There’s a buzz about Hulu. Us consumers are going to get our TV just . . . the . . . way . . . we . . . want . . . it. The dream has been fulfilled.

Hulu is doing what hasn’t been done before: providing consumers with network TV, the full monty, in a way that is free to consumers but pays the providers. And in a way that content can be distributed through partners (e.g., MySpace) and shared by individuals via clips. Perfect on paper.

The reason why it won’t go far is simple: it’s too top heavy.

Network execs believe they need a way to replace ad revenue that’s starting to move to the Web. So they’re drawn to what Hulu has done because it has the necessary components: big audience, big advertisers. Look at this list:

Current advertisers include Best Buy, Chili’s, DirecTV (NYSE: DTV), Intel, Nissan, State Farm, and Unilever. Link.

And indeed they have to be big so that the networks, Hulu, and distribution partners like Yahoo can all get paid.

Early reports were that Hulu was going to get 30 percent of the ad revenue and the networks 70 percent. And now it looks like distribution partners will get 30 percent of Hulu’s percentage.

The point is, whatever the exact numbers, a lot of money has been spent on Hulu (no iteration necessary) and a lot of money needs to be made.

But what’s it all hinge on: audience. Hulu’s potential audience will today, tomorrow, and forever consider each and every option for their attention. And there are going to be a lot of good options . . .

I do think there will be a TV model on the Web that will be truly successful, but it’s more like Glam than Hulu, more like quarterlife than Desperate Housewives.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---