Hulu and the Mainstream
Why do we praise the mainstream for adopting new media? Is it the excitement that we feel when our industry is being validated, or is it just our kindhearted nature to pat the mentally challenged on the back when they finally learn to do something right. Unfortunately, I believe it’s a hint of both.
This morning Marc Hustvedt, founder of web television news site Tubefilter twittered the above message announcing:
Marc Hustvedt: Disney becomes equity partner in Hulu, the premium content battle with YouTube heats up. This will be good for content creators.. [Link]
His positive and enthusiastic remark set off a brief, but meaningful discussion on whether the new partner will, in fact, be good for content creators:
Casey McKinnon: @MarcHustvedt The problem is that Hulu is a gatekeeper, not an open platform. Have they spoken about opening themselves up? [Link]
Marc Hustvedt: @caseymckinnon, @ebregman, @nickpepito – indie creators will benefit too, it’s about first creating competition to distribute content [Link]
Nick Pepito: @caseymckinnon, @marchustvedt I think Hulu will move beyond studio content & begin to sign indie, they’ll have to. [Link]
Casey McKinnon: @nickpepito Hulu doesn’t “have to” do anything. It’s a site owned by NBC/FOX/ABC, who have obvious vested interests. [Link]
I’ve been getting more @replies on Twitter about this topic, so allow me to explain further in 140 characters of more…
As I mentioned on Twitter, Hulu is a site owned by three major networks; NBC, FOX, and ABC (Disney). They use the site to distribute their TV shows online in order to garner more views and to prevent the black market propagation of their shows on torrent sites. With the exception of made-for-the-web production Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog, Hulu is available exclusively in the United States.
Though Dr. Horrible was an indie production – a very expensive one – creator Joss Whedon has obvious ties with FOX that, no doubt, helped him distribute his content on Hulu. Most other web series listed on Hulu also have mainstream ties, like:
- The show is a web-based series created by a major network (Example: FEARnet)
- The show is created by or stars known celebrities (Example: Pink)
- The show is made by talented indie creators – most probably living in Los Angeles – who have been lucky enough to get a licensing deal (Example: Squeegees)
Sure, there are exceptions to the above ties to the mainstream, like Gary Vaynerchuk’s The Thunder Show (aka. Wine Library TV), but with his growing popularity it’s not absurd to assume the other shows have licensing deals or friends in high places.
So what does the ABC Disney partnership mean for us indie creators? Nothing until we see a more open platform on Hulu.
Some have mentioned on Twitter that Hulu needs to shift their entertainment to include more indie web content or their numbers will flatten over time… and I wish that were true, but mainstream TV shows made by already famous people have a built-in audience. Indie web series creators have a much larger ladder to climb to get the same viewership as people like Joss Whedon, and the best thing we can do is to “never give up and never surrender!”
This is why I am unperturbed by the new ABC Disney partnership. In essence, it’s just more of the same… and a very obvious merger. Also, let us not forget that ABC has been distributing their shows online for a long time now… they just had a less than desirable user experience. So, to celebrate their partnership with Hulu in a world where content should be (and already is) cross platform, is rather redundant.
Marc Hustvedt believes that creating competition to distribute content will eventually help indie creators, but since Hulu and YouTube are in a competition over TV shows and movies I feel that indie web productions are being left in the cold. Perhaps someday we’ll be reminiscing on all the crazy videos we used to watch on YouTube… whatever happen to those anyway?
SUBSCRIBE
I believe Joss picked Hulu at the time because it was the best looking player, he wanted the best streaming experience for the viewer.
From the many articles I’ve read, Hulu in general is not delivering good profits to anyone for streaming at this time and yes, it’s a closed system that I don’t believe will ever be open to independent producers in a significant way.
I think independents are being squeezed in many ways due to the pressure of needing to monetize web video. The only way to get around that is to make more and more professional and POPULAR content. Had to do on low budget, but the catch-22 is a way of life in the entertainment business :)
Blah typos :(
@Felicia: You’re right, if your goal is to get on Hulu you definitely need to work on making more professional and popular content. I also don’t blame Joss for picking Hulu, it definitely does have a good user experience… it’s just a shame that it isn’t more readily available to other less-networked creators.
I think you’re right. In some ways I feel that web series are a different kind of show. They have the opportunity for ‘no limits’ creativity and the ability to make shows that appeal to niche markets. But part of me likes the idea that the indie folk could take on the big boys. The shows you have produced are on the professional end of the indie scale, and it’s great to see more and more shows that achieve that. But without the budget and resources, can we ever really compete with ‘real’ television?
Perhaps the indie developers need to band together more. Revision3 is an interesting concept, but in a way it probably makes indie developers feel they are losing too much control. Perhaps we need an indie network where people don’t feel that way?
Way to bring the discussion off Twitter – it needed a post!
What I meant by the tweet is that the competition at the high levels for premium content online means that there is now real value being seen in video online. YouTube has deals with studios as well, and the battle will be over who can get the good (read: popular) shows/movies first. That means distributors (Hulu, YouTube, MSN, etc.) have to pay for that right.
So it’s going to be a bit of a battle to see who can offer a better deal for first-run episodes of say LOST or Heroes.
And for indie shows that develop a loyal fan base and consistently deliver awesome episodes, like The Guild, the idea of distributors competing with each other to get it first is a good thing.
On a side note, Hulu’s growth is actually an incredible thing for online creators because it’s actually conditioning millions of living room viewers to actually head to to the internet to watch shows, particularly longer-form shows.
Definitely agree with you that this is more of the same – it’s widening the divide between the majors and the indies, which is exactly what the majors want to do. But there’s a certain anarchic quality of the web that makes it far more difficult for the majors to keep the masses at bay. If NBCU/Murdoch/Disney want to make Hulu into a more viable business model, they need more viewers, which means adding indie content. There just aren’t enough web-savvy celebs and current TV shows to get the viewership they need.
Viewership is going to level off because there are just too many limitations to Hulu’s model for it to gain big viewership. I point to the fact that the majority of the most successful, defining web shows have not come from famous people or from big studios – Fred, The Guild, LG15, the list goes on. And let’s face it, the majors have had a lot(A LOT) of trouble trying to make web series that work.
That’s why I think the viewership is going to level off – I think Hulu can only get so far before it hits a ratings ceiling that can only be broken by content with a more casual “watch while you surf” aesthetic that doesn’t take itself too seriously – the kind of thing indies produce all the time. Also, TV shows are available elsewhere, and it’s been shown time and again that the TV-on-the-web audience does not cannibalize the TV audience (it adds to it). So it’s not as if people are abandoning TV for the web (for now), so web ratings won’t be reaching broadcast TV levels any time soon.
Web shows, since they’re only online, have a much larger potential audience. And if you’re Hulu, why not take a chance on an indie production that meets your high standards? In terms of distribution fees, Hulu would pay almost nothing for an indie show in comparison to a major. If viewership is big for it, everyone wins.
I’m pretty sure this is a very bad move for indie publishers… Hulu is increasingly interested in the big ad dollars, so I’d expect that they would continue to pursue premium content partnerships, not independent ones.
Hulu may have been new media at one point… now it’s increasingly just… media.
Thanks for posting this. I’m among those who asked Marc for clarification. I’ve not much to add, save that I stare in wonderment at how quickly the Big Guys have taken to web video, even if it means largely “rebroadcasting” made-for-offline content online. Two years ago, there was next to nothing available, outside of snippets here and there in tiny, grainy proprietary streamers and pirate stuff on YouTube. Now, look at Hulu. I didn’t expect these guys to move so fast.
As to what it means for us indie creators, I say “meh.” There are very few of us low-budget indies who can really compete with Family Guy or Scrubs online, not because we’re not as good, but because what draws someone to watch Family Guy online (”oh, crap — I missed that episode” or “I just watched Family Guy for the first time, I wanna go back and watch what I missed” of “I’ve always wanted to watch Family Guy but never have time, Now I’m at work and bored…”) is different from what drives someone to seek out indie content without celebrities or expensive marketing campaigns.
I’m with Felicia — it’s the eternal struggle of indie content creators, online or offline. Creating content is expensive. Getting people to pay you for your content is hard. ABC buying into Hulu proves that even the Big Guys recognize the web is the future and it is worth investment (which is what all of the Guilds were arguing at last years’ contract negotiations, and what we all knew years ago). But it doesn’t largely change the landscape for us indies.
There are a lot of web series on hulu and they just get buried underneath all the other content. At the end of the day web series are not why people are going to hulu. They are like the candy selection at supermarket checkout, grab one on your way out. At least hulu has an Web Originals section, you’d think that would be a no-brainer for YouTube. There definitely needs to be a network for Indies. I’ve been thinking about that a while myself. In fact, if anyone is interested in talking about that I have a few ideas. Feel free to email me.
Great thoughts and the subject did need a post, way too much for 140 characters.
I think it will be good for indie in the long run because of the attention and validity it gives to online distribution. Youtube started to re-define entertainment, you could watch a T.V. show or cat flushing a toilet and think of it as entertainment. Hulu is helping to expand the audience for online video through mainstream content, showing online video can be more. It can be a quality experience.
As people migrate online there will be an expanding search for quality content outside what major’s provide. It is just the beginning which is why I think it’s an exciting time to be a content creator. I don’t see the divide between major’s and indie growing wider but shrinking. Cost of equipment, post-production, distribution channels, delivery options are allowing more content to compete in the market. What used to be a very exclusive club is quickly growing.
Sites for indie filmmakers to connect are growing and webshows like “The Crew” are getting attention and could one day be on Hulu. Maybe during a strike or outside normal TV season to keep interest. Content is key and if you don’t have new stuff no reason to keep coming back.
I personally don’t mind too much that Hulu is a closed system. In fact, I think it’s a strength, and sets it apart from YouTube. It also makes it more attractive to advertisers. My only real issue with it is that it’s becoming a monopoly on television content.
In a similar way, I’m not crazy about YouTube’s move to become more like Hulu, setting up geoblocking and signing deals for professional content. It’s giving it multiple personalities, and just feels wrong.
In the end, neither of this will matter for indy producers. As the world becomes more viral, and the ways of sharing content expand, the cream will find a way to more easily rise to the top.
You look at Susan Boyle’s rise to fame – it was created by a mainstream television producer but it was popularized online – within days it got millions of hits and tons of media coverage. Only two years ago, a man named Paul Potts had the same story on the same television show but didn’t get as much attention as quickly. That’s not because Boyle’s story is better (I liked Potts more), but because the Internet consciousness is more susceptible to viral infection.
So keep slugging it out there (Galacticast is coming back soon, right?), and eventually something will hit (probably not what you’d expect). The Internet is more powerful than any media, even Hulu.
…
Or you could just sleep with Joss Whedon and gain instant fame. That’s my plan.