"Why license all that content to something that works that well, that seamlessly, yet without the economic model around it?"
The subject is Hulu. The opinion is from outgoing CBS
Interactive chief Quincy Smith.
You can blame Smith for some stuff. (Some may finger him for pushing CBS to spend big on CNET, for example). But he brings up an interesting point about
Hulu.com, a favorite choice of critics when it comes to online video.
In a story in All Things Digital.com, Smith runs through these
numbers: Web video is a $700 million market. But TV, he says comes in at a $120 billion. And that's not the real problem. He says "half of those [TV ad buyers] are spending 90% of their
time doing Google keywords, not buying online video." Because, as we all know, search works really well -- and yes, it's cheap.
advertisement
advertisement
CBS' online video philosophy has been pretty clear: Keep
viewers coming back to traditional TV, that's where the advertising dollars still are -- for the near term, for the mid-term.
For the long term, CBS is unsure about where the chips may
fall. But one thing is for sure. They are doing an early "all-in" in this Texas hold 'em poker-like game. CBS' philosophy seems to be, what's the rush?
That's not such a bad idea -
especially when few can concretely determine exactly what business model will work for digital video in, say, 20 years.
On the other hand, CBS didn't exactly get the whole cable network
thing right when the business was in the early formative years, and when things were relatively cheap. Could it be making the same miscalculation in another new growing medium?
Hulu's
build-it-and-they-will-come-approach has had its critics as well. Get them in the tent now; we'll worry about how to make money later. Well, "later" is fast becoming "now." Will advertising pay? Will viewers pay?
Now put your feet up on
the sofa and wait... and wait. Needham & Co. media analyst Laura Martin, speaking at the recent OMMA Video event, said it could take companies like Hulu 10 years to get it right.