backtop


Print 9 comment(s) - last by Adonlude.. on Mar 27 at 4:44 PM

Disney and News Corp are trying to figure out what to do with their portions of the company

Hulu has been in talks with potential buyers lately, but there are no formal offers on the table quite yet. 

Hulu's board of directors has been contacting potential buyers in an effort to sell the company, but it looks like there are no solid offers yet. It's also unclear how many buyers are interested in the company

Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal Television Group (Comcast), Disney-ABC Television Group (The Walt Disney Company) and Fox Broadcasting Company (News Corp). Hulu was founded in March 2007, making it only six years old. 


Currently, Disney and News Corp are trying to figure out what to do with their portions of the company. One option is to reportedly buy each other out. 

A huge issue with Hulu is that it only has short-term contracts with content providers, meaning the buyer would have to work to renew these contracts or find other sources of content -- and this does not come cheap. 

Hulu has some tough competition out there, such as Netflix and Amazon. The two have similar subscription-based models and have deep pockets to continue offering premium content at fairly low prices ($8 per month for Netflix or $79 per year with Amazon). 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Doesn't seem so complex...IMO.
By GotThumbs on 3/26/2013 3:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Since Comcast owns NBC and is such a large media corp. I don't see why this wouldn't be ideal for them to take charge of? Yes, short term contracts would be a pain for other channels content, but they are one of the large ones, so less pain IMO.

I do use HULU regularly for certain programs and will not pay the monthly subscription. I actually prefer their ad methodology (30/60 second ad breaks) and even give them some help in catering to my ad interests.

I dumped cable 3 years ago and will not be going back. I just don't buy (pun intended) the practice of paying for cable and then still having to be subjected to Ads. Local over-the-air HD programming is fine for my needs and I get my movie fix from NETFLIX mailing me DVD's, since I dumped the streaming/rental package when they raised the combo cost.

Hope HULU doesn't get trashed, or I'll just have to start reading more.

Best wishes,




RE: Doesn't seem so complex...IMO.
By Solandri on 3/27/2013 1:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since Comcast owns NBC and is such a large media corp. I don't see why this wouldn't be ideal for them to take charge of?

That won't work. See, the problem is the studios want to charge more than the market will bear for their movies and shows. But that's not working when when they're selling directly to the market.

So they want someone else to step in the middle and buy Hulu. Then they can charge the new owners more than the market will bear, and make lots more money. Or at least that's what they think. Why else would they load up a company they own and are trying to sell (presumably for as much money as they can get) with short-term contracts?

Remember, when Hulu first came out, several studios refused to license to Netflix streaming because they thought they could make more money running their own streaming service. And as the content owners, it was their right to do so. That they now want to sell Hulu should tell you something.

quote:
I do use HULU regularly for certain programs and will not pay the monthly subscription. I actually prefer their ad methodology (30/60 second ad breaks) and even give them some help in catering to my ad interests.

Since they put ads in even if you pay the monthly fee, I think the service would do just fine if they dropped the monthly fee and let anybody use it. Make their entire revenue based on selling ads. They have a lot of content that's not available elsewhere, especially current TV shows. I think most people would be willing to tolerate the ads just as if they were watching TV (especially in the countries where current stuff takes years before it airs).

I suspect what's happening though is that the regional heads in charge of selling the shows to different countries are vetoing that idea. If the world can watch the shows online a day after it airs in the U.S., that considerably weakens the studio's bargaining position when trying to sell it to broadcasters in another country. They can't comprehend that robbing Peter to pay Paul is ok if Peter and Paul are the same person.

Ultimately, that's the real problem. These dinosaurs running the studios insist on trying to distinguish between shows broadcast on TV and shows broadcast over the Internet. They refuse to believe that technology is rapidly moving to the point where the two the same thing. So they're trying to recreate the broadcast TV model (with all its silly region embargoes) on the Internet, instead of coming up with a new business model which better suits the way the Internet works.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki