The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox 191
N!NJA writes with this excerpt from PCWorld:
"A tectonic shift has taken place for the digital age: ad rates for popular shows like The Simpsons and CSI are higher online than they are on prime-time TV. If a company wants to run ads alongside an episode of The Simpsons on Hulu or TV.com, it will cost the advertiser about $60 per thousand viewers, according to Bloomberg. On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers. Online viewers have to actively seek out the program they want to watch, so advertisers end up with a guaranteed audience for their commercial every time someone clicks play on Hulu or TV.com. Online programs also have an average of 37 seconds of commercials during an episode, while prime-time TV averages nine minutes of ads."
Guaranteed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the advertisers haven't heard about window managers and multitasking operating systems... especially since Hulu goes so far as to tell the viewer how long the commercial will be.
Then again, since Hulu commercial breaks are so short compared to those on television, there is far less of an incentive to do something else.
Re:Guaranteed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not only that but they'll pull the same crap they do on TV. Half page banners that scroll up from the bottom during the best part of a show. Fuck'em I'll either buy it when they dump it to DVD or download a unshitsmeared version.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that every time the Slashdot crowd learns something that the rest of the world has known for decades it somehow warrants a breathless headline?
"But... but... it's on the interweb. It's 'new media' or something. It must be important."
Puhleeze.
Next thing you know, advertising in a specialty publication targeting a particular group of people like engineers will cost
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like to open up multiple tabs of the same video, and preemptively skip to each commercial (just click the dots).
Let each commercial play, then pause the video in each tab.
Open video, as commercial plays, open same video in new tab, skip to second commercial, open video in new tab, skip to third, etc. for all commercials.
Go to first tab and pause, second tab pause, etc.
Go to first tab, play.
Can do all that in the time it takes for the first commercial (before the video starts) to finish.
Re:Guaranteed? (Score:4, Insightful)
That might less time to do, but it sure sounds like it requires far more effort.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Additionally since Hulu gives you some say in what the adverts are for, there's an increased possibility that the product will actually be useful to the viewer. It's not really in anybody's best interest to show men adverts for vagisil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because no one changes the channels during a TV commercial or gets up to take a leak? People ignoring commercials is nothing new; however, you are spot on when you say that since the commercial breaks are short, it's not worth it to switch over to something else or get up and leave for a minute. That's probably one of the reason that the prices are so high, because not only are they guaranteed eyeballs, but they are guaranteed un-divided eyeballs.
I know that I'm more likely to watch a commercial on Hulu t
Important clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that it sounds like it's worth more per viewer to the advertiser, but not to the TV network. The advertiser will pay more for the Hulu version, but since there's only one of them it brings less income to the studio.
So I don't think you can use this story to go "look, the studios should embrace online distribution" on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
The advertiser will pay more for the Hulu version, but since there's only one of them it brings less income to the studio.
Except Hulu has unlimited screen time. On Fox, every episode is competing with every other show the station has.
If the advertisers are paying per view, this could be a serious advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but there's (fairly) concrete statistics on how many people are ACTUALLY watching hulu. Chances are, unless you muted your speakers(so you might forget you have a video running), if you clicked on the link to watch the video, MORE THAN LIKELY you will see their ad. Vs Nielson TV ratings, which are based on something like 10,000 people (I don't know exactly, but it's a very small fraction of the population) across the country. They then divide (current population)/(number of nielson viewers)*(percentage
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up please
The headline is just plain wrong- Fox gets more than Hulu.
The math is pretty simple:
Hulu: 1 ad X $60 = $60/thousand
Fox: 9+ ads X ~$30 = minimum $270/thousand
Furthermore, I'll wager that more thousands are watching Fox.
This story seems to be an attempt to make geeks feel good about themselves vs the 'establishment'. Is that really necessary on /.?
Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Apples to Oranges (Score:2, Interesting)
Its not a good idea to compare watching commercials on TV vs. Hulu. One major difference that should be taken into consideration is the fact that there is only one commercial between segments of shows on Hulu; while on TV there are multiple. Its easier to "remember" the commercials after only seeing one rather than multiple but at the same time the overall revenue that the episode gets per viewer would probably be much less.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, TV gets a large set o viewers once, hulu gets a small set all the time. I don't even know if a 'perepisode' way of looking at Hulu Is the correct way to measure some of these numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
And since it's a short spo, I end up sitting there because it's not long enough to get up and do anything else. So if I get to go to the bathroom, I wait until the 30-90 seconds is up, stop and then go take a leak.
Re: (Score:2)
Something else Hulu has going for it is the lack of a set schedule.
Older prime time shows get MUTILATED in syndication. This was moderately
bad in the 80's but it has gotten even worse as TV has become less well
regulated. Now some older shows are unrecognizable.
Sci-Fi Channel did one or two runs of StarTrek "uncut" before they went
back to the usual "syndication edit". With Hulu, you can see any show
you want intact (assuming the studio cooperates).
The only other way to get that is to buy the DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also making the Hulu ad more popular is that it's much easier to target demographic characteristics... instead of buying every viewer in the Boston DMA by getting on WFXT, you can target only viewers in the zip codes in which you have stores and then pay for only the viewers you care about. More bang for the ad buck, so of course Hulu wants its share in that so they charge more in cost-per-1000 viewers.
Average Total Cost Per Ad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone know the numbers of how many viewers the average new episode of The Simpsons gets on both mediums? While it is interesting that the cost per viewer is significantly more online, I doubt the number of viewers on Hulu is within the same order of magnitude compared to how many people view a new episode on standard television. Also I still find it crazy that they're actively fighting Boxee when that only adds more viewers. It would be one thing if Boxee blocked the ads, but it's definitely not the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, it seems to me that it might be that ads cost more to the advertisers, but there are fewer ads and fewer viewers, meaning overall it's less profitable for the show. It seems to me that profit per episode for the content owners is a much more important number than cost to advertisers per viewer. After all, if you're trying to figure out whether something like Hulu can replace TV networks, the question is whether there's enough profit per show to fund the production of new shows.
I would imagine that
TV is dead, long live TV (Score:5, Interesting)
My daughter, aged five, watches youtube, managing to plug in and switch on the PC, login to her mum's account, start Firefox, type "you" and then somehow (this part I've not yet figured out) bootstrap herself into cartoons, music videos, and other random nonsense. She clicks on similar videos and can watch TV like this for several hours. My son, two, is almost there too. I guess, thank god youtube removes adult content.
First, they ignore the real old cable television, it's utterly uninteresting for them. Secondly, they watch each youtube clip from start to end, and treat advertising, if any, as part of the content.
How can this //not// be more profitable than legacy TV?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring. Or else hilarious. They wouldn't be 'harmed' by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring. Or else hilarious. They wouldn't be 'harmed' by it.
Depends on the 'adult content' and what the child takes away from it. Some full frontal nudity -- sure 'boring' or 'funny', but 'hardcore porn'...
"Daddy, why are those 2 men hurting that woman?"
That could make a long lasting impression a five year old. And not the 'good kind' of impression.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child! In her first sexual experience, she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile, spotty teenage boy!
No, but seriously, the issue is more complicated than that. The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents. If they're more conservative on such issues, and react negatively, then it will affect them negatively.
Some would blame the parents for this, but I don't see how this is di
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, exactly. My daughter does something similar. It's not necessarily the ads -- If she can't choose the content and control it like a video, she's not interested. This makes the cable TV uninteresting by definition.
I can't make myself just plop down and watch whatever is on. There are too many other things to do. My TV viewing is either movies, or older series that I can watch in sequence (Netflix is great). I am of the "TV viewing" generation, (color became common when I was in grade school) so
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm in your generation, and the tv is sitting downstairs gathering dust ;-) I just don't feel plopping down and watching whatever happens to catch my interest is a worthy use of what little time there's left after work and running a household. I'll watch the Daily Show online in the morning before work, maybe some other shows on the web that I've heard or read about it, and that's pretty much it. If it weren't for the occasional guests or maybe a console in the living room for the nieces and neph
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's interesting you say that, because you're not the only one, by far. I have friends who intentionally disconnected their TV from any external inputs (no antenna, no cable), so it's DVDs and games only. One of my daughters bought a 60" Sony a few years ago ... she has cable, and yet she now also no longer watches TV, and is thinking of getting rid of it. I haven't turned my dish on in over half a year ... and this isn't the first time that's happened.
Interactivity and real control changes the equatio
Re: (Score:2)
The change is far bigger that you think. It's a shift from passivity, to an active citizenship. People don't just get controlled that easily anymore. Now for the first time in history, we have a powerful weapon against those who control us. One that is nearly indestructible, and that is intuitive to us.
It teaches us, that we are in control of our live.
We just yet have to accustom to it, and find out what we actually want, and forgot in all that long time.
Where else can you just walk away from someone, and t
False OCILLA takedown (Score:2)
Where else can you just walk away from someone, and tell him that he is the biggest asshole, even when it's the biggest bully and criminal organization on the planet?
Three words: False OCILLA takedown. A bully can file an OCILLA takedown request [wikipedia.org] against a video that you uploaded. Because OCILLA's safe harbor applies only to providers with a policy against repeat infringers, this puts a strike on your account that you can only remove by filing a counter-notification and waiting a month. This counter-notification includes your name and home address, ostensibly so that the complainant can seek a court order against your alleged infringement, but the information can be dan
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. What part of "adult content" exactly does "harm" kids, and how?
And how is this not just a giant "monkey see, monkey do" contest without any thought involved?
Don't think they can't see this stuff, if they *want*. They point is that they don't. It's their Goatse. You like to know what it is, but you don't want to see it.
I think this fear of nudity that comes with it, has hurted children more that it protected them.
After all, this whole concept stems from the religious badmouthing of sex, to ma
THIS VIDEO WILL BE FLAGGED (Score:2)
thank god youtube removes adult content.
It doesn't filter out dirty words looped for a minute [youtube.com]. Heaven help your five- and two-year-olds once they discover YTP [tvtropes.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, of course, is why there are no television ads aimed at young children on TV. Oh, wait....
If you have never been around children, I can understand that you do not know the power of a five-year-old saying, "I want X!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Five year olds have parents who have wallets, and who are frequently willing to open said wallets in order to get said five year old to stop bugging the hell out of them for 5 minutes by buying "Advertised Item X."
Math (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck. No one can do Math anymore. An episode of The Simpsons absolutely isn't worth more by the numbers in the summary. In fact, it's worth about 1/15th as much. Doh!
Maybe the article is worth something, but the summary is so bad I can't bring myself to click.
-Peter
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The article doesn't mention this either.
In order for an episode of The Simpsons to be worth more in advertising per viewer on Hulu than on regular television, prices for the same spot would need to be between $300 to $600.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gotcha! It's about 1/7th.
Okay, I actually forgot to include the fact that the rate is about double.
9*60/37/2~=7.29.
So, the inventory of a showing of The Simpsons on Hulu is 37 seconds. A showing on Fox is 9 minues = 540 seconds. If you halve that number to account for the difference in rate you get 37/540 which is about seven.
To plug in dollars it's 540 * $30 = $16,200 vs. 37 * $60 = $2,220, which clearly belies the statement "The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox".
-Peter
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We need to teach you the finer art of Dimensional Analysis....
Facts:
30 Dollars / 1000 Users (for normal TV)
60 Dollars / 1000 Users (for online TV)
540 seconds (commercials for normal TV)
37 seconds (commericals for online TV)
by your numbers,
thats 1"6,200 Dollar seconds per 1000 users vs 2200 Dollar seconds per 1000 users" and it means NOTHING
the article was comparing DOLLARS PER USER, which it gave, properly, as 30 $/viewer and 60 $/viewer... you were trying
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary, "On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers."
I read this as telling me that they make half as much per spot, but that fails to account for the fact that they run fourteen times the ads!
We can neglect the number of users when comparing, because it is constant between the two senarios. We can't neglect the number of seconds, because advertising is sold in timed units!
Also, get a user ID. They're free, and the allow, you know, conversations.
-P
Nooooo! (Score:2)
This is going to be what killed hulu (Score:5, Insightful)
I just started watching Hulu last week. It's a great service! There is only one short commercial per break, and I'm willing to tolerate that. The only thing that would make it better is if they put banner ads around the window and took the commercials out completely.
But that's not what'll happen. The company serves its bottom line. I give it less than six months before they start stuffing commercials into the show, equivalent to broadcast television. There's already at least one advertisment that cranks the volume up to 11 -- some jamacian shit I'm sure you've probably seen by now. It instantly pisses me off when the commercial comes up. It's a great reminder about why broadcast television is shit.
Re: (Score:2)
While an ad is playing on Hulu, there are two buttons to the left of the video: "Like ad" and "Dislike ad". These are only visible in the windowed video though, not full screen. I make a point of clicking on the "Dislike ad" button any time a commercial is too loud and/or obnoxious like the [rum company] ad you are referring to. I don't know if Hulu tracks these clicks on a per user basis, but after clicking on the "dislike ad" button a few times, I don't see that ad any more. Even if it doesn't track it on
Cool! (Score:2)
As many have already pointed out (and many more will), it might be tricky to compare the numbers between TV and online broadcast, *but* I personally don't care. What I hope is that the media companies buy into the numbers and let me (outside US) watch my favorite programs online! :-D
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense (Score:2)
Rahter misleading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying it's worth more per viewer is like saying hard liquor is "worth more" when you buy it at a bar. You're selling to two different audiences, and a much smaller amount. The Simpsons on hulu might get tens or hundreds of thousands of viewers; whereas the Simpsons on Fox will get millions. Comparing the price for advertising on the two is telling about 1/3rd of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
PCworld sucks at math (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A tectonic shift is a slow drift over time that has a sudden, jarring result one day. The metaphor seems apt.
Describing an increase in a discrete variable as a "quantum leap" is also accurate.
The problem is that some people misuse them to mean titanic shift/leap. That is incorrect. But in this case, as well as many others, the phrases can be used correctly.
In the 70's(?) everything was "hifi" and in the 90's everything was "laser". Sometimes though (stereos and pointers as easy examples) the terms were
Cost Per impression all over again... (Score:2)
> Online viewers have to actively seek out the
> program they want to watch, so advertisers end up > with a guaranteed audience for their commercial
This is a pretty flaky argument if you ask me.
People have to actively seek out a program to watch on TV as well. On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing.
But unlike TV, where an advertisement in a lame program usually drives me away to a different channel, never to return, on the web, I just launch another brow
Re: (Score:2)
"On TV, this is known as applying rule of the "least horsehit" while channel surfing."
There's a channel with the least horseshit? Quick - someone tell my brother-in-law - he just spends his evenings repeatedly looping through all the channels.
When his dish went down (snowstorm and ice buildup temporarily knocked it out) he spent over two hours just sitting there looking at the on-screen menu (I kid you not) before giving up and going to bed.
BTW - most advertisers still haven't got a clue about the sc
A guaranteed audience? (Score:2)
Have they never heard of AdBlock plus, and his fiends?
Yes, they filter TV stream too! (His friends are better at this than he is though. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many commercials (Score:2)
Watching the wrong football (Score:2)
I'm a huge football fan [...] Monday Night Football IMO died because
Monday Night Football died because the football format played in the United States encourages commercials in the first place. If it were 45 minutes per half, no TV time-outs, no padding, and no grabbing the ball, then there wouldn't be as much of a chance for advertisers to interrupt flow. Case in point: the FIFA World Cup gets more viewers (1100 million) than the four Super Bowls held during the same period combined (400 million).
Example of picking the numbers (Score:2)
This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story. In this case, its "per thousand viewers." Isn't it the total income that really really matters? 1000 people viewed it, woop woop. TV viewers are in the millions, and Ads run for, what, 9 minutes? Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of viewers, your online TV ad revenue isn't going to save any networks anytime soon.
The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters. In the end it just depen
Ads on the Internet? Really? (Score:2)
Think of it this way also. . .
People who are watching adverts on the internet are more likely to buy the products you tell them to buy because they're not smart or willful enough to sculpt their own environment and thus are more easily duped into believing. . .
A) That it is their moral obligation to allow advertisers access to their brains.
B) That it's too much effort to figure out how to avoid seeing adverts on the web.
A rube in hand is worth a dozen smart and willful guys in the bush.
Hallelujah.
-FL
USA Only (Score:2)
Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?
The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it. (even though it was on release.)
I still watch it on TV via DVR (Score:2)
Now I feel like a Luddite.
My friend who worked there since the beta... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, these are the reasons he and one of the executives had given for why they expected to eventually be able to charge a good deal more for 30 seconds of Hulu advertisement than one would normally charge for the same time*viewers over the air. It came up when we were complaining about the studios' decisions to delay some shows by up to 8 days compared to the actual air date. While it was clear this was to prevent an uprising from the affiliates, we still grumbled a bit about it.
Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actuallu, they don't ahve all the episodes.
It does depend on the show. For example, all the episodes of Simon & Simon are available, but only a few Simpsons.
I hope this means that will changes.
One of my favorite shows in the 90's was 'NewsRadio'. It interesting that on Hulu the season after Phil Hartman died isn't there. I wonder if that's just good taste on Hulu's part(that last season is horrid) or of the network just wants them forgotten.
Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode? (Score:5, Insightful)
Network, usually.
Just like how the Homer vs New York episode is buried.
(It features a gag involving the twin towers. Get over it, it was 8 fucking years ago!)
Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode? (Score:4, Funny)
What twin towers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are fewer commercials. In my experience, Hulu puts one commercials for every break instead of 5, and one short commercial at the beginning. Taking an hour-long show down to about 45 minutes. Plus, you can not record Hulu to a DVR or VCR meaning that every one of those thousand viewers actually watches your commercial, instead of only about half.
It's psychology, and it's what geeks have been telling advertisers for ages. VOD, even over the internet, should mean more to these companies. The viewers ar
Re: (Score:2)
"Plus, you can not record Hulu to a DVR or VCR meaning that every one of those thousand viewers actually watches your commercial, instead of only about half. "
Huh? Since when did they plug the analog hole?
Also, what's to stop people from checking their email, opening another tab and browsing for half a minute, or raiding the fridge while the commercial streams, same as TV?
I do agree about the increased value of active choices via the Internet, but most of the time, if there's an ad, instead of clicki
Re: (Score:2)
How many people are going to go through the hassle of looping an HDMI cable around, just to record an episode form Hulu? How many of the people who do would find it simpler to just use a torrent?
I should have been more specific and said "it doesn't matter that someone can record from Hulu, they probably won't." but come on. And nothing stops them from going to the kitchen or another tab. But advertisers count on that anyways. They know that on TV most of the thousand eyes on the program don't see their comm
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what's to stop people from checking their email, opening another tab and browsing for half a minute, or raiding the fridge while the commercial streams, same as TV?
Absolutely nothing. On a couple of occasions I have hit 'play', then gone to get dinner or something, then rewound the video and played it that way. Honestly, though, I don't do that often. I think the main reason for that is they show one commercial AND they show you a countdown for how long it lasts. Also, there are times where they'll ask you to watch a 2 minute movie trailer in exchange for an uninterrupted stream. *IF* Hulu stays the way it is, I don't forsee ever really exerting much effort to sk
Re: (Score:2)
all the episodes of Simon & Simon are available, but only a few Simpsons. I hope this means that will changes.
Do you hope they add more episodes of the Simpsons or remove some Simon & Simon episodes? Either way, it sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, keep in mind that you have many more viewers on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Hulu has more Simpsons episodes to run at any given time.
Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode? (Score:5, Informative)
Err, what? I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu, even when I drop to Chrome (no ad-block).
Hulu ads are interstitials, just like on TV. Sometimes they are exactly ads that I've seen on TV also. They cut in at about the same places too. The only difference is that they only last a few seconds rather than a couple minutes per commercial break.
Aside from that, I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, what? I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu, even when I drop to Chrome (no ad-block).
Hulu ads are interstitials, just like on TV. Sometimes they are exactly ads that I've seen on TV also. They cut in at about the same places too. The only difference is that they only last a few seconds rather than a couple minutes per commercial break.
Aside from that, I don't see how it's obvious that if there were some ad sitting there for the entire show, that it would be more expensive than an interstitial placement.
Uh, well, look again. They *DO* have banner ads. And it can be annoying because when you hit "lower lights", the ad doesn't get dimmed, so it stands out even more.
I don't think all advertisers choose to have a banner ad, but i know I've seen them a few times at least.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
I just took a look at it (watched a few minutes of a show) in a basic (no extensions, no nothing) install of IE. No banner ads. Maybe logged in people don't get them? Or maybe they're being inserted somewhere along the way (virus or your provider).
Re: (Score:2)
I just took a look at it (watched a few minutes of a show) in a basic (no extensions, no nothing) install of IE. No banner ads. Maybe logged in people don't get them? Or maybe they're being inserted somewhere along the way (virus or your provider).
I just clicked on a Simpsons episode and I got one. It was an OLPC ad, which was the sponsor for that episode (i.e. the normal commercials in that episode were for OLPC also). When i have seen banner ads, it has always been the same as the sponsoring company.
It's definitely not a virus and I can't possibly imagine my ISP is inserting it in the page, since it looks well placed and is always the same as the sponsoring company for that episode.
I was not logged in, so that may be it.
Here's another grab when i c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something Hulu needs to work on, actually. For shows like the Simpsons or House, which are highly popular, the commercials are always spot on. For less popular shows, such as some of the oddities like Paranormal TV, cooking, and anime, the commercials can cut in at the worst times. Sometimes you get lucky and they're only +/-second from where they should be, but I've had the occasional show where they cut in during the middle of an action scene. In many i
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what the costs are for a broadcast versus a webcast? For a broadcast you'd need to coordinate multiple stations and time zones, there are power costs to push the signal, station costs, licensing costs.. For a webcast there's the server and pipe sized to the load you expect. Maybe you need Akamai or some other similar system, but I expect that it's much cheaper than broadcast.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder what the costs are for a broadcast versus a webcast? For a broadcast you'd need to coordinate multiple stations and time zones, there are power costs to push the signal, station costs, licensing costs.. For a webcast there's the server and pipe sized to the load you expect. Maybe you need Akamai or some other similar system, but I expect that it's much cheaper than broadcast.
For most TV channels, it is much more expensive to broadcast via the web than it is to broadcast via standard television. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2609/hulu.png [imageshack.us]
Yes the ad is there the entire time. Unless you're really absorbed in what you're watching you can't help but notice it at least every few minutes, which makes it valuable space.
Re:The right demographic. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree. There will always be hardcores who prefer to torrent a show rather than put up with any amount of advertisement whatsoever, but I think most people have a more favorable level of pain than that. Sitting through a half minute of commercials at the beginning I can do. That's enough better than having the story flow disrupted every 12 minutes that I would put up with it rather than make the effort to download. I don't think I'm alone in this.
I'm even willing to pay a reasonable price. I have no problem paying 99 cents an episode off itunes, for instance, as long as I can back up my investment.
The issues I have with Hulu are (1) resolution (currently sucks) and (2) integration with a media appliance (lacking). I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
The show is already disrupted, though; any TV show is made assuming commercial breaks in certain locations, so there's a scene transition and/or fade-to-black where the commercial can be placed. So the addition of commercials doesn't really brake the flow, it just means you have to wait a bit longer to see the whole thing.
If/when shows are produced with the intentio
Re: (Score:2)
"I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse."
Have you tried getting a Wii and downloading Opera (500 Wii points)?
It plays youtube videos full-screen with no problems. I can't say whether it works with Hulu since I'm north of the U S of A, and they don't like Kanuckistan.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not released on DVD in your country (apparently at least in the US, lots of libraries have DVDs, plus obviously there are many cheap ways to rent them)? It's not aired (in primetime, presumably uncut, unlike 'reruns') in your country on free OTA TV?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Recently, a friend suggested I watch babylon 5, so I started watching them on Hulu for some reason. Hulu only has up to season 2, and when I finished watching that, all of a sudden it seemed like a huge fucking hassle to have to torrent them. The difference in convenience between click->watch in 30 seconds (after the 1st hulu ad)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is simply following the dumbening of the internet.
Soon, all /. summaries will be capped at 140 characters.
If Slashdot embraces Twitter (Score:3, Funny)
Soon, all /. summaries will be capped at 140 characters.
If Slashdot is going to embrace Twitter, will it also use those characters to rag on "M$ Windoze" through over a dozen sockpuppets [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Impressive research. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter :-)
Seriously, gaming the system, astroturfing, whatever, is ultimately stupid and counter-productive. There are enough problems (or room for improvement, depending on your point of view) with every operating system that there's no need to indulge in sockpuppetry.
Re: (Score:2)
The same reason it shits pieces of those horrible sliding controls (these don't work on touchscreens, if anyone who can do anything about this cares) and the friend/foe indicators all over comments pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)