

Hulu Has More Viewers Than Time Warner Cable - fromedome
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-hulu-has-more-watchers-than-time-warner-cable-2009-8

======
lurkinggrue
I wonder how many of those hulu users were on Time Warner's internet service?

~~~
gila
Not only that, how many of them subscribe to time warner cable television..
most people watching hulu who have had cable/satellite have not given up their
digital boxes for the internet.

------
QE2
To say that Hulu has more viewers than TWC is misleading. The graph is
comparing apples to oranges. The "reach" for the cable companies is the number
of subscribed households multiplied by the average number of people per house.
Hulu's reach is the number of unique visitors.

Even assuming that (subscribers * average people per house) is a good
estimate, unique visitors is certainly not.

If a household has five residents (two parents and three children, for
example), and each of them are watching Hulu at home, the parents are watching
at work during their lunch hour, and the children are watching it at school,
then they will collectively count as 6 reaches for Hulu, but only 2.59 reaches
for TWC.

~~~
jwesley
To add to this, this statistic is also misleading because it doesn't mention
HOW LONG viewers watch for. My guess is the average Hulu visitor watches
1/10-1/50 (or less) the amount of programming that a Time Warner subscriber
does. Think about how much video the average person watches on their computer
vs. on their television.

------
paul9290
Hulu is awesome and even more so lately, as they have added Disney content
(ABC, History Channel).

This Five Years on Mars re: the rovers is great programming
[http://www.hulu.com/watch/91800/naked-science-five-years-
on-...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/91800/naked-science-five-years-on-mars). I
have not had cable in years since BitTorrent and now things like Hulu!

------
mustpax
Can someone who knows the ins and outs of the advertising business tell me why
advertising seconds are worth more on TV than online for the same content?

It sounds like advertisers are paying Hulu a lot less per viewer reached
compared to cable providers. This is counter-intiutive since the PC audience
is paying more attention to the ads in comparison.

~~~
patio11
_Can someone who knows the ins and outs of the advertising business tell me
why advertising seconds are worth more on TV than online for the same
content?_

Well, for one thing, you're reaching mostly middle class American families
which _spend money on things_ rather than college students who are watching
Hulu because it free, which is the maximum price they will pay for anything
which is not an iPod.

~~~
stse
This is of course not true. Most college students will have a relatively high
paying job in a couple of years, so there is plenty of services that want to
get their attention while it's still cheap to do so. Internet advertising is
also much more direct, you can show different content for different groups of
people. Much like Spotify does.

------
Poiesis
I do not have cable, satellite, or any other tv subscription. I get maybe two
broadcast channels. I bring this up not to be "that guy" but to say that I
_do_ watch hulu. Especially because my viewing is such that it's after
everyone is asleep, so it's just quieter to be at the pc with headphones
anyway.

What I don't get is why they haven't figured out that less is more
advertising. If I'm watching tv somewhere and a commercial comes on, I wander
off. On hulu, it's only 30 seconds so I might as well sit there. Itwould be
nice if it wasn't the same commercial repeated over and over, though.

------
qw
Hulu seems great. Too bad it's not available in my country...

~~~
jrockway
It is not as nice as Usenet or Bittorrent, both of which _are_ available in
your country.

------
electromagnetic
While this is impressive, they could have a huge audience, they just don't
seem to care about capturing it. Their efforts to expand to other countries is
visibly nil; the majority of networks from the US already broadcast in Canada,
yet we're not allowed to get their programs through legal channels on the
internet (you might get lucky with a few shows like Grey's Anatomy being
available through Canadian channels websites).

~~~
jakarta
They care about expanding their audience. Justin Kilar talked about this in
his interview with Charlie Rose. The problem arises from the legal
complexities of differing cross-border ownership rights. Hulu has to get
permission from the content owner and in many cases the content owner in
America will be different than the owner in France (or whatever other
country). In addition, they then have to work through the regulatory
frameworks there. So it's not a matter of not caring, it's a matter of
overcoming the legal hurdles.

From what I recall, Kilar's intention is to first try to expand into China. An
admirable goal.

~~~
andreyf
_The problem arises from the legal complexities of differing cross-border
ownership rights_

That doesn't sound right - Hulu's owners employ the best lawyers and lobbyists
on the planet. These institutions don't get stopped by "oh, the copyright laws
abroad are so haaard" - they're the ones who _created_ WIPO. And anyway, what
_is_ the difference between selling rights for a TV show or a Hulu show? It
certainly seems a lot less complex than the taxes McDonalds pays on exporting
"know-how" when it opens franchises in France.

~~~
wmf
I suspect foreign rights have already been sold under some long-term contracts
and the studios are waiting for them to expire rather than renegotiate them in
the middle.

