows up for a few seconds to mug with a couple of his employees.

He’s not a dynamic actor, but then again, the part doesn’t require much. He just has to stand there as Poehler insults his network: “The new NBC: Nowhere to go but up.”

Mr. Burke, who had been chief operating officer of Comcast, has long been interested in building a more viable competitor to Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN. Comcast’s own Versus sports network hasn’t been much of a contender. Now, he’s scouting out new deals in college sports and with the International Olympic Committee and the National Hockey League, people familiar with the matter say.

NBC is accustomed to digging deep into its pockets for sports programming. The difference now, though, under Mr. Burke, is that the days of NBC hoarding marquee coverage for the broadcast network are over. Instead, in a move that signals just how far the major media companies will go to push major sports events onto pay-TV, NBCU will bid for deals only when coverage of popular sporting events can be split across the combined company’s cable-TV and broadcast assets.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

As part of the shift, Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger and News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey may give up their board seats, the people said, potentially distancing the two men from day-to-day decision-making at the Web-video joint venture.

The move to a smaller board is an attempt to streamline operational decision-making within the venture, one of the people familiar with the plans said. Hulu’s board until recently has included 12 members, according to a list on its website, including three each from three media companies that have at times differed on strategic direction. It remains unclear how many people would remain on the board under the plan being discussed.

Hulu declined to comment. A spokesman for Disney and a spokeswoman for News Corp. also declined to comment.
Hulu is jointly owned by News Corp., NBCUniversal, Disney, Providence Equity Partners and Hulu employees. News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal (and All Things Digital).

Read the rest of this post on the original site

What a difference a three-month-long writers’ strike in Hollywood makes.

Yesterday, in an interview in the Financial Times, Zucker said: “We’ve said all along that we admire Apple, that we want to be in business with Apple,” he said. “We’re great fans of Steve Jobs.“

Hmmmmm.

It was only at the end of last October when Zucker (pictured here) was slapping the digital media business, and especially Apple, in an interview with New Yorker writer Ken Auletta at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School.

In it, Zucker blamed Apple for ruining the music business.

To be fair, Zucker did add “in terms of pricing” to the idea that Apple was the villain, noting that NBCU only had $15 million in revenue for its video fare on iTunes in its last year (a service it had just pulled off of to do its own thing).

He wanted NBCU to have the ability to raise prices on some shows it was selling to get better returns, even though Apple’s Steve Jobs has stuck to his guns on keeping pricing lower.

The entertainment industry, long used to controlling all the action, has long hated this, of course, since Apple’s iPod device has essentially been the only one widely embraced by consumers.

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” said Zucker, in what is admittedly a very good metaphor for the fast-changing situation for old media caught in the new media tsunami.

But then he stepped right into it by suggesting Apple should pay back media companies like his. “Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” he said.

At the time, I noted: “That’s sort of like Britney Spears asking the tabloids to hand over a big bag of Benjamins for making such bank covering her riveting high jinks and crotch emergencies. Frankly, she has a better argument than Zucker.”

Nonetheless, NBC has been fast-forward on its efforts with its Hulu video sharing site, a joint venture with News Corp. (owner of this site).

And, quite correctly, in the FT piece, Zucker noted that the strike has spurred him to begin cutting back on some old television traditions, like the pilot season and the once-glamorous upfront presentations to impress advertisers.

“Things like that are all vestiges of an era that’s gone by and won’t return,” said Zucker. “I think there were a tremendous number of inefficiencies in Hollywood and it often takes a seismic event to change them, and I think that’s what’s happened here.”

Seismic, indeed.

It seems the media industry across the pond is taking its cue from Hulu, the fledgling U.S. online video effort from NBC Universal and News Corp., at offering consumers TV content online in better and more flexible ways.

Three of the main British TV networks–the BBC, ITV and Channel 4–are planning a joint on-demand service, so consumers can see professional video programming of all kinds in one place.

It’s another step in the right direction by media giants for consumers–well, in Britain, at least.

Such a move is akin to all four U.S. majors (CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox) joining together in a helpful service. But don’t hold your breath on that happening anytime soon.

I gave good props to Hulu, which debuted recently, noting it was the first time traditional media companies had created a product that was more aimed at consumers than protecting their own vested interests.

But the Hulu service also is frustrating, like having a television set that only gets a small number of stations and then having to use another TV and then another if you want other channels.

Television’s success had a lot to do with it being a one-stop destination, while online video on the Web is still dispersed in ways that makes it hard for any one thing to take off.

Perhaps it cannot be that way on the Web for U.S. users, despite many efforts to do so, but such a confused approach hinders the distribution of professional online video content. (The user-generated vomiting-cats-on-skateboards fare does fine on its own in getting found.)

So, it will be interesting to see what happens with the U.K.’s effort.

Set to be launched in 2008, Britain’s version will add free downloads and purchase (something Hulu does not do now), as well as streaming, rental and eventual distribution to other platforms.

The BBC, for example, has tried this on its own with its much maligned iPlayer service. Said one British techie I asked about it on a recent trip: “It’s grotty.”

The iPlayer will continue, as will ITV’s current online service. Channel 4′s 4oD will cease to exist.

Channel 4 CEO Andy Duncan said that’s because the new effort would “give viewers ultimate control over what they watch and when they watch it.”

Of course, that’s bloody brilliant.

What, oh what, can we say about the latest inane quote from yet another Hollywood mogul about Apple’s Steve Jobs and his hugely popular iTunes and iPod products.

The latest piece of hoo-ha comes from former Disney CEO Michael Eisner (pictured below), pointing a finger at Apple as the real villain in the ongoing strike between the Writers Guild of America and Hollywood entertainment behemoths

At fault? Steve Jobs, of course!

Of course, it has been those greedy studio execs who have been shafting creators of content for decades now, by giving them a minuscule cut of revenues from DVDs and video cassettes.

Now that they are trying to do the same with income they will be getting as content moves to digital media, including the Web, cell phones and other new devices, Eisner comes out with an appalling analysis in an interview yesterday at the Media and Money conference.

Said Eisner:

“[Movie and television studios] make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”

Oh my goodness, considering how many businesses hang off the entertainment industry. Should the writers get revenues from the sales of television sets? Popcorn sold at the movies? From TV Guide? Of course not.

This comes after NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker noted in another interview recently that Apple owed him some money too for its success with the iPod.

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” said Zucker, who suggested entertainment companies should get a piece of the action. “Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money.”

As I noted then: “That’s sort of like Britney Spears asking the tabloids to hand over a big bag of Benjamins for making such bank covering her riveting high jinks and crotch emergencies. Frankly, she has a better argument than Zucker.”

Eisner is even worse, making the score thus far: Britney 2, Hollywood 0.

And please, pretty please, it just can’t be “lonelygirl15″ (pictured below) and some clever music videos.

The lack of lasting and profitable professional content online is once again in sharp relief with the writers’ strike now taking place in Hollywood.

In a Wall Street Journal piece yesterday on the struggle between the Writers Guild of America and entertainment studios, Ken Hertz, a Los Angeles lawyer who has worked on digital music issues, made an interesting observation:

If anything, the strike could create an opportunity for the online world to step up and prove its value to the guild. A strike could in a strange way damage the studios by creating online competitors who come forward to offer the union writers a new model that no one would have otherwise had the time or effort to conceive of.”

If only.

Because, while the main point of contention between the two sides is how to split future revenues from digital distribution, I am not sure exactly when it will become more than the middling revenue (and not much income) online content generates today, which is more like splitting up a tip jar at Starbucks than raking in big bags of dough from some Hollywood blockbuster.

That is likely to remain true for a while, given that consumers still are not used to paying anything much for what is considered entertainment on the Internet today (which is largely user-generated content) and that there is still a major piracy problem when it comes to premium stuff.

What’s considered a hit? “Lonelygirl15″ on MySpace TV? Its creators, who also produce the “KateModern” online serial for Bebo, put out a press release this week noting “more than 70 million views for the original hit show, ‘lonelygirl15,’ and the spinoff ‘KateModern’ reaching over 15 million views in its first two months online.”

Not bad, and its attempts to integrate brands into the plot are well and good, if annoying, such as when “Johnson & Johnson’s Neutrogena became a brand integration with a character–Dr. Spencer Gilman, a scientist from the company–was featured across two months of programming.”

There are scads of such projects now in production in Hollywood, all trying to recreate the kind of programming that made television a lucrative industry way back when.

But, so far, these are still baby steps, as are all attempts so far in getting a true payoff from online video, despite new ad paradigms from YouTube and others.

Also interesting are new online video sites like Hulu.com from NBC Universal and News Corp., as well as Joost from the creators of Skype.

But their efforts still fall well short of a system in which consumers can truly manipulate and control their content anytime, any place and from any device.

And even real offline hits don’t cut it yet–NBCU’s Jeff Zucker complained in his recent goofy attack on Apple’s iTunes that the company only generated $15 million in revenue for its video fare on iTunes in its last year, including for its wildly popular series “Heroes” (which we certainly forked over cash money for!).

So what to do? I guess exactly what the writers are doing–banking on the hope that Hollywood will eventually get it right when it comes to digital distribution and asking for their fair share when it does.

Writers, quite reasonably, want to be paid more as their work moves online–to the Web, cellphones and anywhere else that gadgets send content in the future.

It’s an especially pointed desire, given that they were essentially shafted in the last digital transformation when DVDs and videocassettes appeared.

As John Aboud, who is a strike captain for WGA, noted in a comment to my post last week on the strike, that even with all the money Hollywood has made, most writers are not well paid (although those at the tippy-top are copiously compensated).

“Median earnings of all members of the Writers Guild is only $5,000,” he wrote. “How can that be? About 48% of members do not earn any money from writing in a given year. Of those writers who do make some money, one quarter earn less than $37,700 a year.”

Ouch!

Still, he is entirely correct when he also added: “The distribution of entertainment over the Internet is not the future, it’s NOW. If the producers succeed in gutting our right to compensation for digital reuse and delivery, that is income that’s gone forever.”

Kara Visits VC Peter Thiel: A video interview with the first investor in Facebook (pictured here), who also sold PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion.

Thiel’s take: Web 2.0 is underhyped!

Writers’ Strike!: The battle is on in Hollywood, as writers and studios fight over DVD fees split, but there is also wrangling over potential profits from new media efforts.

While that income is still pretty small, it’s a canard that producers are trying to insist that they can’t fork over better percentages because the market needs room to grow. Writers deserve their fair share as the online business gets bigger over the next decade.

Maka-Maka Melee?: Google took a solid shot at Facebook with its new OpenSocial offering, which lets anyone become a Facebook! The signing of MySpace at the end of the week was another slap, of course.

But this week Facebook fires back with its SocialAds offering to compete in the online ad game, where Google rules.

Hulu Doesn’t Stink: I and many others were surprised how good an experience the new online video joint venture from NBC Universal and News Corp. is so far.

While it is certainly not perfect (no downloading, limits on hit shows), it is a clean, easy-to-use service that gives users a lot of ability to control content and a quantum leap in attitude from Hollywood pooh-bahs.

Maybe they could become that enlightened when it comes to ending the writers’ strike.

Hooray for Hollywood!

In an interview with writer (and BoomTown friend!) Ken Auletta at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School, the voluble Zucker (pictured here) blamed Apple for ruining the music business.

Not the shortsighted music companies that foisted crappy albums, onerous distribution methods and too-high prices on the consuming public. But Apple, which, of course, had essentially launched the digital music business for paid downloads.

To be fair, Zucker did add “in terms of pricing” to the idea that Apple was the, sorry, spoiler, noting that NBCU only had $15 million in revenue for its video fare on iTunes in its last year (a deal it recently pulled out of, with plans to create its own service).

Zucker said NBCU only wanted to raise prices on some shows it was selling to get better returns, even though Apple’s Steve Jobs has stuck to his guns on keeping pricing lower.

That has driven the entertainment industry nuts, since the iPod device has essentially been the only one widely embraced by consumers.

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” said Zucker, in a sound bite that his PR person doubtlessly spent all night crafting (and it’s choice!).

More astonishing, he even seemed to ask for a vig from sales of the hugely popular iPod device, since “Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money.”

Oh my. That’s sort of like Britney Spears asking the tabloids to hand over a big bag of Benjamins for making such bank covering her riveting high jinks and crotch emergencies. Frankly, she has a better argument than Zucker.

In fact, the NBCU honcho has been in a bit of a rant of late, saying at an antipiracy summit hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently that the government must act as if we were in a shock-and-awe war from copyright thieves.

He even asked for intellectual-property enforcement bureaus run by the Feds and also federal monies for state and local governments to investigate dangerous teen CD ripping.

“We need, across the board, to move IP enforcement up the agenda of the federal government,” said Zucker, noting the mission was “absolutely critical to our economic prosperity.”

Although I would agree piracy is an important issue, here’s what is most critical: That Zucker leans more to the mindset that took baby steps in creating Hulu as more of a distributed operation than a command-and-control style that Hollywood has favored so far, despite a complete rejection by consumers.

Piracy and a whole lot more will be assuaged when entertainment companies stop fighting a trend, which is that consumers have taken control and they are not handing power back.

Not everything about Hulu is great–no downloads, limiting hit shows’ availability, not enough social-interaction tools and, eeeek in the Age of YouTube, no user-generated content section.

Still, there is much Hulu gets right, especially in its easy-to-use embedding capability and seeming willingness to let consumers decide what clips they want.

Thus, Zucker’s words made me worry he had some sort of multiple-personality disorder when I read them yesterday, because he needn’t have picked such a public fight with the digital media’s most potent symbol just over his pique over price.

In the antipiracy speech, Zucker joked: “Our business models today are changing faster than a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit gets posted on YouTube.”

You got that right, Jeff. Now try and pay attention to yourself.

OK, I will admit, I was busy sharpening up the knives at BoomTown HQ to prepare for the debut of Hulu this week.

Let’s just say that I have been dubious that two lumbering media companies–in this case, News Corp. (owner of this site!) and NBC Universal–could make more than a mishmash of premium video, especially given Hollywood’s glacial and cloddish approach to the Web.

Not so with regard to Hulu, whose name is still arguably as goofy as ever.

From a demo (here are some screen shots of pages) I was given Friday by Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, the boyish former Amazon exec who seems to have learned to swim well with the Hollywood sharks, I am impressed thus far.

I will, of course, reserve judgment until I get to test-drive it for a while, but in concept and tone and aims–that is, more open than I ever expected the service to be–it is off to a good start. (Actual reviews of these sites I will leave to Walt Mossberg.)

By way of background, Hulu was announced to much fanfare and much more dubiousness, given that joint ventures between media behemoths tend to be like two elephants dancing gracefully. That is, not.

Even within the companies, there was much pooh-poohing of the idea, with some divisions silently vowing noncooperation, even though bosses–like NBCU’s Jeff Zucker and News Corp.’s Peter Chernin–backed it strongly.

In addition, there are a plethora of competing efforts to digitally distribute premium content, of all different types, including the much-hyped Joost, Veoh, Babelgum and many others. Major networks are also offering streamed shows.

Let’s just say, it’s crowded and confusing out there, beyond the obvious news that consumers seem to like YouTube’s short user-generated videos and sampling all those tasty stolen clips from TV shows and movies. (Keep in mind, NBC pulled its channel off YouTube recently and still has no licensing deal with the Google-owned site.)

So how much premium content people are willing to consume in a legal setting–given all the restrictions and lack of ability to access and manipulate great content–is still unclear.

But it is a market major media companies need to wade into and fast, given another clear trend: most media will become digital in the next decade, desperately needing the much wider distribution only the Web can provide.

Enter Hulu, a venture that is approaching the market with a free, ad-supported browser product, offering premium video content, including TV shows, clips and a small handful of movies.

“We hope to grow over time in terms of content and functionality,” said Kilar (pictured here). “We obviously have to respond to the consumer from day one.”

Actually, there will not be many consumers quite yet. The site will not come out of private beta for some months, although its offerings will be available on portals, such as AOL, this week.

Here are some highlights and info:

• There will be no user-generated video. Sigh.
• There will be no download of material. Whine.
• Videos can be embedded in any Web site and shared using email. In the niftiest feature, you can cut your own clip.
• The player is one created by Hulu, using Adobe technology. Very nice.
• Content on Hulu, which is pretty good to start, is mostly made up of TV shows from Fox and NBC, and more than 15 cable channels including Bravo, E!, FX, SciFi, Sundance and USA.
• The site has most of the prime-time hits from FOX and NBC, including “Heroes,” “30 Rock” and “The Simpsons.” But I prefer the oldies like “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Lost in Space” and “Kojak.”
• Movies–there are only under a dozen–will come from Fox and Universal, as well as from Sony and MGM (who will also provide TV fare). More movies please!
• TV shows will become available after they have aired on regular broadcast television. The new ones will only be the last five episodes, which is not a good thing and should be changed.
• Other cool tools: You can leave reviews and vote shows up and down; you can pop out a video from a window; you can darken the rest of the page, for better viewing.
• Advertising varies: sometimes in the video, sometimes overlaid on top or sometimes nearby. Standard, and it would be nice to see some innovation here.
• Major initial advertisers are Cisco, Intel and a bunch of car companies (Toyota, Nissan and General Motors). Cisco?
• Major portal partners include: AOL, MSN, MySpace, Yahoo and Comcast’s Fancast.

Along with the private beta rollout, Hulu also announced confirmation of a well-known $100 million investment by Providence Equity Partners for the joint venture.

There are, of course, a lot of open questions, such as how costly all these media rights are and how to make advertising pay for them. And it is not clear consumers are willing to embrace yet another destination site.

But Hulu’s willingness to send its content far and wide from the get-go, with very little friction and using easy tools to do so, is perhaps the most compelling aspect of its debut.

Finally, someone in Hollywood has realized that ubiquitous distribution, which is being driven by consumers’ desire to move their media anywhere they want, whenever they want, is the future.

Now if Hulu could just bring back “Arrested Development”–Steve Holt!–we could all be happy.

It’s unusually clean looking, but quite full of information, which is a good thing.

(Click on the images to make them bigger.)

HOME PAGE:

BROWSE PAGE:

SHOW PAGE:

VIDEO PLAYER:

VIDEO SHARE: