Kyle Brady: Blog » Video

Hulu Needs Microsoft [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:51 +0000

My idea is not as evil as it sounds. Granted, Microsoft is campaigning to change their image, and their driven nature scares me, but that's a different story for another day.

I've mentioned Hulu here before, in a plea for them to help networks understand the importance of their service, and their response (although in hindsight, Dollhouse sucks and deserved to be canceled). And we've all heard about how Netflix's streaming video service boomed after being available on the XBOX360 network.

Personally, I prefer to watch Netflix streaming movies on my TV/couch setup than on my computer/chair setup, and I'm sure many other people feel the same. In fact, I even feel like I get better quality through my XBOX than my actual computer! (Note: "differing quality based on device" is a legitimate claim.)

But my point is this: Hulu has seen great growth, but they're going to reach a point where the geek-circles are saturated with the use of the service, and they're going to need to expand. Both to continue growth of the userbase, as well as find more (and better) advertiser dollars.

And the XBOX network is a perfect way to do that.

If there was a Hulu application on my XBOX, I would use it even more than I watch Hulu on my computer now. Even if it had limiting features (like Netflix), such as only watching content, not browsing, I would still love it. And I'm willing to bet that's something they'd see across the board.

Additionally, they'd have access to a userbase that's not necessarily the same as they currently have, since the "gaming nerds" are typically separated from "computer geeks" in terms of digital interests, as well as those "weekend gamers" in their 30's and 40's.

It all comes down to where people would prefer to view their content, and the answer is almost always going to be "on TV, sitting on a couch" over a computer... having a method for Hulu to do this is crucial.

So, Hulu, please start talks with Microsoft to make a deal.

They'd get more "street cred", and we'd get a bucket full of awesome.

Thanks.

--- --- ---

Update (4/11/2009 7:15pm PST): As "the3rdsam" points out below, Netflix obviously had connections to get the cross-platform distribution deal with Microsoft (which I didn't previously know). But as I say in the reply, they were a good test case... we'll probably see this happen again with other people, or similar concepts, even if they're less connected. The vehicle was tested and found successful, now it's time for the mainlining.

Update (4/12/2009 2:30pm PST): I got a response from Varun at Hulu about this post/idea-

We're focused on the free streaming experience on the computer today, but our overall mission at Hulu is to help people find and enjoy great content when, where and how they want. That means we’re continually listening to user feedback and evaluating new technologies to develop new experiences for users to enjoy Hulu.

To me, that sounds like dancing around the subject. Maybe something's already in the works?

Hulu Letter Update [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:04:08 +0000

I got back a response from "Rebecca" at Hulu, in regards to my email to them:

Hi Kyle,
Thanks for your email. It's good to know our users are still pulling for shows
like TSCC and Dollhouse. Hulu provides viewership reports to all of its content
partners. Our partners can view this information on demand whenever they like --
so, in other words, viewership on Hulu should be taken into account when networks
determine the next steps for their series.

We're fans of TSCC and Dollhouse ourselves, so we'll continue to do our best to
support the shows by promoting them on our home page and TV page.

Thanks,
Rebecca

An Email to Hulu [Self]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:00:36 +0000

I just sent off an email to many different contact email addresses to Hulu because there are already whispers that Dollhouse's premiere "tanked" and the return of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles "fell"... with complete and utter disregard for the fact that a large portion of the very immense, and devoted, audience watches the content through methods that are not on a "live TV" distribution schedule.

I believe it is Hulu's duty, as the first legitimate and popular, online TV distribution system to convince the networks that the online viewers are no different than those who watch it when the network believes people should.

Otherwise, shows will continue to be canceled despite large audiences and cult followings, and regardless of the high quality of the show itself.

The email:

I wanted to point out something obvious, in case you guys haven't thought of it.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" is one of the best TV shows in existence right now, let alone the fact that it's SciFi. But TV networks are full of retards who jump off a bridge at the first sign of a non-mainstream audience.

And for shows like "Dollhouse", and "Terminator", a majority of the viewers are nerds. Which also means you're probably seeing very high views through your service on each new episode within, say, a week of it's premiere on TV.

What I'm getting at is this: FOX has moved "Terminator" to Friday nights, and "Dollhouse" started on Friday nights... they're not even giving the ratings a chance. But in addition, I don't believe they include the viewership from legitimate services like their online distribution, or Hulu itself. And people are already whispering about how "Dollhouse" "tanked" in the ratings, and "Terminator" "fell". I bet your stats would disagree.

This needs to be something that you impress upon your content suppliers. Not only should you provide them statistics, weekly, on what is watched, and by how many people, but you should also be constantly repeating that these viewers count no less than the "live TV" version does. If a network cancels a show because they don't get enough live viewers, when a large part of their audience actually watches it online, that's complete crap.

Networks need to realize that the future of video media is not schedule-based TV, but rather "on demand" content, with the Internet as a viable and legitimate source. And by continuing to kill and maim, intentionally, some of the best shows, they are reinforcing the Old World media mindset that nothing but the-night-of views count.

Which, again, is crap.

Writers’ Strike? Really? [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:43:32 +0000

Again, this is a topic I've avoided recently, not to better understand it, but because I thought it was stupid and would never happen. Oh how I was wrong.

Unless you live in a deep dark hole full of demons, you know there's a Writers' Guild strike going on. And that it's deeply affecting shows that some people probably are more addicted to than a backwater hic to meth.

Why?

From what I understand, and I'm not claiming to either, there are two issues:

Money

Distribution

Each is actually dependent on the other, so let's take a look...

Money

I read somewhere (not cited) that the average TV writer makes $200k/yr. Oh wow, that's completely surprising! I thought everyone in Hollywood / LA was poor, and just pretended to be rich and successful, when in reality they are more poor than the average American and totally without any fame. I guess I was mistaken.

Seriously? $200k/yr for writing a season's worth of TV shows, that ranges from 12-24 episodes, with maybe another show or two? And you're COMPLAINING? [Edit/Note: my reference of "$200k/yr" was based upon something I read, and meant to link to. I've since lost that link, but I mention it because the number is being questioned by a few people.]

If you're a writer (also called "authors" in the real world of books), you don't expect to make alot of money, or be immensely successful. Yes, there is one author out of many who becomes wildly successful (and occasionally very rich) like J.K. Rowlings or Michael Crighton, but you don't get into "the business" because you want to be rich. The fact that these writers make an absurd amount of money for what equates to a small portion of a book, and is often times just juvenile humor or slightly complex drama, is amazing.

But even more amazing that they feel underpaid.

Distribution

The guys who write NBC's "The Office" have a video floating around the Internet (Google it) of them complaining about not receiving money for distribution of their media. They mention "webisodes" and "online viewing of episodes", and not being properly compensated for them.

This is hilarious to me.

Let me get this straight: you're complaining that not only are you not getting enough money for doing very little amounts of work, but you're also complaining that you aren't getting paid for your content being shown in what is a largely ad-free environment?

If you view an episode of "The Office" online (legally), you are shown maybe three 30-second advertisements during the showing, and it's usually for the same company/product/service. If you view one of their "webisodes" for the show, you get even less advertisement. So, you want to be paid for everytime someone views your work, especially online? How does that even make any sense?

You People Are Stupid

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you (writers) don't get paid per viewer of your TV show through the normal delivery method (aka TV), do you? I'm pretty sure you don't because the number of viewers for any given show is one of the most highly argued issues in modern media. So that means you get a lump sum for a certain productivity level.

I will then assume that that amount of money scales based upon both your work output and the overall popularity of the show (from season to season). By the same logic, one would assume that if you write a "series of 10 webisodes" (as the same video references), you get paid more than you would for just a normal season.

Right? That's what I thought. You guys just can't accept that, God forbid, your show is viewed any other way than on TV or DVD. May Zeus strike me down if I were to miss an episode, and want to watch it on the network's website, so I can continue watching your show that I may or may not love so dearly.

Guilds? Is This 1943?

Not only does this whole strike situation piss me off, but it also brings to light one of the worst permutations of a great idea in the history of mankind: a guild/union. A long long time ago, in an America perhaps 60 years ago, they were a great idea. They helped to standardize wages, work conditions, and other critical elements of any job.

But today, they are nothing but a sorry excuse for a group of money-grubbing attention whores. The only time I can remember a strike actually having purpose and legitimacy, during my time of sentience, is the UPS strike (Google it). This writers' strike is not an example of good intentions or purpose, just like when labor unions band together to increase how much the standard plumber charges you to show off his ass.

New Media

The world of "new media" is here, so get over it. Blogs, videoblogs, webcams, webisodes, TV on the Internet, and others are not going anywhere, no matter how much you want them to "go gently into this good night". The "old media" companies are having a hard enough time adjusting as it is (online episodes, Internet-distribution of media, etc.), without you causing them any more problems.

If you like making everyone's future absolute Hell, keep it up. Maybe we can make a revision to the DMCA where no-one is allowed to distribute anything on the Internet, ever, without paying someone royalties.

Yeah, because that has worked out so freaking well to the music industry, hasn't it?

[I'm not the only one who thinks this way... see what Micheal Eisner and Jon Stewart think]