Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

[MyopicJoe]

Hulu.com is basically online TV backed by serious money. Seems to me NBC Universal and News Corp (Mr. Rupert Murdoch) are gunning for YouTube. High-quality on-demand video of TV programming and movies (some full length).

They don't compete directly with YouTube. They don't host videos for us little people. They don't care about propagating Internet memes. But I see the potential for them to steal a lot of eyeballs. The question is how long can they keep this up before they need to turn a profit. Perhaps Murdoch doesn't really care if this venture flops. This company could just be a throw-away move in a larger chess game.

Until then I can catch up on The Office. Enjoy it while it lasts.


(the website user interface is well designed. nice to see cash being spent well)

[scrivener]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

I've been a Hulu fan since the day of its release. You have to sit through some commercials, but it's really not that bad, and the video and sound quality are great. If you only remember WKRP in Cincinnati as a screwball comedy, check out its first season on Hulu. It was quite a thoughtful program, and remains one of my faves.

[turtlegirl]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

If you watch tv on Hulu, you are cheating actors out of their residuals.
Much like how Napster used to cheat musicians out of their royalties by offering free music online.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

If you watch tv on Hulu, you are cheating actors out of their residuals.

Nnnno...not quite. From the hulu.com site:

Hulu was founded in March 2007 by NBC Universal and News Corp and is operated independently ...
Content: Hulu brings together a large selection of videos from more than 50 content providers, including FOX, NBC Universal, MGM, Sony Pictures Television, Warner Bros. and more...
Hulu is free and legal through an advertising supported model...
Hulu acquires the rights to distribute its videos, making them available to users legally...

The recent writer's strike was largely over internet distribution of these materials, and was settled in their most recent contract. One of the unions for actors (AFTRA) just resolved this in their latest three-year contract last week. The other major union (SAG) is still in negotiation on it at present.

[turtlegirl]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

The studios are calling the tv shows that they make available online 'promotional', which is incorrect. Actors currently do not receive residuals or other compensation for shows aired online. And if the networks get their way, we never will.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Excerpted from the recently ratified AFTRA contract:

Free to Consumer, Ad Supported Web Streaming: Consistent with models negotiated with the WGA and the DGA, Sideletter I will be amended to stipulate that a television program produced after July 1, 2008, may be streamed on a free to the consumer, ad supported web site for 17 consecutive days surrounding the initial broadcast (24 days for programs in their first season or one time programs) before residuals are triggered. If there is continued streaming within the first year after this period, each Performer must receive a fixed residual of 3% (3.5% effective July 1, 2010) of total applicable minimum for up to 26 weeks of streaming. The Producer can purchase an additional 26-week cycle by paying each Performer an additional fixed payment in the same amount, which is pro-rated if the second 26 weeks would extend beyond the one-year limit. In the case of WB/UPN Supplement programs other than one-hour programs, the rate is 3% (3.5% effective July 1, 2010) of the first replay fee. The Producer will pay 6% of DGR, to be shared by the Performers appearing on a program, once the one-year mark following the end of the 17- or 24-day window is reached, or immediately upon commencement of streaming of programs produced prior to July 1, 2008.

* Excerpts: As is the case in traditional television, excerpts from programs may be used for promotional purposes in New Media without additional payment or consent of the performers appearing in the excerpts. The maximum length of excerpts which may be used for promotional purposes in New Media will conform to terms for traditional media. To be considered promotional, the use must include “tune-in” information for television or for New Media exhibition, promote a home video release, include instructions for rent, purchase or streaming on New Media, or be part of a viral campaign, including user-generated viral promotional campaigns on social networking sites such as Crackle, MySpace, and YouTube. If the Producer receives revenue from such a user-generated viral campaign, Performers appearing in the excerpt will share in 6% of DGR.

"Promotional" applies to excerpts, not full programs.
("DGR" is "distributor's gross receipts.")

An outline of the full agreement is available through AFTRA's website. If the agreement is to the satisfaction of the performers (as it was, by a 62.4% margin), who are we to complain? Unless, of course, you are part of the 37.6% who voted against it.

[turtlegirl]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

I would have voted against it, but I'd never be an AFTRA member. Their contract is a joke, and so is AFTRA. They are a weak union that will bend over backward (to the detriment of their members)to try to achieve some (any!) shred of relevancy in the tv biz.

The reason the contract was ratified is because AFTRA actors are terrified of another strike (some money is better than no money, and they ain't making much from their current lousy contracts) and don't believe that their leaders have the ability to do any better in these negotiations. On that last note, the actors are probably right. And scared about the future.

Note that the AFTRA contract mentions free streaming for shows produced after July 1st. None of the shows currently streaming are covered by this contract, but by the old contract, which means that actors are currently being cheated out of residuals.

SAG does NOT allow free downloading of movies and TV shows.

SAG's position has always been that we actors should get residuals from internet downloads.

However, the producers are trying to claim that the free downloads are "advertising" for their shows... LOL yeah, right!

Therein lies the battle, and is one of the things we're trying to clarify with the new contract negotiations, and is one of the main things we're kind of at a stalemate with.

From earlier this year...
" -- LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hulu.com, a joint venture between News Corp. and NBC Universal, plans to open its vast online library of ad-supported TV shows and movies to the public on Wednesday, the company announced.

Users of the service will be able to view more than 250 full-length episodes of shows such as "The Simpsons" and "The Office," as well as some 100 movies, including "The Big Lebowski" and "Ice Age." [....]
The public debut of Hulu, which has been available to a test group by invitation since October, comes as studios seek ways to make money providing online content. [...]"

Where's my residuals from all that free use since October? Lost in cyberspace. (Or lining some fat producers' fat pockets.)

Check this out for clarification.

This is relevant too, though geared toward the WGA, some of these producers' admissions will spin your head!

The best explaination of this issue is coming soon, I just gotta find a link to it...

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

So you are a SAG member, then? That's something you might have mentioned when you first stated a position on this issue, so we would know that you were speaking from your union's perspective. (Rather than saying "you are cheating actors out of their residuals.")

I'm still waiting for proof that Hulu.com is not following the AFTRA contract just ratified, and not paying any residuals. As for residuals to SAG members, well, you'll have to come up with a new contract for those to kick in, rather than the extension of the previous (and recently expired) one. Your personal residual payments will be dependent upon that, won't they? Contracts relating to new media are generally not retroactive, so naturally the shows produced prior to the new agreement are not covered. No Hulu user is "cheating" actors out of residuals; actors were not entitled to those residuals prior to July 1.

SAG, of course, is holding out for a better deal on internet distribution than what AFTRA accepted. It's not easy to predict whether they'll get it or not - and SAG is angry with AFTRA for the deal they struck; that anger comes out in your post, too.

[mel]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

While I don't have that much time to watch TV, I do appreciate the fact that Hulu.com does offer some movies and TV shows online for viewers to watch. I don't mind the commericals; they're not very long. I've watched a couple epsiodes of Babylon 5 and the movie Titan A.E. which I had never seen before on Hulu.com. A pretty good service from a consumer's point of view. When I find time I'll probably watch more.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Interesting discussion so far, between TG and Leo. It's nice to see different perspectives.

How does the lowly actor track all the logistics/finances to make sure they aren't being cheated out of royalties (or whatever it's called)? It's not like the individual actor has an army of people to make sure the corporations are being honest. Is this the job of a union? An actor's agent?

I don't have an insider's opinion, but perhaps Hulu.com is the lesser of two evils? I mean the corporations are competing against online piracy. Right now 14,375 computers are distributing a 5-movie Harry Potter box set while 65,535 computers are downloading it. In roughly 1/2 an hour a person could be watching all 5 movies at close to DVD quality. And that's just a single BitTorrent. Who knows how many other ones are out there for the same box set. Grant it, I haven't thought this point through very much.

Yeah, Mel. So far I'm liking the user experience. It's like having TiVo.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Well, I'm not necessarily sold on the Hulu model (I'm not a user of the service myself), and it smells to me of "old media" trying to find their way into the "new media" realm (to paraphrase your thread title) - an area where, generally, the larger/more established the company behind the service, the less they understand what new users are after. So this is an interesting experiment on NBC/Universal's part, and it makes me wonder how it will play out - what they'll get right, and where they'll guess wrong.

I spoke up about t-girl's first post because I felt it seemed too general. Now I am pleased to know (a) that she has a personal stake in the situation, and (b) that she can use her position to provide us with a more detailed insider's perspective. I look forward to the information she is providing to us.

[mel]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Yeah, Mel. So far I'm liking the user experience. It's like having TiVo.

Unlike Tivo, there are no subscription fees with Hulu.com.

I like the fact I can pick and choose episodes and movies and have them play on demand when I want. I don't mind the ads as I said previously, becuase they are there to pay for the content and site.

[turtlegirl]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Look, guys, I'm not opposed to the idea of people being able to access what they want when they want to see it on the internet. I think it is a great idea, and it is definately what the internet is all about. However, it is important for users of these internet sites to be aware of how their use affects all of the people who are involved in the production of your entertainment.

Actors, writers, and directors currently recieve residuals for their, (our) work because we/they are the people who viewers tune in to see.

Producers have been finding ways to undercut profits to actors/directors/writers for one simple reason, they are greedy businessmen. Don't get me wrong, no production will get made without a producer backing it, and producers stand to lose the most if a show fails. But if it suceeds, it is based on the talent of the directors, writers and actors, because that is who the public tune into see.

The concept of residuals, however, is that the talent only gets these bonuses when the production succeeds If we make a flop, we have to go home and hope that we can ever get another job in Hollywood.
Most people have no problem with the idea of paying sports players insane amounts of money because they know they have a 5 to 10 year career, tops. Most actors, directors, and writers are lucky to get one gig a year, or even in their lifetime.

I could go on and on about the talent who have found themselves on skid row before there was a union to protect their interests, but, to that effect, currently the producers are engaged in a 30's era type of union busting. They have been playing AFTRA against SAG for several years now in an effort to weaken both unions. In the 70's AFTRA almost went under and SAG stepped in to protect them...

...(for those of you who don't know, a little history: SAG= the Screen Actors' Guild, it originally represented film actors exclusively; AFTRA= the American Federation of Televison and Radio Artists, it originally represented radio and television personallities but when tv became more popular, SAG took over representing all tv programming shot on film, and Aftra continued to cover radio and "taped" tv programming, basically soap operas and some sitcoms. Recently more and more dramatic and high end tv comedies have been shooting on high definition video, and AFTRA has been honing in on SAG tv programs by underbidding costs to producers. The bottom line is, as new media is being developed, producers have been taking advantage of the existence of the two unions to limit profits to the talent and increase their own).

What is currently happening with big studios getting behind internet programming is that they learned a lesson from the music industry which lost billions of dollars to file sharing by Napster and other such companies. They are taking a three pronged approach - trying to get in on blatantly illlegal file sharing of copyrighted programming like YouTube & hulu, and at the same time crying to unions that they are not making any profit on their own on-line programming, while at the same time dividing the unions and claiming there is no profit in the internet. This is purely ridiculous.

Watch ABC.com shows online and guess what? You sit through a commercial. Do you really think that ABC is playing that commercial for free? Yeah, right. That's a lot of income for ABC. So now they are offering programming on hulu, with profitable commercials, and not paying what they owe the talent who created them.

Great for you the consumer, hey, you get free stuff! Kind of like the low price of stuff at Walmart. Great, until you look around and there are not a lot more jobs in America because everything we sell is made in China.

I know lots of actors say they would work for free, but they can't do that and pay the rent. Have you ever tried to act out 'rent' to your landlord? Sorry, love of your craft won't pay the bills. So when the union protections disappear, the talent pool will diminish, and the next time you go looking for entertainment on hulu.com, you'll have your choice of "I Lost a Japanese Game Show" or "I Have Sixteen Kids and Can't Feed My Family", or "Midgets vs. Crackheads". "Bumfights", anybody? Now that's quality family programming.

Watch "Idiocracy" if you want to see one version of our future, but please don't downlaod it for free, because I would hate to run into the very talented Mike Judge in the unemployment line.

Buying into these free on-line streaming tv and movie sites just because they claim it is free and legal is, well, misguided. The negotiations for rights to payments were covered under the previous contracts. At this time the networks and producers are taking advantage of made-up, not-yet-fought-in-court loopholes. Please avoid supporting the people who are looking to exploit the true talent behind the programming, and undercutting many hard working people who are just trying to get their fair share of the pie.

If all this is above anyone's head; if you just work at the L & L and like getting free movies - imagine if your boss came in and said, "Hey Buddy, somebody ripped off twelve cases of Spam from the loading dock, so you aren't getting paid for today. And when you come in on Monday, we're gonna pay you $1.00 less per hour because we have 16 other guys waiting to take your job and there's nothing you can do about it. Cool?"

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

That was a good read, TG. Thanks for taking the time to write it up. Definitely food for thought.

[turtlegirl]

Re: Hulu.com: "old" media's answer to YouTube

Dude, it took me forever. Sven is probably feeling neglected. No more online time for now!