dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Hulu Board Looking for Saps Buyers
After Keeping Hulu Directionless For Years
by Karl Bode 08:38AM Wednesday Mar 27 2013
Hulu has consistently flailed because the company's owners, with a vested interest in the status quo, really don't have much of an interest in Hulu truly disrupting or succeeding. Now Disney and News Corporation, after years of bickering about what to do with the property, are again pushing for a sale on the heels of departures of top company executives last January. Sources tell Reuters Hulu's board has reached out to several companies to see if they're interested in a sale. They've had no nibbles because post-sale, buying Hulu would very quickly get much more expensive:
quote:
Finding a buyer will be difficult because most of Hulu's contracts with networks for programs are short term, according to Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities in Los Angeles who follows Hulu competitors Netflix and Coinstar. "Nobody will buy them unless they can fix content costs in a long-term agreement," said Pachter. "The value is based on the profit potential and without certainty about costs no rational bidder will step up."
In other words, after years of intentionally preventing Hulu from being disruptive, its owners think they can pawn it off on somebody without them realizing the cost to strike new licensing deals would be crippling.

view:
topics flat nest 

YukonHawk

join:2001-01-07
Patterson, NY

Can you say...

Whoops?
angstrom60

join:2004-10-05
Charlottesville, VA

A Conundrum?

It seems to me like the terms required to make Hulu attractive to potential buyers would be the very same ones most threatening to the current owners' vitals.

You would think that the content owners might just want to keep Hulu as a laboratory for their own, eventual OTT service once broadcast goes the way of the dodo. Or do they think they've learned everything they need to know already? Because on devices other than a computer, the Hulu (plus) experience sucks heavily compared to Netflix, for example.

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

If they want to "sell" hulu,

then they're going to have to pay someone to take it off their hands... but I don't really think that much money exists.
--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave."
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Yahoo

Yahoo was interested at one time. And their CEO seems to be in the buying mood. Perhaps there is a future there.
Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Yahoo

said by silbaco:

Yahoo was interested at one time.

Yahoo is a shell company that investors use to buy other companies and kill them off. When yahoo buys something, its going to its grave.

kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

Re: Yahoo

said by Chubbysumo:

said by silbaco:

Yahoo was interested at one time.

When yahoo buys something, its going to its grave.

Which in the eyes of Hulu's owners would be the perfect outcome.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Only did recently did that start. Yahoo! had a great list of products and services that they bought. But when the money runs out to support that, you gotta do something; like with GeoCities.

nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
said by Chubbysumo:

said by silbaco:

Yahoo was interested at one time.

Yahoo is a shell company that investors use to buy other companies and kill them off. When yahoo buys something, its going to its grave.

Yahoo liked to call that "Improving services".

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
yahoo was looking into buying dailymotion last I heard.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

Netflix

Hulu could help Netflix with content problems and licensing. NF could be able to get a better deal. I could see Roku being interested since they made comments recently about becoming an MVNO for cable with Dish.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

For a time, Disney and the rest of the content people wanted to have their own version of Netflix where each of them could charge $8/month and reap the rewards. What they forgot was that the consumer is not going to pay $8/month per catalog. They want it all in one place. Netflix did that and they are doing quite well while Hulu, even with all its celebrity endorsements, is not doing well at all.

Even the VOD service is not all that it's cracked up to be. At $4.99 a movie, people are buying a lot and waiting for Netflix or even Redbox seems like a viable option for most people. Content providers are realizing that just because you have a hit movie doesn't mean you can charge what you want.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast

1 recommendation

Re: Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

said by moonpuppy:

What they forgot was that the consumer is not going to pay $8/month per catalog.

... and many of us refuse to pay $8 per month and be subjected to advertizing.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath

Re: Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

Yet, those same of you that refuse to pay the $8 to have a few ads per show, will pay $70+ for cable that is full of nothing but ads and channels you never watch.
jrose78

join:2005-02-10
USA

Re: Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

These people can have netflix for 8 and I don't see any adds there do you? Not to mention Hulu Plus doesn't just have ads it has a whole lotta adds!

kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

1 recommendation

said by TBBroadband:

Yet, those same of you that refuse to pay the $8 to have a few ads per show, will pay $70+ for cable that is full of nothing but ads and channels you never watch.

And if Hulu/Netflix were viable replacements for Cable, you'd have a better point. As I see it, Cable/Sat still offers the best overall in selection and convenience.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

Re: Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

said by kontos:

said by TBBroadband:

Yet, those same of you that refuse to pay the $8 to have a few ads per show, will pay $70+ for cable that is full of nothing but ads and channels you never watch.

And if Hulu/Netflix were viable replacements for Cable, you'd have a better point. As I see it, Cable/Sat still offers the best overall in selection and convenience.

BINGO!

Netflix doesn't have everything and neither does cable.

Plus, Netflix has no ads while Hulu does.

whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
Well if they can't sell Hulu then they can always buy Netflix! Problem solved! Comcast would be a GREAT owner for Netflix! Just the same way phone monopolies created a new revolutionized wireless monopoly. Comcast could cancel nationwide TV utility service to get rid of that backward backwater pesky regulations! Everyone would would be offered in it's place Comcast Netflix branded IP TV service for $80/month with a 5 movie cap (to prevent the Exoflood) that would be allowed to bypass your mandatory 5 GIG nationwide data cap. Top lobbyists and marketers could call it "The Truthiness Network!" TM (Trademark on definition of truth!).
--
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the corporations discover that money can elect representatives to vote themselves a monopoly, buy media to blame 'The Godless' and forced price inflation on the public.
TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

Re: Guess this didn't work out the way some wanted.....

said by whiteshp:
Well if they can't sell Hulu then they can always buy Netflix! Problem solved! Comcast would be a GREAT owner for Netflix! Just the same way phone monopolies created a new revolutionized wireless monopoly. Comcast could cancel nationwide TV utility service to get rid of that backward backwater pesky regulations! Everyone would would be offered in it's place Comcast Netflix branded IP TV service for $80/month with a 5 movie cap (to prevent the Exoflood) that would be allowed to bypass your mandatory 5 GIG nationwide data cap. Top lobbyists and marketers could call it "The Truthiness Network!" TM (Trademark on definition of truth!).

Well the next upgrade for most crapble is:

Switched Video
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video

Thus only the streams needed for each TV at the sub location is sent, versus ALL OF THEM ALL THE TIME.

So what your suggesting is out there in some places, and is coming to crapble near you and probably FiOS too.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·Comcast
said by TBBroadband:

Yet, those same of you that refuse to pay the $8 to have a few ads per show, will pay $70+ for cable that is full of nothing but ads and channels you never watch.

You might not be old enough to remember, but back in the 50s, in some areas, mine included ... cableTV (CATV) did NOT have ads at all. In fact, it was one of the selling features. Over the decades ads have just taken over.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
said by TBBroadband:

Yet, those same of you that refuse to pay the $8 to have a few ads per show, will pay $70+ for cable that is full of nothing but ads and channels you never watch.

only because there aren't any LEGAL alternatives to get the shows you pay to get THE DAY THEY AIR!!1
--
Despises any post with strings.