Paul McIntyre reports on the SMH that Hulu is in AU at the moment speaking with local broadcasters.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/networks-plot-online-video-assault-20080730-3ned.html?page=1
Interesting outtake - "the sticking point will be whether the US venture is prepared to enter a 50-50 equity venture with Australian broadcasters."
I'm unsure why Hulu would do this, given (and this is an assumption) US content is what will drive Hulu usage - and most of it is already owned by Fox or NBCU. I'd argue Hulu could enter the AU market without partnering with the local networks if they could structure their broadcast deals over here to allow this.
The AU FTA's could try and do their own video play like Hulu, but they'd be severely limited with the content they could place on there. Im not sure what the demand would be for reruns of Rove and Farmer Wants A Wife. The most compelling content would be ABC content - and thats already available en masse online through their site.
I, for one, would love to see Hulu come to AU. I think it's revolutionary.
Showing posts with label Fox Interactive Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fox Interactive Media. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Hulu: The numbers are out and they tell a great story
When I was in the US in April I fell in love with NBC and Fox's video sharing site, Hulu.
Hulu is great - it basically aggregates most of the TV content of NBC Universal and Fox (think Law & Order, SNL, American Idol, Family Guy, Simpsons, 24) - and allows what I think is the webs best example of TV on demand.
It's high quality (not HD) and the depth of content is impressive. If I want to watch the entire 3 seasons of Arrested Development - I can ... on demand. Pause/rewind/fast forward ... it's too easy.
In the States Hulu launched to much debate - many thought it wouldn't work - but the numbers are pretty strong and would have definitely inspired confidence in the NBC and News Ltd execs behind the concept.
Hulu is playing in a different space to YouTube - YouTube us UGC ... the US guys call it 'amateur video' ... Hulu is produced content - 'professional video' ... it's effectively TV programming taken online which gives users greater flexibility with how they view it. This works in their favour as the consensus seems to be that it will be easier to migrate brand dollars to professional video content rather than UGC video.
So the first bunch of Hulu data ...
2.43m unique users
26 streams per user (63,226,000 in total)
2 hours, 9 minutes spent per user on the site
2.43m isn't a massive number - but it's respectable to place Hulu in the Top 10 video sites. The real gold is in the 'engagement' metrics ... users are spending 2+ hours on the site a month ... compared to other TV offerings (ie ABC, CBS, NBC) this is excellent. Fox's website users spend about 20 mins on the site a month, whereas NBC's spend just over 90 minutes ... Hulu has beaten both of these.
That said - lets look at unique audience
NBC - 2.25m users streaming video
FOX - 4.04m users streaming video
Hulu is above NBC, but below FOX. ABC has 5.84m users streaming video ... the problem is they are only viewing 10 videos per month.
So Hulu has nailed 'sticky' ... now they just need to nail unique audience. I am pretty sure this will happen ... people talk and a service like Hulu definitely has that quality ... so you can be sure it already has vocal advocates spruiking its wares. Plus Hulu has some strong distribution deals which give it access to a wide variety of American eyeballs - through major networks and also niche players. Smart.
Now we just need it to come to AU. OR - one of the major networks to pull a Hulu and get their broadcast content online and on demand.
The Hulu strategy is basically if you give people what they want for free they probably won't want to steal it anymore. Seems to be working.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Revenue heat on social networking and video sites
One trend we're seeing in 08 is closer scrutiny on social networking and video sites to start generating the revenue expected of them when their parents outlayed big dollars to acquire them.
Business Week featured this article this week - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071054390809.htm
WSJ covered a similar issue here - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217154978142763.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Mediapost covered it as well in their Thursday eDM - 'The Past Repeats Itself: Social Media Needs advertising'.
Obviously this isn't a new issue - social networks and video sites have struggled since day 1 to monetise the hype and eyeballs surrounding them ... and in many ways it's been a case of build it and they will come ... or more to the point, spend the money and we'll work out a way to make it profitable sometime in the future.
The Business Week article raises a few key areas (mainly around social networking but also applicable to video sites too)
- Slowing growth on social networks
- Declining response to advertising - lower CTRs
- Google are struggling to generate the revenue required out of their myspace search distro deal - Google's Brin: "I don't think we have the killer, best way to advertise and monetize social networks yet."
If these issues are hitting the States - you have to wonder why the reverberations will hit locally ... AU is probably at best 3 years behind the states and Fox already have reasonable staff levels locally selling the dream of myspace.
For me, the main issues around these properties are
- targeting sophistication. Yes, a lot is talked up around the ways you can target on these sites but very little follow through is shown. It may be novel that I can target 21 year old males who live 15km from the city and enjoy The presents and drive an 83 honda civic but how can I use this to satisfy a business objective.
- low response. We're talking very low ... but the story isn't all bad. However it could get worse if the networks response to lower revenue is more ads per page
- the networks have done a poor job of connecting advertisers and users ... they talk up the idea of UGC and 2 way brand dialogue but it is not being faciliated. No one knows these networks more than the networks themselves, right?
- Social Networks are like accessories - Facebook and MySpace are no different from the nightclub/bar that is the coolest thing in the world in 07 but completely passe in 08. Messenger and Mail are utilities - they don't profess to be cool ... they simply help you do something. Facebook has done a better job of being neutral - Myspace has intentionally aligned itself with culture/fashion/music/movie brands/bands etc and tried to leverage this as 'cool'. Which approach will work?
- For video in particular - what is the advertising model? It doesn't seem to be pre-rolls anymore ... and overlays are being talked up but there's little evidence that shows these will not be as intrusive and annoying. It's been almost 5 years since video was hailed as the next big thing ... you have to wonder if it can be the next big revenue thing.
- With YouTube, I wonder whether if, in isolation, it can handle advertising beyond cheap med rec's? Amazing site, great useability, huge numbers ... but would overlays, brand channels, targeting etc be accepted?
Anyway, I'm all for the pressure that's being placed on these sites through the media and stakeholders. More pressure means more actions, which ideally means better ad products and better client solutions.
Business Week featured this article this week - http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071054390809.htm
WSJ covered a similar issue here - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217154978142763.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Mediapost covered it as well in their Thursday eDM - 'The Past Repeats Itself: Social Media Needs advertising'.
Obviously this isn't a new issue - social networks and video sites have struggled since day 1 to monetise the hype and eyeballs surrounding them ... and in many ways it's been a case of build it and they will come ... or more to the point, spend the money and we'll work out a way to make it profitable sometime in the future.
The Business Week article raises a few key areas (mainly around social networking but also applicable to video sites too)
- Slowing growth on social networks
- Declining response to advertising - lower CTRs
- Google are struggling to generate the revenue required out of their myspace search distro deal - Google's Brin: "I don't think we have the killer, best way to advertise and monetize social networks yet."
If these issues are hitting the States - you have to wonder why the reverberations will hit locally ... AU is probably at best 3 years behind the states and Fox already have reasonable staff levels locally selling the dream of myspace.
For me, the main issues around these properties are
- targeting sophistication. Yes, a lot is talked up around the ways you can target on these sites but very little follow through is shown. It may be novel that I can target 21 year old males who live 15km from the city and enjoy The presents and drive an 83 honda civic but how can I use this to satisfy a business objective.
- low response. We're talking very low ... but the story isn't all bad. However it could get worse if the networks response to lower revenue is more ads per page
- the networks have done a poor job of connecting advertisers and users ... they talk up the idea of UGC and 2 way brand dialogue but it is not being faciliated. No one knows these networks more than the networks themselves, right?
- Social Networks are like accessories - Facebook and MySpace are no different from the nightclub/bar that is the coolest thing in the world in 07 but completely passe in 08. Messenger and Mail are utilities - they don't profess to be cool ... they simply help you do something. Facebook has done a better job of being neutral - Myspace has intentionally aligned itself with culture/fashion/music/movie brands/bands etc and tried to leverage this as 'cool'. Which approach will work?
- For video in particular - what is the advertising model? It doesn't seem to be pre-rolls anymore ... and overlays are being talked up but there's little evidence that shows these will not be as intrusive and annoying. It's been almost 5 years since video was hailed as the next big thing ... you have to wonder if it can be the next big revenue thing.
- With YouTube, I wonder whether if, in isolation, it can handle advertising beyond cheap med rec's? Amazing site, great useability, huge numbers ... but would overlays, brand channels, targeting etc be accepted?
Anyway, I'm all for the pressure that's being placed on these sites through the media and stakeholders. More pressure means more actions, which ideally means better ad products and better client solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
