What does Hulu offer that YouTube doesn't?
When it comes to offering full-length content on the Web, YouTube isn't ready to yield to Hulu.
On Thursday, the San Bruno, Calif.-based video site of Google announced that it had reached agreement with notable entertainment companies, including Sony Pictures, Lions Gate Entertainment, and CBS (publisher of CNET News) to offer visitors full-length TV shows and feature films.
What this means is that YouTube wants to become a one-stop shop for everything video.
The strategy seems obvious. YouTube already has more than 100 million people visiting every month to watch a mixture of short clips created by amateurs and longer clips by semiprofessionals.
There's nothing to keep the site from offering a full range of video entertainment. Want to see videos of dogs riding skateboards or a rerun of "Charlie's Angels?" Want to see Brooke Shields in the island adventure movie "Blue Lagoon?" YouTube has it all for you. While some critics are slamming YouTube for acquiring content that is mostly several years old, it should be pointed out that syndication has kept many shows popular over the decades; people like watching reruns.
The YouTube rival that should be most worried is Hulu. YouTube's full-length content is still mediocre compared to Hulu's, though Hulu's movie selection is at best thin. What matters most, however, is that YouTube now has a foothold in Hollywood, giving it a chance to significantly grow its library of full-length shows and films.
A YouTube executive said on a conference call Thursday that these content deals are only a "first step." God help Hulu, if YouTube is able to impress the studios with the amount of ads it sells and the revenue it generates.
Until now, Hulu has run away with full-length content on the Internet. The site, owned by NBC Universal and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., has offered far more first-run TV shows, such as "30 Rock," "House," "24," "The Simpsons," and even shows from Sony Pictures, such as "Rescue Me."
Hulu's video is clean and clear. For my money, the site is more like watching television than anything else on the Web. But YouTube has begun to cut away at some of Hulu's advantages.
Besides obtaining some full-length content, a YouTube representative said the Web's largest video site will soon "have one of the biggest high-definition libraries on the planet." And not to be overlooked is the fact that YouTube already possesses what advertisers prize most: a massive audience.
The question YouTube must answer is whether the company is giving away too much as it woos Hollywood. In the deal with Sony Pictures, the studio retains a lot of control over its content while receiving access to YouTube's more than 100 million viewers.
The Sony studio will serve all the ads, use its own video player, and get credit for all the traffic, according to industry sources familiar with the deal.
In a deal with Universal Music Group, the largest of the four top music labels, YouTube agreed to help create and operate Vevo, a standalone site that would feature the record company's professionally made music videos but be owned by Universal. This is the first time YouTube has agreed to create a satellite site.
None of the companies involved are disclosing how the ad revenue from these offerings will be divvied up, but it's obvious that YouTube is bending over backward to satisfy important media companies.
Internet video services have yet to generate the kind of revenue to make big studios and TV networks forget about their cable, premium, or broadcast partners, which pay them big bucks for content. Still, more and more TV viewers are waving good-bye to their cable companies and turning to the Web for online entertainment.
One can only guess that YouTube's play now is to prove that it can help make studios money, get Hollywood hooked on Web revenue, and then negotiate better terms down the road.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
YouTube can only WISH they could be as worthy and successful in that space as Hulu is. And maybe someday they will, but it'll be counted in years, not weeks or months.
YouTube has 100 million users. Hulu doesn't even quite have 35 million.
Ya. I'm pretty sure YouTube is a lot more happy with their position then Hulu is.
By the way, YouTube's video quality comes nowhere close to Hulu's. Watching 24 in the 480p mode on Hulu looks amazing for streaming video.
As far as YouTube quality - I'm perfectly happy with the quality when people upload high quality videos.
Don't even try to tell me this doesn't look awesome - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY
Whoever gets world broadcasting rights will be the winner of this one.
YouTube may have two shows today, but what about tomorrow? Who do you think ABC and CBS want to put their shows on? Fox's and NBC's site, or a independent that I would bet would give them a much larger cut of profits?
Plus while I have not had issues with Hulu you pretty much know YouTube isn't going to fall on it's face. In general or for short amounts of time by crashing due to large amounts of traffic. YouTube isn't going anywhere. Period. Hulu on the other hand is a experiment I that I suspect is still losing money.
You must be joking about fullscreen on the You Tube player. It is paltry. It doesn't go completely fullscreen. It keeps that ugly bright progress bar at the bottom of the screen at all times. It maybe alright for 5 minute video but it's horrible for long form video.
Plus the video is not in fullscreen, It has black bars on both sides due to the fact that the progress bar always stays visible. The previous commentor was right, the You Tube player is paltry and is not as nice as Hulu.
I do like the HD video stream on You Tube, Hulu has removed it's HD content but I don't know why it was nice. The You Tube player itself compared to today's standards it is out of date. The quality of the stream is good for You Tube, so there is good and bad.
I am confident Google will redesign the player, it will not go over well with enthusiast.
As it stands, the premium content is going to be more restricted than the user-generated content: Geo-restrictions; the premium videos won't be available outside of the U.S. So, wouldn't be surprised if the content owners put the same restrictions on YouTube that they do on Hulu - meaning putting their shows on you TV may not be allowed.
We're just waiting to see!
If they were to lift the restrictions, and let people from third-world countries view the content as well, they'd probably make twice as much money off of the site!
I can play either service natively on my laptop. If I want to display it through my TV, I only need to hook the DVI-out from my Mac to my TV. I've no need to spend $40 for gimpy software that's *still* going to require slaving my computer.
Here's the article: http://gear.ign.com/articles/974/974099p1.html
YouTube's organizational structure is horrible compared to Hulu. Hulu's is the best on the web and I don't think that YouTube would be able to make it as simple to find shows.
makes me wonder why I did not start the youtube app on the iphone for more than a year...
All I care about is the content, you have content that interests me, I will watch it...
Since all the good content from youtube was banned due to copyright violations I started watching hulu and never looked back. Youtube for me right now is in the same category as break.com.
Hulu is great and offerring what i want to watch, but i cannot use it, because it's illegally preventing from watching if i am out of the US. Where else can i go to see those great tv series?
Hulu gves me what I really want out of a video - actual TV shows and movies.
"...First of all, katotmottgogo, we're complaining because these companies are getting special privileges instead of doing this like the rest of us. If crackle wants to be on youtube they should start a channel just like everyone else, but instead they get to be instant youtube partners.
Second of all, the content they provide is being better handled at hulu. For instance, bewitched is on youtube "colorized" while hulu has the original black and white versions. Who wants to watch the adulterated versions of these things? The movie selection is basically the same as Hulu's selection, why would i want to watch these on Youtube when Hulu is a much better experience?
Third of all, youtube is going back on what it said in this very blog. The "Spotlighted" feature was supposed to take the place of the old "featured" videos section, but now spotlight is getting populated with paid partner content. I've discovered tons of great small shorts and series because of the old featured videos section, but now all of that is gone in favor of "charlie's angels" reruns.
As for whether youtube is losing money or not, you imply that youtube is going to start charging for hosting videos. So what? If it keeps this Hollywood bilge off the site that would be great.
Now, I'll be back to this blog post the minute I find one of these rerun hollywood tv shows in my email box or in the recommendations.
The fundamentals of youtube have changed forever. You say, "if your content is good then don't worry about it"... Well, lots of good content goes by unseen, and now youtube is actively hiding it..."
Youtube is an also ran. They have a reputation for carrying terrible content, and that reputation will do nothing to help them. Hulu has a great reputation thus far and they are profitable already. Nuff said.
I'd guess both companies would throw everything worldwide if they had their druthers, but the production companies want to control distribution more tightly.
That being said I think this is a great announcement. Anything to free me from comcast is great. I am so sick and tired of having to rent a set top box from them just to get basic cable, it's BS is you ask me. I don't mind watching the commercials on Hulu, it pays for the show. I won't mind watching them on YouTube either. And if they want to make me wait a few days or a week to see the new shows that's fine by me too. The only thing I would ask is that they make a player that works for everyone, yeah I use linux. I'd love to see blockbuster and netflix get into the act too, and again with a linux friendly player.
Restricting content to certain countries is just plain shortsighted. All they would have to do is stream different commercials to different countries, that can be done the same way they are blocking it now. The entertainment companies would see their viewer numbers and ad revenue explode. A single commercial break and they could sell advertisement time in the US Canada the UK Ireland the list goes on. And I'd like to see some shows from the BBC and other countries. Who wouldn't like to see the original British versions of Hell's Kitchen and the Office?
Who needs a tivo or a comcast box that can record when all you have to do is click a link that lets you watch what you want when you want?
- by zimmecl April 20, 2009 1:51 PM PDT
- Leaving YouTube out of it, I'm just thinking "What does Hulu offer?" Enticed by their ads, I went looking this weekend, and most of what I saw was a bunch of reality junk from cable networks -- no real solid content that I could easily get to. When I tried to watch an old episode of Battlestar Galactica, it bumped me to SciFi and I never could get the show to come up. How do you winnow out the junk and get to the good stuff? Where's 30 Rock? Where's the NBC series content? I don't want to search and sift through results - I can click through the program guide on cable and get better results, with lots of "free" OnDemand movies.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)