The Simpsons Worth More Per Viewer On Hulu Than On Fox

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."

Comments

Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[eldavojohn]

I don't use Hulu but I'm guessing it's because you can pick which episode you want on Hulu but not TV. I would watch the PTA is disbanding episode 50 times if I wans't soooo wasted to ytpe rightnow .

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[geekoid]

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?

[Brian Gordon]

I'm guessing because you see the ad sitting there for the entire show. Of course it's more expensive.

Still, keep in mind that you have many more viewers on TV.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[geekoid]

Keep in mind that Hulu has more Simpsons episodes to run at any given time.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Your.Master]

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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Facegarden]

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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[sexconker]

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?

[Brian Gordon]

Err, what? I've never seen a banner ad on Hulu

Almost every video has one. Above the video and to the right.

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.

Are you conscious?

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Asclepius99]

I was actually watching NewsRadio on Hulu the other week and was wondering why that is. The only thing I could think of was it may have something to due with it being cancelled and then restored before that season. Though it was on the same network so I'm not sure why that would affect it.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hum, then why does Hulu play stupid games and remove episodes? Why not have ALL of the episodes available all the time instead of stupid clips?

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Anonymous Coward]

To Facegarden and Brian Gordon. I've used Hulu for almost the past year and a half on a nearly daily basis, Hulu for a while (when they had all of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) was all I was watching. Used it on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. I've never had this issue with the banner ads. Are you never watching in fullscreen? I prefer actually how Hulu does it, you can vote on whether you "like" or dislike and ad. And it will then choose future ads based on my past selections. I like this b/c if I'm going to have to have an ad, it might as well be one I can tolerate. So back to Brian's initial point. I don't think you charge the higher revenue b/c it's on screen longer b/c I'm quite certain that ads are shorter on Hulu. (22 or 23 min. shows with 3 20 to 30 second commercials = at most 26 minutes of time, vs. tv broadcast of 23 min. show, 7 minutes of commercials = 30 minute slot.) One of the things that amazed me and my friends when we all started switching to internet only television was that we were spending far less time watching ads. I would therefore assume that you actually have more online viewers for these shows than you do for television. The difference is that TV has a monopoly on new material. IE. if you want to watch the newest Simpsons you need to watch it on TV, b/c it doesn't come to the net until like a week later. So maybe TV generates more viewers for a specific new popular episode but for shows that have already been aired you have got to be getting more viewers online than on TV. If you go on Hulu regularly you'll see for example that certain episodes of say Family Guy are not only viewed but commented on by multiple people everyday. I doubt very much the bulk of the TV watching crowd wants to rewatch shows this frequently, but people who watch shows on their computers (where it's easier to watch them) tend to watch the same episode many times. I've seen several episodes in collections I've owned dozens of times.

Bottomline it's more expensive b/c that's where the bulk of the growing viewership is. Why should I be forced to watch a show on some arbitrary schedule if technology allows me to watch the show when I want to? I've also seen other people comment on here about how the brevity of the ads works to keep you watching them. Totally true. 20 seconds is a pretty decent time, but on tv the average commercial break is about 2 minutes (three breaks of two minutes for 6 of the 7 minutes that make up TV timing, with one more of local advertising). 20 seconds vs. 2 minutes is a big time difference. I've often thought that if I had more commercials in my shows online I'd be running to the kitchen for snacks more, etc. So I totally agree that the shorter ads, like 15 ro 20 seconds are way mroe effective than long ads.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[pete-classic]

That season wasn't all bad. Jon Lovitz's bit about dogs being boys and cats being girls was pretty funny. Also, I think Joe's bit about having made the parts to make the spy gear was in that season as well.

So, you know, two jokes worked that season . . .

-Peter

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[MrMarket]

IHNRTFA, but aren't there fewer ads per online episode? If FOX sells 10 spots at $40 vs. 4 spots at $60, TV is still more lucrative.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Jarjarthejedi]

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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[crazyjimmy]

I think many people are probably watching it fullscreen or watching it via feed. The banner ad definitely doesn't show up in full screen.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Facegarden]

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 clicked again and got a USO sponsored episode:
http://tlalexander.com/hulu.jpg

So i dunno when it happens, but I can see why that would certainly be worth more.
-Taylor

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[FlyingBishop]

I don't feel like checking, but OLPC is definitely a charity, and USO is a charity of sorts. It's my understanding that Hulu runs charity ads when it can't find an actual advertiser. Maybe the charities are the ones with banners?

Anywho, I just run popped out or full screen (depending on the power of my computer.) So I don't really see what the fuss is about.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Jello B.]

Some advertisers do it, some don't. It's random.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Jurily]

What twin towers?

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[muridae]

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 are going after shows they like, that they actually want to see, and not just leaving the TV on to what ever crap comes on. You can not ask for a better audience, for influence by a commercial, than one pumped about the show they are watching.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[muridae]

No, I got a bank and credit card company when I went to watch Burn Notice. However, the banner certainly isn't there in full screen mode. And the irony of a bank sponsoring a show that often involves bank fraud to trick the bad guys? Well, I would say priceless, but that would be the wrong company. But this sure makes you want to check what is in your wallet.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[tomhudson]

"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 clicking to close it, I go do something else for a few secs.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[RyoShin]

They cut in at about the same places too.

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 instances they seem to ignore the pre-created spots for commercials, with obviously fade-to-black and scene transitions, in favor of whatever random place they like.

That said, I enjoy Hulu greatly; I'm using their Desktop program right now, and am also developing a Firefox add-on for organizing the queue (something useful for those like me, with 300+ entries).

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[muridae]

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 commercial. I'm saying that the eyes that do are more valuable to them when they are actively seeking the show and not when they are just watching TV because it's on, or because it's the SO's favorite show, or any other reason. Internet VOD provides that, and you can be the ad execs and psychology folks they hire for marketing are paying attention.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[ArrantPrac]

Oddly enough, I've only ever seen that episode on TV once, but it was a year or two after 9/11.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[carlzum]

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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Darinbob]

I think a big factor is that people watching the Simpson's online have a higher disposable income than those watching on television.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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 skip commercials there.

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 clicking to close it, I go do something else for a few secs.

You'll still hear the audio.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[digitalhermit]

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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Brian Gordon]

I don't watch in fullscreen. Here I'll make a screenshot. I'm on windows right now, shame.
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2609/hulu.png
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:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but they have much, much better data about each viewer as opposed to the Nielsen + shotgunning tactic for broadcast TV. They can datamine the shit out of your viewing habits and sell better targeted ads.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because lawyers hate when people are happy.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[badasscat]

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.

Has nothing to do with Hulu. The segment times are programmed by whoever submits the show. And yes, I know this from experience.

It is possible that Hulu's system could just be screwing up occasionally - it wouldn't be the first time - but if you watch an episode more than once and always see the breaks in the same places, then obviously it's working properly and those breaks were programmed by the TV channel, not Hulu.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[badasscat]

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. The obvious reason being that TV channels are set up to broadcast via, well, TV. All of the equipment is already bought and paid for, the processes are in place, the staffing level set, etc. Now you throw this wrench in the works of suddenly asking a TV channel to worry about digital codecs, about digital delivery, about server capacity, all this other crap... it becomes a huge clusterfuck. And it means adding staff, adding equipment, redirecting resources, etc.

I'll say that when Hulu first launched, I was responsible for getting some clips - just clips! - ready for one of the launch channels. We were trying to do the minimum required of us because we knew it was going to be a big headache. And it was. First of all, most of the tapes (yes, tapes) were stored off-site and needed to be located and transported. Then they needed to be digitized, then edited, then encoded. At the time, Hulu would allow you to submit either flv's or "mezzanine" files that were either mpeg2 files (yes, mpeg2) or QuickTimes using the DVC Pro codec. Well, we tried both flvs and QuickTimes and had major problems with both. First, encoding to flv from our digitized files took approximately 24 hours for each clip. (You don't realize how large uncompressed digital files are.) So that was obviously out. Rendering from Final Cut to DVC Pro was much quicker, so we did that. Then we had to figure out how to actually get them the files, and it turned out buying a bunch of drives and FedExing them all over the place was really the only way. But then every flv they encoded from our files ended up stretched, because they couldn't figure out how to handle the non-square pixels that were in their own QT spec (the spec calls for a 720x480 file at a 4:3 aspect ratio).

All of this (plus dealing with the metadata and various other things) ended up taking up basically 100% of my time, plus 100% of two PAs' time, plus a large chunk of various other departments' time, plus probably 30-40% of my boss' time. And we had to buy a bunch of new hardware and software to do all the encodes ourselves that we ended up doing, and come up with all new processes.

You have to think about all the hidden costs. It's not just a case of "oh webcasting uses no bandwidth so it's practically free". Would it be "free" if, say, you suddenly asked General Motors to start making rubber ducks or bathtubs instead of cars? That's pretty much the equivalent. It is a totally new process that needs to be created from scratch. There's almost nothing about webcasting that is similar to broadcasting.

It doesn't even save money after you've got things set up and running somewhat smoothly, because now you've got *two* separate processes going on - broadcast TV still exists and will exist for the foreseeable future.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[RyoShin]

Thanks. I wondered that, but wasn't sure. I would have thought that the show's submitters would take a bit more time to plan breaks than Hulu.

I rarely, if ever, re-watch shows, so I wouldn't be able to tell if the problem is due to a technical failure or a human one.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Triv]

Buried? I saw it on TV, real OTA TV, a month or two ago.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[wgoodman]

there's also several episodes scattered throughout that are missing. it's a damned shame really. that's one of the few shows i bought all the seasons of as they came out. somehow, now every season is missing. i had a craving to watch andy dick be a spaz in front of james caan the other day, but alas, that episode is one of the missing (celebrity)

yeah, my spelling sucks, but i've been drinking for the last 13 hours.. can you do better?

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[theverylastperson]

You have been scored "3: Funny". A legal team has been formed to file suit against you and anyone who may find your comment humorous.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[jackharrer]

"yeah, my spelling sucks, but i've been drinking for the last 13 hours.. can you do better?"

Spelling or drinking? ;)

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[eharvill]

Why don't you use the "pop-out" option and you can size your screen accordingly and not have to deal with the banner ad?

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[sexconker]

I'm going to have to call bulllllllllllllshit.
Show me a listing with episode description.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[sexconker]

Did you see it on your local Fox affiliate, or on FX/etc?

It looks like Fox is showing it again, but edited.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[Triv]

Counteroffer: Show me a website, any website, that archives the airing information of their syndicated programming 2-6 months after the fact and I'll look it up for you. I didn't snap a photo or anything, I said, "huh. Haven't seen this one in a few years," and did my best to enjoy it.

Just because you think the entire country is still psycho-obsessed with 9/11 doesn't make it so.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[sexconker]

TV Guide?
Google will usually find it.

It turns out that it IS being aired again, but with several lame edits. And yes, it's lame edits to appease the people who are obsessed with 9/11.

Oh, I don't think it's the entire country, I think it's the typical small fraction who will whine and bitch and try to sue for no damned reason.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[pforhan]

I don't have a listing, but I've seen the episode twice in the past year or two. KDNL-30 in Saint Louis plays 2-4 simpsons episodes a day, and the showing includes the part with the two guys in towers arguing, that wikipedia claims is edited out.

Re:Probably Because You Can Select the Episode?

[sexconker]

We've already learned that it IS being shown, but with a bunch of lame edits...

Awesome... this means more content.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the online rate is higher than the actual TV rate, it stands to reason we'll see more and more online...
of course, business sense and cable television have VERY little to do with one another.

Guaranteed?

[William Ager]

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?

[L3370]

I've actually caught myself watching these commercials when viewing tv shows online. Knowing the commercial lasts only 20-30 seconds, it felt like I wasn't wasting my time...and would have rather waited anyway just to make sure the video would load without error.

Re:Guaranteed?

[sexconker]

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?

[Sir_Lewk]

That might less time to do, but it sure sounds like it requires far more effort.

Re:Guaranteed?

[FlyingBishop]

They also apparently haven't heard about this remarkable invention called a floor, that allows me to get up and go get a drink when a commercial comes up on TV.

Re:Guaranteed?

[RyoShin]

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 than on TV, especially if it's an amusing commercial.

Re:Guaranteed?

[chiguy]

Computer science principles in action: Time vs Work trade-off.

Totally worth $96,000 of tuition and 4 years of finding myself.

Re:Guaranteed?

[Dragonslicer]

Holy shit. And I thought I had a tendency to over-complicate things.

Re:Guaranteed?

[vaporland]

give it time. once they kill broadcast TV, you'll gag on the commercials on net TV. TV sucks, try some "actual reality" for a change..

Re:Guaranteed?

[hedwards]

That's part of the point, with ads as short as they are on Hulu there's really very little point to trying to skip them. It usually takes me more than 30 seconds to skip the commercials on my DVR. Even when using the increment forward button.

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:Guaranteed?

[Reaperducer]

ZOMG! This article is revolutionary! You mean targeted advertising costs more than shotgun advertising? Whoda thunk it?

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 more than advertising in a general interest magazine. Oh wait... it already does.

This is a non-story.

Re:Guaranteed?

[PitaBred]

I watch commericals periodically on my DVR. It just has to catch my attention... there is a ton of tripe out there that's based on the assumption that you have a captive audience that doesn't have a choice. Advertising doesn't have to be bad or annoying... it just is because they can get away with it.

Re:Guaranteed?

[mrmeval]

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:Guaranteed?

[rdnetto]

Sure, but how long is it until someone writes a script that does exactly the same thing? A method of actually ripping the videos sounds more likely and popular though - I often do the same thing to Youtube videos because seeking seems to mess up the buffering.

Re:Guaranteed?

[descil]

I do the same thing, and it's a lot less effort than getting up to hit mute every time an annoying commercial comes on.

Why the commercials cost more: no remote control w/ mute button.

Re:Guaranteed?

[Anonymous Coward]

ya know, if you click on the ad it pops open the target site in a new window/tab, and pauses the ad..

the catch is, though, when the ad is done after you resume it, the actual program is *also* paused... heh. i use this for my fridge runs, because (ssshhh!) the ads are :eek: too short sometimes.

you might be able to work that in there, as you wouldn't have to keep an eye on each window/tab you've got the ads playing in to pause them when they're done... they'll pause on their own.

this is in exchange, of course, for you clicking on the ads :shock: but then hulu gets any clickthru revenue, so that's not a bad thing. if hulu makes some scratch, they won't have to shut down or revert to a viewer-pays subscription model.

Re:Guaranteed?

[TheoMurpse]

The dumbest design is ABC's playback of their shows. At the end of the commercial break, it pauses and waits for you to click "Continue" to get back to the show. So it basically does two things
1. makes me get up off the couch to click a mouse button to keep playing
2. alternatively, enables me to leave the room and not worry about missing some of the show right after the commercials; I can walk away and completely ignore the commercials and when I come back it's waiting for me to resume the show.

At least on NBC, it doesn't wait for a click, so if I want to catch all of the episode, I have to at least be aware of when the commercials are ending and the show is starting. This forces at least a nominal amount of attention to be paid to the commercials.

Sheer ineptitude on ABC's part.

Re:Guaranteed?

[erple2]

Huh. The mute button is located right above the backspace key on my keyboard. Though I suppose my keyboard isn't wireless, so it's not really a remote?

Re:Guaranteed?

[sexconker]

The only complicated part is having to use a mouse since flash is so shitty with keyboard navigation.

F6, ALT+ENTER.
Click on dot for commercial.
Repeat for each dot.

CTRL+TAB
Pause
Repeat for each dot.

CTRL+TAB
Play

Whenever you hit a commercial:
CTRL+F4 (or CTRL+W if you can't reach)
Play

Re:Guaranteed?

[sexconker]

Right, however, I was watching Virtuality last night and I kept getting stupid Trojan commercials.

One with a fat awkward guy getting sex for flashing a box of condoms.

One with some girl putting one over her arm and saying "If you're too big for a condom, you're too big for me" before starting teh sex.

A couple others in their "evolve" line of ads that basically say men are pigs.

I gave them all the thumbs down.
(In fact, I'll downthumb just about any ad, since they usually try to stereotype me based on age and sex. I'll upthumb anything with that Aflac duck though. Love that fucking duck.)

Important clarification

[EvanED]

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:Important clarification

[Jurily]

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:Important clarification

[Hadlock]

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 of people probably watching tv during that time slot) to figure out how many people were actually watching. It's a really poor way to figure out who's watching what. They probably have an error margin of +/- 15% or more. With this all they have to do is export their server logs to a fancy flash application at the board/advertising meeting and go "lookee here, with 99.89% accuracy we know that X many people are watching, and not only do we know they're watching, but that they're affluent enough to afford a computer AND broadband internet connection." Lots of viewers are poor, thus not good candidates to advertise to. Webling viewers tend to have more disposable income.

Re:Important clarification

[swell]

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 /.?

WTF Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to question the vast wisdom of Slashdot.org, but the news that's been posted is getting closer and closer to what I'd find on Digg or Fark. I'm not saying I don't enjoy Digg or Fark, but I visit slashdot so that I don't have to see the same thing on every website I go to.

Re:WTF Slashdot?

[sexconker]

Slashdot is simply following the dumbening of the internet.

Soon, all /. summaries will be capped at 140 characters.

Re:WTF Slashdot?

[wampus]

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:WTF Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait! "Dumbening" isn't even a word!

Re:WTF Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely true, and I don't particularly like it either. I tolerate it though, because so long as it's confined to idle, it's easy enough to ignore. Ok, actually I only tolerate it because the occasional article or two is actually interesting, and since the communities on Digg and Fark are intolerable philistines, I'm not going to get my idle fix from there.

Problems only arise when idle articles are misfiled as news or tech, or worse (and unforgivably frequently) in the science section. Thankfully slashdot is not where I go for my science articles anyway, but misfiling articles this way can only mislead those who are beginning to develop an interest in science/tech/whatever as to what the topic is actually about. As such, this is inevitably contributing to (rather than being symptomatic of) the dumbening of the internet, as sexconker so eloquently put it.

Seriously though, stoned wallabies counts as a scientific breakthrough now? Fuck you, samzenpus.

Re:WTF Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is simply following the dumbening of the internet.

Soon, all /. summaries will be capped at 140 characters.

The aliens on the Hulu commercials need to eat too you know.

The right demographic.

[Anonymous Coward]

It also guarantees that the users seeing the ads are foolish types and likely to spend money. If they had any clue they'd be watching it ad-free through The Pirate Bay.

Re:The right demographic.

[roc97007]

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:The right demographic.

[davester666]

Hell, I'm not allowed to watch Hulu or any other US-based content because...I'm not in the US. Hence, piratebay pretty much is the ONLY stop.

Re:The right demographic.

[Mister_Stoopid]

This is wrong. I'm about as hard core as they come piracy wise; as long as I've known about the internet I've pirated all my movies and TV shows as a matter of principle.

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) and click->watch in 15 minutes (after the torrent finishes) cannot be overstated.

Not to mention, anyone under 30 should easily be ADD enough to tab over to slashdot and read 2 stories in the time it takes a 15-second hulu ad to play.

Re:The right demographic.

[TheDormouse]

I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse.

If your video card has a secondary output, you're ready to go.

1. Download Hulu Desktop.
2. Run an HDMI cable from the second output of your video card to your TV.
3. Get a media center remote for the computer.

Done.

Re:The right demographic.

[Darkness404]

...I can watch Hulu (or any streaming video for that matter) in ~30 seconds. On the other hand, even on a decent connection it might take 30 minutes or more to successfully torrent a show (especially one with few seeders or one with all the episodes bundled together). There are times that I have a few minutes to kill and want to watch a show so I usually put on YouTube or Hulu rather than have to wait for my torrent to complete.

Re:The right demographic.

[mattack2]

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:The right demographic.

[davester666]

There are plenty of shows that don't fit your criteria, even to your closest neighbor, Canada.

Particularly shows on the Cable networks either don't get picked up here in Canada, or get delayed for several years.

Re:The right demographic.

[grocer]

My media consumption is split probably 70-30 online legit content vs. watching it off the TV. I haven't setup my DVR since we moved into a new house but before that, everything went on the media computer. I don't want to mess with downloading and finding content. With a hulu, I know it's there for three weeks...I found with the DVR if it didn't get watched in a week, it was never going to get watched (in a house with six people). I have it setup so I can plug my laptop into the TV and stereo now, if I miss something I'll just put it up on my TV and watch it. Frankly, I think it's fair to watch 2-3 minutes of ads targeted at me vs. 10 minutes typically found on TV. If it means I can watch my shows on my schedule, it's worth it. And, while I think copyright is totally messed up now, I don't think I should be ripping off content producers. At some point, if they can't make money producing content, they will stop making content...right now, the torrenters and copiers are subsidized by the people who consume content paid for by advertising. Once advertising is no longer profitable, everyone loses. I don't know how the landscape will change so producers can make money but it will change...and I'll go along with it. But until then, I think it's perfectly reasonable to watch a couple of ads in exchange for entertainment.

Re:The right demographic.

[RyoShin]

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.

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 intention of being shown straight through, with no commercial-oriented transitions, only then will this become an issue.

I want to watch the show on my primary flatscreen TV using my remote, durnit, not on the laptop messing about with a mouse.

If you have a PC hooked up to the flatscreen, check out Hulu Desktop. It has remote support added in. I'm quite pleased with it so far, and they're very responsive about adding/fixing features. The only large gripe is that there are apparently certain series that are not available on the Desktop; for whatever reason, companies can (and do) choose to put shows on the Hulu website but not on the Desktop. I have no idea why.

Re:The right demographic.

[tomhudson]

"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:The right demographic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. That's always been my argument about Hulu: I'll support a business model that I think doesn't suck. Watching a FEW (not annoyingly loud) ads is a fair price for on-demand TV entertainment.

That said, if you don't have the episodes I want (Psych, I'm talking about you), I'm probably going to pirate it.

Re:The right demographic.

[meyekul]

You can watch almost everything in Hulu in 480 resolution, which is better than my standard cable. I can also watch it on my flatscreen TV which has both a VGA and DVI port. The line is blurring between TV and computer monitor. If Hulu and Crackle and such had a little more content and were updated more regularly, I'd drop cable altogether.

Re:The right demographic.

[Jim Hall]

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.

I tried Hulu for the first time a few months ago, when our Comcast DVR failed to pick up a series episode. It impressed me that the Hulu show resolution was much better than YouTube, although not as good as regular cable TV (but not off by much .. certainly acceptable.) Since then, my wife & I have used Hulu several times just to see if another show we'd heard about was any good (catch up on missed episodes.)

We have a Mac Mini (mostly for pushing iTunes purchases to our iPods) hooked up as another input on our flat-screen TV. We watch Hulu on that, full-screen. Use the bluetooth keyboard & mouse to set up the show, start watching, set aside the keyboard & mouse. Not as convenient as a single remote, but not too distracting.

In my ideal world, Hulu creates an "app" that you can buy ($10 or less) on the PlayStation Network store, that lets you watch Hulu right from the PlayStation. I'd love that! Note that Hulu refuses to play videos on the PS3's browser ("not supported on your platform") but the PS3 browser plays YouTube videos just fine.

Re:The right demographic.

[TyFoN]

Not living in the US, I was wondering if this service provides full hd or if its sd crap.
There is no point in watching it on your digital tv unless it have a proper resolution.
If its bad and you can see blocking etc, i would just get mad and download the HD version via torrent anyway ;)

Re:The right demographic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it does depend on the cost vs ease of use/convenience.

As you say the P2P stuff is not as easy compared to Hulu.

But I know people who have even more trouble with the DVD and Blueray region control and DRM bullshit. Basically they CANNOT play stuff they buy legitimately - or they have to buy a PS3/blueray player for each different region they need.

FWIW, I don't really P2P much - too often the torrent doesn't work - no seeders, too slow etc. So you have to go look around for one that does work. But the last time I tried P2P must have been years ago.

Often easier to buy the relevant pirated DVD from the local pirate shop...

The legit DVDs from the legit shops aren't better - too often they have annoying ads that you can't skip with normal DVD players. And the subtitles are just as crap if not worse.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly can't wait until I don't mind watching adverts. That is, they're MORE FUCKING RELEVENT TO ME. I would ENJOY giving any company my personal data if it meant all the adverts I viewed were very relevent to my needs.

Re:Stupid

[Niris]

I'm sorry, but the fleshlight doesn't have a suitable advertisement for Hulu.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's something you don't see everyday: an AC who posts a well reasoned statement relevant to the discussion who is subsequently flamed by a logged in user.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you find yourself watching a commercial for radiation therapy and start thinking, "I don't have cancer!"

But you do.

And the advertisers are there for you. :hugs:

Apples to Oranges

[TejWC]

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:Apples to Oranges

[geekoid]

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:Apples to Oranges

[geekoid]

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:Apples to Oranges

[jedidiah]

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:Apples to Oranges

[LostCluster]

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.

Re:Apples to Oranges

[Darkness404]

...Or you can go to TPB and download that show, free of charge uncut. On the downside you don't get streaming like on Hulu.

one slight catch to the math there...

[Anonymous Coward]

You also need to consider that you have to buy last years viewers this year when figuring out your $$$ per 1000 rate on television. Hulu should be like google and you can buy 10,000 views of your ad instead of being forced to buy the entire market.

Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[SlashdotOgre]

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:Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They tried. Hence the changes. Also, the studios don't want you to watch Internet TV on your TV. More money in broadcast. (No one will settle for as many ads in Internet TV as they put on Broadcasts)

Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[nine-times]

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 even making less per episode could still net a greater profit on Hulu, since I would also imagine that Hulu is less expensive to operate than television networks.

Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[jfengel]

Since we're talking about one ad per show compared to nearly two dozen, the overall revenue is going to be MUCH lower even if there were as many viewers. If one wanted to produce a show for Hulu rather than the networks, you'd need to either charge 10x as much per viewer, or radically increase the number of ads, driving a lot of viewers away.

Hulu ads are targeted, but they're not THAT well targeted.

The networks tap into the fact that a lot of people like to watch the same thing at the same time: everybody wants to know how American Idol turned out all at once. More specific viewing has gone to the scores of special-interest cable/satellite channels. They have big marketing benefits because they're showing their own ads.

Big, expensive shows like Lost may simply be squeezed out one day: insufficient profit for the networks (especially since many fail entirely) and insufficient revenue on Hulu.

Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[nine-times]

It's not clear to me how this all plays out, but it seems like it's too soon to conclude that "big, expensive shows like Lost may simply be squeezed out one day". I suspect that if we stopped trying so hard to preserve business models, trying to force the Internet to work like network TV, we'd find new ways of raising funds for these things.

Honestly, I don't know why people are so opposed to the idea of a pay-per-view or subscription model. Take the amount of money that Lost makes per episode from ads, and divide that by the number of viewers. What do think that number looks like? I bet it's small enough that, if that were the only legitimate way that you could watch Lost, lots of people would pay it.

Cut all the middle-men out of the deal-- the networks, the ad agencies, and everyone else who isn't involved in the actual creation of the show, and sell it through distributors like iTunes or Amazon. Or release it into theaters, or straight to DVD, as something more like episodic movies. Like Harry Potter, but release 5 movies a year instead of one every year or two.

If forced to, someone would make it work. Worst case scenario, lots of people would have to take a pay-cut. High-end directors and actors and executives might only make a decent living rather than ridiculous amounts of money. Boo hoo.

Re:Average Total Cost Per Ad?

[ShawnDoc]

Its not just Boxee, they've started blocking the PS3 as well.

TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

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:TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Five year olds don't have wallets?

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[dsanfte]

Five-year olds would generally find adult content yucky and boring. Or else hilarious. They wouldn't be 'harmed' by it.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[againjj]

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:TV is dead, long live TV

[Fjandr]

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."

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Mike Judge had it wrong with Idiocracy. He pre-supposed that stupid people will outbreed smart people and create a lot more stupid kids faster than the smart people will create smart kids. What your post shows is that even smart people can have kids that are mindless youTube loving zombies. No offense. You yourself called it random nonsense. How could you let your children watch youTube clips for hours at a time and thank the stars that youTube sensors the naughty stuff?

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[roc97007]

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 I can't explain this, except it might have something to do with early (1980's) connection to the internet.

By far, our household's primary usage of cable TV is for wife to watch soaps. (She records her daytime soaps, and watches nighttime soaps -- er, hospital and crime dramas -- live.) Were it not for that, we could easily get along without cable or broadcast TV.

This makes me wonder -- is it a generation thing? Are people of my generation the last of the traditional TV demographic -- the people who plant butt on couch during prime time and watch whatever is on? Could it be that after we die out, or become demographically irrelevant, the whole concept of broadcast TV will cease to have meaning?

That would be so cool... :-)

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Jedi Alec]

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 nephews at some point i might toss the whole thing out.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Hurricane78]

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 make everyone a sinner, so that everyone has to beg for their commands (to "clean" themselves), which makes everyone a slave.
So we teach our kids to be slaves, with this behavior.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Hurricane78]

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 tell him that he is the biggest asshole, even when it's the biggest bully and criminal organization on the planet? In the real world that would get you killed. And can could not just walk away from the things you use, when they are: A newspaper, a shopping mall, and a large bully talking to you.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, short "viral" videos are what people want to see. Everyday I'm actually a little sad that I haven't seen another: Exploding whale, cat chasing a bear, monkey falling out of a tree, BLEVE, type video. And it has nothing to do with age. Once you get used to getting your media like this you'll have no choice but to get your media like this. I can't stand watching shows on TV where ads geared to some other obvious demographic than mine are being played (thank you and no offense, I'm not a soccer mom, I don't need to know which SUV was judged safest in it's class or what brand of peanut butter all the kids in the neighborhood are craving).

Perfect example: Parkour videos. Parkour is a french freestyle running that's amazing to watch cause it's so acrobatic. But at the same time Parkour has been used in extensive marketing campaigns. Several times I've watched a parkour video only to find out at the end that I was watching an ad. Do I care?!? Hell to the no. I still saw a badass parkour video, I could care less whether puma wants to slap there name on it or not. It's a much better business model. That's why traditional media are failing.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[vux984]

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:TV is dead, long live TV

[tomhudson]

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 equation completely for many of us. Who wants to go back to being spoon-fed?

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

"Daddy, why are those 5 men hurting that woman?"

FTFY

I find your lack of imagination... disturbing.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ever think ever think they can't take the internet away from you. You should support and defend it because at some point I'm sure we will all have to make the decision that information should be free to everyone and not controlled by the few. Think about it.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Jarik_Tentsu]

I was talking to someone who doesn't even have a TV in their house. They moved house 6 months ago, and just haven't bothered installing one yet. They just use the computer to watch their TV shows and movies (and not illegally either. They use the pay-per-download ones).

~Jarik

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[Arthur Grumbine]

I've personally never seen a parent give in to their five-year-old's demands for MDMA... of course this could be a regional thing. I'm from Earth.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

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 different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo; when they do, and the parents react, we don't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place.

Re:TV is dead, long live TV

[againjj]

What?

AC seemed to think that ads aimed at children don't make sense as children do not have money. I point out that children's desires influence the purchasing habits of their parents. You bring in parents not buying MDMA for their children because ...?

Math

[pete-classic]

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:Math

[William Ager]

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:Math

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Maybe the math is hard because I can't figure out how 60 is 1/15th of 40 or 20.

Re:Math

[pete-classic]

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:Math

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you... that's exactly the line of reasoning I clicked through to post.

Re:Math

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on there. While the Math may be wrong you also have to take into account that a certain company is not going to pay for all 9 minutes worth of commercials during a Simpsons episode. They will have signficantly less. Once per commercial break. So I don't think we have all the information to get some exact numbers.

just my 2 cents.

Re:Math

[berghese]

I heard that Matt G plans to create a new spinoff with only 1/7th of the Simpson's characters to be paid for with 1/7th of the ad revenue. "Marge: the Hilarious Escapades of a Lonely Widow" I think it's called.

-Berg

Re:Math

[Anonymous Coward]

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 to mangle it by including the amount of time shown

an advertiser doesn't buy the entire 540 seconds of advertising, that would be retarded, the number cited actually assume different costs given the same short, meaning, 15-30 seconds, which is irrelevant how long it is, because a cheap advertiser would use the same commercial in both places, rather than shoot ones specifically for each medium (a keen one might tailor them, but thats semantics)

Re:Math

[pete-classic]

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.

-Peter

Re:Math

[GuldKalle]

The worth to advertisers is still greater for Hulu than for Fox. Value is a lot of things to a lot of people.

Re:Math

[Anonymous Coward]

they are saying its worth more to advertisers. the people buying it will pay up to 3 times more for the ad.

but the broadcaster can sell 15 times more ad time. so the broadcaster stands to make more then 5 times more (per viewer) on tv rather then hulu. (plus they run a transmitter rather then a server)

Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

And TV Execs wonder why their ad revenue is going down...

Only 37seconds per show? yes please...

Nooooo!

[xx01dk]

This does not need to be made public. I love only having to sit through 25-30 seconds of commercials verses 2-3 minutes for each break. This is what drove me to Hulu in the first place, but I can't fault them for wanting to make more money. I just knew it was too good to be true for as long as it has been--soon it will be just like watching regular TV, and then I'll be back to torrenting the shows I like _sans_ commercials. Meh! Remember these halcyon days. I know I will.

This is going to be what killed hulu

[scribblej]

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:This is going to be what killed hulu

[c41rn]

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 a per-user basis, I'd like to at least believe that it sends Hulu and advertisers the message that we won't tolerate these kinds of games.

It is the incessant, obnoxious commercials on cable TV that lead to me disconnecting it as soon as I learned about Hulu. Now I've been spreading the word about Hulu and even my older parents and some retirees I know are using it rather than pay for cable.

Cool!

[hansraj]

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:Cool!

[cheesybagel]

You already can watch anime outside the US. But North American (I say this because many series are made in Canada) series online are pretty much US only.

That doesn't make any sense

[Karganeth]

Why does it cost more for adverts per person during the Simpsons? It could be the case that Hulu is charging more per viewer because those who watch the Simpsons are more receptive to advertisements, but I doubt that. I think that Hulu just uses a poor pricing model for advertisers.

Less is more.

[greatica]

2 to 5 minute ad breaks = I walk to the kitchen to make a snack, or record and watch later to fast forward through junk. 30 second ad breaks = Not a big deal. I chill out and take in the advertisements. Same thing with internet banner ads. I didn't look for an ad blocker until people got greedy and littered their sites with junk.

Rahter misleading.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In other news, different markets net different prices for services.

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:Rahter misleading.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Arg. Meant to fix the topic before submitting. Can't even say I didn't preview as an excuse...

PCworld sucks at math

[basementman]

It costs $60/1000 viewers on hulu because they have exclusive advertising. Sure they make less per advertiser on TV but they are showing ads from 4 or 5 diferent people every commercial break. So it's more like $30*5=$150/1000viewers on TV.

wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, people still watch new Simpsons episodes?

So how about dropping the block?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users?

Sure, I can always get the episodes from torrents almost right after regular broadcasting, but that way there's no profit in it for the makers of show. And unless someone offers it online "in my country" (I rather despise the concept of country borders on the Internet), that it's being broadcast at some point in time way later, at a time of day I probably won't be able to watch it, and certainly on a channel not available to me, there isn't a good reason to make the episodes already online from a US service, unavailable to me.

Re:So how about dropping the block?

[muridae]

Because the television company has exclusive deals with your local television stations, that will eventually let you watch the show. If their contract with Hulu gave the internet the coveted first broadcast, the big company would be breaking a contract with the local stations. And those contracts get them an awful lot of money.

Re:So how about dropping the block?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write a lot of letters (using different names and addresses) or make some friends (cloning and GHB) and make sure your local advertisers know you're interested in Hulu.

Try to get several local businesses (preferably Canada or UK first) to work out a deal with Hulu, so that Hulu will profit from allowing your block of IP addresses access it.

PS, regional distribution rights will prevent this and your plan from working, so if you really wanted to accomplish this, you'll have to convince your local broadcaster to relinquish the exclusive rights to broadcast the shows on Hulu.

Maybe this can begin on a case-by-case/show-by-show basis where only certain shows from Hulu are available for the trial regions.

-R Seacrest

Re:So how about dropping the block?

[tomhudson]

So if Hulu actually profits by number of viewers, what's the point of blocking non-US users? How long before someone makes a botnet of open proxies with US IP addresses and inserts their clients' ads in place of Hulu ads?

Re:So how about dropping the block?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

And we're back to torrents. I'm one of the potential viewers. I go for convenience. I guess good for them if they actually make money off of local stations, but I'm not watching them.

Re:So how about dropping the block?

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Yeah, proxies, those are fun. When they work right off, or at least keep working for a while once you've set them up.

Ad rates? The real tectonic shift comes when

[endall]

The real tectonic shift comes when the online episode make more money overall than the prime time TV showing.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cost Per impression all over again...

[icebike]

> 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 browser, kill the sound, and skip the commercials (mentally if not actually). People who have a computer and know how to use it well enough to find hulu are not dumb enough to watch some crazy commercial.

If anything, the channel surfers do not stumble upon HULU content, like they might while avoiding commercials on the TV.

Its a good price to ding the advertisers if you can get it, but it has to translate into sales or it is a waste.

On line ads used to be sold on a cost per impression basis. Advertisers woke up to that scam, and the current scam is cost per click.
(Advertisers are waking up to that scam too.)

I seriously doubt you will long be able to demand enhanced revenue based on cost per impression.

Re:Cost Per impression all over again...

[tomhudson]

"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 scams wrt cost-per-click. They WANT to believe. You can tell them until you're blue in the face that click-bots, pay-to-click scams, and all the rest mean that the stats are bogus, but there's no changing their minds - they'd rather believe that it's not bad traffic, but a question of if they tweak their landing page better, they'll get better conversion rates.

"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas." HAHAHA!

"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use reCAPTCHA." HAHAHA! (gasp) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use image captchas." Here - pull my finger. That plus a couple of bucks will get you a coffee. HAHAHA!

"They can't be bogus click-throughs - we use captchas so hard even people can't solve them!" DUH! Think about what you just said for two seconds ... that means ALL your click-through traffic is bots.

The internet really needs to come up with a better revenue model than the current advertising monoculture.

A guaranteed audience?

[Hurricane78]

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:A guaranteed audience?

[theskunkmonkey]

I was going to reply with the usual "What ads?" but you've made the point.

I don't see these ads thanks to adblock, just a short pause of a few seconds waiting for it to time out and continue with the program.

Re:A guaranteed audience?

[Evil Shabazz]

What's the point of blocking Hulu's ads? They last no more than 30s, and you have to wait for that time anyway... There's a little timer that tells when your show is gonna be back, so just get up and get a drink. Sometimes I think people block ads just to be able to. You're not gaining anything, and you're giving Hulu a reason to no longer be free. If Hulu cannot generate some stream of revenue through selling ads, just how the heck do you expect them to continue to provide you the content you're there to see? Or do you expect the content should just be free for everyone? Really, I'm trying to understand the point...

Re:A guaranteed audience?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget hulu ads are around 15-30 seconds long. When you block an ad the blank screen that pops up telling you to adjust your ad-blocker is always 30 seconds long. As a person who can be quite impatient when watching something interesting that 15 seconds can actually matter.

Re:"tectonic shift"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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 correctly applied.

HuluVo

[Anonymous Coward]

It also costs more because there's no such thing as a HuluVo [or MythHulu] to let you jump over ads.

Not to mention that Hulu can tell an advertiser exactly how many people are watching the show--and where they are. Over cable TV, they have to rely on Neilsen.

Too many commercials

[GodfatherofSoul]

I hope that TV execs learn the lesson that they've got too many commercials in their shows. I remember when commercial breaks on my shows (as a kid) were 2 minutes or 4 X 30 second spots). Now, I'm actually deterred from watching TV. I'm a huge football fan and I'd watch every possible game I could (in the pre-Tivo days). Now, I only follow my favorite team as the annoyance of commercials overcomes my casual interest in other teams. Monday Night Football IMO died because they inserted so many commercial breaks that, beyond their normal annoyance, they started to interrupt the continuity of games and even omit game coverage like kick-offs.

Re:Too many commercials

[maillemaker]

Definitely there are too many commercials on cable TV.

On the very rare ocassions I fire up the TV and channel surf, it goes like this:

click (commercial) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (rerun I've seen) click (commercial) click (movie I already own unedited-for-TV copy of) click (commercial) click (religious programming) click (commercial) click (commercial) click (Spanish channel)

Booooooring.

Sony is missing out big...

[Evil Shabazz]

I love Hulu - in fact, Hulu is the only place I watch "television." House, 24, Bones, Heroes, Family Guy, Simpsons, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report... sure, some shows like House aren't available until 8 days after they air but what do I really miss out on.. a couple days of water cooler chat? Seriously, I can wait for my fix. Not to mention the fact that they just posted Season 4 of Stargate SG1 - now Seasons 1-4 are all available whenever I want them. Hulu is the best thing to happen to television since color.

THIS VIDEO WILL BE FLAGGED

[tepples]

thank god youtube removes adult content.

It doesn't filter out dirty words looped for a minute. Heaven help your five- and two-year-olds once they discover YTP.

Example of picking the numbers

[v(*_*)vvvv]

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 depends who gets paid more to say what. Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.

btw Tivo might kill TV ads, but ALT+TAB works fine for me, although I'm usually listening more rather than watching. I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer doesn't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often.

False OCILLA takedown

[tepples]

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 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 dangerous in the hands of a bully.

Point of jurisdiction: OCILLA is only in the United States, but so is Hulu. Besides, YouTube's "international complaints" follow pretty much the same procedure as OCILLA complaints.

Watching the wrong football

[tepples]

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).

If Slashdot embraces Twitter

[tepples]

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?

Re:If Slashdot embraces Twitter

[tomhudson]

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.

Go Comskip

[Anonymous Coward]

SageTV + Comskip + record everything = zero commercials and 1 button skip. Can't beat it.

Ads on the Internet? Really?

[Fantastic Lad]

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

Lots of time on your hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is wrong with you? If you like this guy so much, why not have sex with him?

USA Only

[swordgeek]

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.)

Re:USA Only

[drinkypoo]

Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?

It's long past time for you to just imagine one on every page of the site. Slashdot is Taco's blog, and Taco is a USian.

Every time someone complains that Slashdot is too US-centric, they get a little dumber. Try not to do it again, you have very little wiggle room.

OT Aside: The five minute comment delay is bollocks.

I still watch it on TV via DVR

[onemorechip]

Now I feel like a Luddite.

Can't do math?

[bagsc]

60*37 20*9*60
Primetime is still more valuable. Fewer commercials means more expensive commercials - that has been long established.

How does this mean a web viewer is worth more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Online, If they sell 37 seconds of ads for $60 per thousand viewers, every viewer is worth $0.06. On TV, the may only get $20 per thousand viewers, but they can charge those $20 from way more people - they have 9 minutes to slot ads in, probably enough for 10 ads at least, so that's $200 per thousand viewers. Or $0.2 per viewer. Which is 3 times more.

9 minutes? More like 18 minutes per hour.

[Anonymous Coward]

The original post states 9 minutes of advertising per episode. I hope that they work talking about 30 minute shows. When I PVR CSI or other 1 hour shows, and then edit out the commercials, I'm left with 42 minutes of video. So, it is more like 18 minutes of advertising, which is a full THIRTY PERCENT. I was reading a while back about what, in the industry, they call "advertising load", used to be about 10-15%. Now it is THIRTY FREAKING PERCENT. No wonder viewership is down.

Just wait; when internet TV becomes the predominant way of viewing, there will be a lot more adds. At least with my PVR (EyeTV on my Mac MINI), I can skip the ads. With the flash-based online video views, you have to wait through the ads. This isn't bad with the 15-30 second ad spots, but it will get annoying when they become 3 minutes long.

One very annoying thing is that you see the same ad during every ad spot.

All that said, I do enjoy the convenience of using hulu, cbs.com, and abc.com to catch up on shows that I forgot to record, or missed for some reason.

My friend who worked there since the beta...

[TiberSeptm]

Had explained to me that this expectation - that Hulu advertisements would eventually prove to be more valuable than on-air advertising - was how the company planned on becoming profitable. The justifications he gave were-

• 1) Hulu ads are not skippable so the fear that a percentage of viewers will skip them as they do on DVRs is not there so much.
• 2)Their ads can be somewhat interactive; you can click through directly to the advertiser's site.
• 3) Hulu commercial breaks are not long enough for the viewer to treat them as some sort of actual break in which to check their email, go to the bathroom, or grab a bite to eat. While users can simply do these things and then rewind, Hulu's own experience has found that most don't.
• 4)As an explanation of #3 - they can gather general statistics on user behavior with respects to their videos and ads. They know that the vast majority of users do not get up during commercials, come back after them, and rewind because they can see that few people are rewinding after commercial breaks.
• 5)While they do not sell personal information, they do gather broad statistics on viewers in general as well as some specifics about registers users. This allows advertisers to gauge how many people within specific demographics not only will see their ad, but how many actually responded to it. this lets advertisers gauge rather quickly how accurate any targetting was. They also get feedback from users giving thumbs up or thumbs down to certain ads. This allows advertisers to see fairly quickly if they accidently created an ad that inspires hate rather than shopping.

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.

Here's the math:

[Saysys]

At $60 vs $30 the studio breaks even.

The quote in the summery is wrong, i just checked: there are 3 commercials 15-30 seconds each. This comes out to between 45 seconds and 1:30 of advertising; there are 8:30 in commercials for the regular broadcast.

On a recent episode of the Simpsons local adds took up about five of the adds. This means that in order to break even, supposing the internet draws away customers on a one-for-two basis(more tv can be watched), the studio must charge two times as much.

Just not the same

[mcrbids]

When you are watching television, you end up watching whatever is on, which is not something that generally excites you, and then on top of that, you have the additional insult of having to spend 40% of your time watching ads.

So, in short, because the quality of the show is marginal, you put up with further marginalization in order to have it "pay" for the content provider.

But with Hulu, you watch what you want. When you want. You CLICKED on the show. It's something you DESIRE to watch, not something that's "on". So I don't end up watching golf on Saturday afternoon, I watch stuff I happen to like: Bones, House, Burn Notice. I just caught a new show ("The Philanthropist") so good that it actually made me tear up more than once. Against this backdrop, I'm more than happy to watch a SINGLE commercial 4x in a show, and I'm even OK with the fact that I can't skip the ads. I watch what I want, when I want to. For now, formula of "online TV" works so well for me that I will probably never again buy cable or satellite TV so long as online television remains at least as good as it is now.

Seriously, when you get used to watching what you want, when you want, without knowing in advance what you want, with the ability to "catch up" when you discover something new, "normal" cable just seems... stale. Why bother?

I don't have a DTV converter box, and I have no interest in one. My Mac Mini + big screen have done everything I care to have.

The only reason we have cable: internet

[maillemaker]

The only reason we have cable at all is because it is only $10 more per month to have cable WITH internet then without it.

I hardly ever watch TV. It's internet or netflix.