Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

[hersheytx]

First the story from SkyReport:
According to market research firm comScore, 333 million Americans watched videos on Hulu.com, boosting the site's viewership by 42 percent and placing it fourth on the list of top U.S. online video properties behind Google's YouTube, Fox Interactive Media and Yahoo.

If Vudu had any way to add Hulu I think it would make it the must have item of the year. Right next to a Blu ray player next to your TV.

I am sure there are many hurdles Vudu would have to make with HULU providers to get this to happen. Maybe it can't happen. But those numbers are staggering. Sure hope someone at Vudu is at least trying to work a deal with Hulu.

[RonV]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

Hulu has been discussed here many times. I agree that Hulu and VUDU would be a great partnership. The issue is that Hulu recently changed their terms of service. These new terms put all sorts of restrictions on how the service may be used. This new terms were driven by the owners of the content that Hulu was serving. Because of this Boxee had to remove Hulu from their service offering.

The content owners need to come to terms with the VOD market but also the VOD market must allow the content owners to make money. Hopefully in the future there will be this happy breakpoint where content owners actually have a model that will make both the subscriber and owner happy.

[redwein]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

First the story from SkyReport:
According to market research firm comScore, 333 million Americans watched videos on Hulu.com

That can't be right as there are only approximately 306 million Americans alive.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[hersheytx]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=11349

Just so you know I did not pull it out of a hat

[redwein]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

http://www.mediabiz.com/news/articles/?edit_id=11349

Just so you know I did not pull it out of a hat

It makes you wonder. I'm sure they meant that 333 million videos were watched on Hulu. That's very impressive but not nearly as impressive as saying that many people used it, even if there were enough people to have made it conceivably true.

It's one of my pet peeves and I'm a stickler about wording when it comes to things like that. I see it all the time where sloppy writing (even in reputable newspapers) ends up making claims that are completely false. Most times I believe it is unintentional. However it still irritates me.

[deparson]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

HULU is owned by the content providers so they are really just imposing restrictions on themselves

[Rusdude]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

HULU is owned by the content providers so they are really just imposing restrictions on themselves

Not really. Most of the recent hullabaloo has been about Hulu cracking down on either competing sites that use their feeds (i.e. CBS's TV.com; Hulu is Fox+NBC) or on software that makes it easier to view Hulu on a TV set (Boxee, etc.) Bottom line -- content providers behind Hulu want Hulu to be used on a computer instead of a TV set. Because profits online are so small compared to broadcast, they don't want you to watch Hulu INSTEAD of your local TV station.

[NA9D]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

That can't be right as there are only approximately 306 million Americans alive.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

That was my first exact thought as well.

I know it can't be every American because I can guarantee you that my wife, my two daughters and my parents have NOT watched content on Hulu!

[HeadHodge]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

That can't be right as there are only approximately 306 million Americans alive.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

After Obama has finished the next census, you'll be truly surprised at how many people there really are, who they are, and where they are.

For example, they are going to include the living dead (they're hard to count because they only come out at night)!!!

[redwein]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

After Obama has finished the next census, you'll be truly surprised at how many people there really are, who they are, and where they are.

For example, they are going to include the living dead (they're hard to count because they only come out at night)!!!

To this I can only say, WTH?

[HeadHodge]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

To this I can only say, WTH?

For the first time in history the White House is taking a major role in the next census.

Instead of doing the normally thing, a physical headcount, they will be be using "statistical projections" of the population. It is seen as a way for the Democrats to control redistricting for the purposes of ensuring a democratic majority in the next upcoming elections.

Therefore, they "could" possibly count the living dead (these are the people who vote every year who are actually deceased), if it suits there needs for redistricting.

Sorry, I assumed you knew this. My bad.

Edit: So back to your post referencing the census, they could report population numbers that are not based in reality.

[rstone]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

For the first time in history the White House is taking a major role in the next census.

The White House has repeatedly denied that it intends to "take" the census "out of the Commerce Department." In a February 5 statement, White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt stated only that the White House planned to "return" to the "model" of the "historic precedent for the director of the Census, who works for the commerce secretary and the president, to work closely with White House senior management." During a February 6 briefing, when asked whether the White House had "moved the control of the Census Bureau into the White House for the purposes of the 2010 census," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated: "No ... I think the historical precedent of this is there's a director of the census that works for the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and also works closely with the White House, to ensure a timely and accurate count. And that's what we have in this instance." Moreover, following Republican outcry concerning the White House's stated intention to "work closely with" the Census Bureau director, LaBolt reportedly said on February 11 that "[t]his administration has not proposed removing the census from the Department of Commerce and the same congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority."

Host Chris Matthews asserted that, unlike Gregg, Democrats prefer a "loosey-goosey census approach" because "it counts more Democrats."

However, in 1997, when Republicans attempted to prohibit the Clinton administration from using statistical sampling in the 2000 census to count those who may be missed by the mail and door-to-door counting process, the Center for Science, Technology and Congress at the American Association for the Advancement of Science wrote that "statistical sampling is widely regarded by the science community as an effective and accurate tool. The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly endorsed sampling as a way of conducting a more cost-effective and more accurate census, as have professional societies like the American Statistical Association [ASA]." Indeed, ASA argued in an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court regarding the 1999 case, Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, that "statistically designed sampling" is "a valid, important, and generally accepted scientific method for gaining accurate knowledge about widely dispersed human populations" and that "properly designed sampling is often a better and more accurate method of gaining such knowledge than an inevitably incomplete survey of all members of such a population."

Sorry, I assumed you knew this. My bad.

[redwein]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

Edit: So back to your post referencing the census, they could report population numbers that are not based in reality.

And counting every individual and assuming you missed none is based in exactly what reality?

The Supreme Court (under W. even) ruled that satistical sampling was not an invalid tool to be used to conduct the census under certain circumstances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Evans

[HeadHodge]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

And counting every individual and assuming you missed none is based in exactly what reality?

The Supreme Court (under W. even) ruled that satistical sampling was not an invalid tool to be used to conduct the census under certain circumstances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Evans

Well based on your post, I think we have some sort of agreement.

My point (in my usual obfuscated way) was to say that your reference to the census in your previous post was not necessarily a solid basis of fact.

For example, I have never watched Hulu, but my dog does!!

[HeadHodge]

Re: Hulu - Could it put Vudu over the competition?

Sorry, I assumed you knew this. My bad.

If someone says it isn't so, doesn't make it not so.

However, I did enjoy your comprhensive reply. Thanks!!!