Online streaming service Hulu hit the headlines twice this week when they announced that, firstly, when an as-yet unnamed company made an unsolicited enquiry regarding acquisition, and then, secondly, that they were indeed, open to offers of acquisition. This follows yet more recent news and opinions on the future of Hulu, with constant talk of an IPO, then its subsequent delay.

The streaming giant has caused quite a stir in Hollywood, and opinion has been pretty divided: some say it is the savior of TV, others say it has affected film industry jobs for the worse. Their launch of a premium subscription service, Hulu Plus, last year helped the company edge into solid profitability territory, and obviously peaked the interest of some internet big wigs. NBCUniversal, Fox and Disney-ABC all currently have stakes in Hulu, yet have limited influence on the overall running of the company, and this had led to clashes among board members and CEO Jason Kilar about the way it has affected older revenue streams of cable and TV. This may in turn be the reason for those holding companies looking to exit the venture.

Hulu announced that it would retain investment banks Guggenheim Partners and Morgan Stanley on Wednesday, who will then reach out to any prospective bidders with news that they are formally accepting offers. Expect the rumor-mill to start churning very soon.

The success of Hulu is largely due to their free ad-funded model, which also allows embedded videos of new and archived content, as well as clips and behind-the-scenes specials from providers and studios such as NBC, Fox, ABC and many more. Recently, the free-thinking institution TED has enable Hulu to share and distribute their series of ground-breaking talks. The embedded feature helps clips such as this go viral…

Hulu’s actions may well be blazing a path for the future of visual content for the end user, but the key TV networks and companies sure have kicked up a fuss along the way.


by Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

One of the biggest industry stories going on right now is the merger of NBC and Comcast. With rumors flying around and new management right around the corner, it’s impossible to know what is actually going to happen as it becomes official.

Although not with NBC, it happened to me at a much smaller company. While I was working for Current TV we went through almost two years of rolling restructuring, and three separate occasions where major changes lead to large layoffs. With a short stint of individuals being let go on an almost weekly basis, it became a running joke that we were starring in the industry’s version of Survivor.

Here are some tips on how to survive when a company has some big plans for the future that might not include your job.

First things first, there are no “Guaranteed Jobs”
Layoffs, especially when out of the blue, can be devastating. It is important to remember that it is NOT the responsibility of any company to provide you with a paycheck. I know no one wants to be thought of as a number, but at the end of the day they are paying you to provide a service. If they no longer feel they need that service they do not have to continue to pay, just because you need a job.

(more…)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

In “The Late Shift”, an early 1990’s television film, we see the behind-the-scenes story of how Jay Leno came to be selected as Johnny Carson’s replacement on “The Tonight Show”, over David Letterman.  We also see that both men were heavily recruited by other networks, and that thanks to Leno’s ruthless agent, he was passed the keys to the kingdom, leaving Letterman to head to CBS.  Things have remained pretty static since then, and even though we’ve seen the emergence of talent like Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, Leno and Letterman have remained as the top two talents in late night television.

Now, however, things are again shifting, as Leno makes ready to leave “The Tonight Show” and instead take over the 10p.m. slot just before it.  Word on the streets (a.k.a. various articles and blogs) is that Leno is unhappy with his imminent departure, as he isn’t quite ready yet to give up his seat.  Conan O’Brien, his future replacement, has popped by the show a couple of times, and while not necessarily frosty, lately his and Jay’s relationship has been merely cordial at best.

On the whole, however, everything seems to be fine between Leno and O’Brien, most likely because any rift that’s developed these few months has less to do about them, and more about Leno versus NBC.  Jay is, after all, heading to that 10p.m. show, which gives Conan a great gift in the form of a lead-in to his own time slot.  Besides, Conan was selected to take Jay’s place, so if Jay wants to blame anyone, it should be the executives at NBC, not Conan.  Leno has known for some time that his run on “The Tonight Show” would come to an end regardless of ratings – that he would go out on a high note.  But apparently it’s easier to talk about pulling the plug than it is to actually do it.

Conan actually emerges from all of this the clear winner.  With Leno staying in house, as it were, O’Brien avoids generating the perception that he ran Leno off; Leno fans, in turn, will be more likely to forgive O’Brien for hosting “The Tonight Show”, and may even tune in to watch him.  Also, by staying at NBC, Jay eliminates the possibility of popping up on another network as a time-slot rival (a move that some networks hoped would happen, considering Jay was said to be upset with NBC).

In the end, the new late night shift isn’t affecting “The Tonight Show” so much as it is the late-night shows on other networks.  Comedy Central, ABC, and CBS are toying with various ideas in order to take advantage of the upheaval that will come when Conan replaces Jay (ABC is even considering killing off “Nightline”, and moving Kimmel up earlier).  It will be interesting to see how this current round plays out, and who’s left standing once the bell rings.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Now that the fall television season has officially kicked off, it’s worth visiting this year’s slate of shows to see what lingering affects there are from the recent writer’s strike.  In many ways, this is a season of proving one’s self, as we find numerous shows returning from strong freshman debuts who are desperate to reclaim what momentum they had prior to the strike.

It’s safe to say the 2007-2008 television season was an unusual one.  The strike caused a work-stoppage that rushed season finales and left many shows (particularly those with serial narratives) in the lurch.  It’s also a safe assumption that heavyweights like “Lost” and “24” will come back in early 2009 at comfortable ratings levels despite the interruption to their respective narratives – both shows have tinkered before with their schedules and have not suffered greatly for it, thanks to their strong fan bases.  But other shows are facing riskier futures, as they had barely had time to establish themselves before being unceremoniously yanked from the small screen.

Look at three of these shows returning for their sophomore seasons: “Life”, “Private Practice”, and “Pushing Daisies”.  At first glance, these shows should see success, for a variety of reasons.  “Life” is a procedural police drama on NBC, which always seems a relatively simple formula of success.  “Practice” is a spin-off from ABC’s incredibly successful show “Grey’s Anatomy”.  And “Daisies” is a quirky ABC show that quickly found a receptive audience for its offbeat yet likeable characters.  Aside from the fact that all three are well-positioned on strong networks, these shows share something else in common: they’ve all been off the air since 2007.  That’s a long time away, yet all three are hoping to pick up where they left off.  Unfortunately, that’s easier said than done.  The fear is that audiences have forgotten these shows and their characters, and they’ll have a hard time reconnecting as a result.  And that’s what ABC and NBC are hoping to counter, with strong advertising and a gradual reintroduction to the lineups.

Television executives are looking for a return to normalcy with popular shows as well, which will also have to reassert themselves with audiences.  And new shows are coming down the line (some retooled, like the newer version of “Life on Mars”, or remakes, like the new “Knight Rider”).  Networks are understandably cautious about green-lighting new shows (ABC had only one new scripted show this fall), and are finding new ways to deal with the changing landscape.  Many are unveiling new shows or episodes in the summer (such as TNT’s “The Closer”, or USA’s “In Plain Sight”), betting that audiences who are used to repeats will be more likely to embrace new fare.

In the end, all it’ll take is one hit show to make a network forget the hassles and uncertainty caused by the writer’s strike.  And so long as they can avoid an actor’s strike, all should be close to normal by the time February sweep’s week rolls around.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

The Olympics begin tomorrow in Beijing, and with that comes the inevitable question: should the athletes use this very public forum to deride China on its human rights violations (including jailing dissidents and violently suppressing protests), or should they remain silent?  It is an issue that has dogged these Olympics since it was announced that Beijing would host the games, and the fervor has only intensified as we’ve neared the starting date.  For the athletes, it’s a sensitive question: to some, the Olympics are a place of competition, the one venue where every country involved can unite in the quest for athletic glory; to others, though, it provides them with a chance to voice their opinions to countless millions, one they may never have again.  It’s a question every athlete will wrestle with, one that depends on which way his or her own moral compass swings.  And it’s a question that will play out every day, with every medal ceremony and interview, across television and computer screens around the world. 

The television aspect is nothing new.  While the Olympics have reached a worldwide audience in the past, this year will see a virtual TV saturation (NBC will provide an unprecedented 1,400 hours of coverage across six of its networks, according to the Associated Press – “more that all previous Summer Olympics combined”; it will also present 2,200 hours of live web coverage and 3,000 additional hours of clips available online).  But what truly makes this Olympics different is that the potential to reach people is even greater, and surpasses mere television exposure.  That’s because, since the last Olympics in 2004, we have seen the advent (and subsequent explosions in popularity) of sites like myspace, facebook, and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube.

For the first time ever, we will be given an almost real-time glimpse into the Olympics – everything from videos to blogs to photos, all created and uploaded instantly.  People at these games will shoot videos from the stands, on the streets, in hotels, and at restaurants…they will have their cameras and computers with them at all times (oftentimes both in one), and you can bet that everything they capture will be uploaded immediately to YouTube (or Liveleak, etc.).  Countless more people will be documenting their experiences on myspace or facebook, writing about what they’ve seen and heard.

The television coverage will be limited by its own rigidly structured design – and for all things sports, there’s no better place to turn.  But this means that the true heart of the games will be found online, on those sites that China and NBC can’t control.  There, we will see the real athletes, unbound and unprocessed.  Throughout their time in Beijing, they will be presented with a sea of people capturing their every move.  What’s more, the athletes themselves will have access to all of these sites; they will add messages to their myspace sites, or perhaps will upload their own videos – documenting everything from the opening day festivities, to the sidelines at the events, even their own medal ceremonies.  Simply put, we are looking at an extraordinary amount of access to this year’s games, the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Which brings us back to the original question of just how much (if anything) the athletes should say about the way China conducts its affairs.  Because the reality is, they may be unable to avoid it.  If an athlete uses any of the above-mentioned media, they will be opening themselves to scrutiny.  Even a casual remark can be read as making some kind of statement – whether it’s a comment on the friendliness of the host country, or an expression of surprise at the seeming openness of a Communist regime.  The majority of what we will see on television will be about the sports… what we see in the other media will be about the people.  And if the athletes aren’t careful, they could be taking a stand whether they realize it or not.  Which, at the end of the day, might not be such a bad thing – after all, a heartfelt opinion is the best kind.

All of this, of course, will be a moot point if China decides to block access to YouTube and the like, as they did earlier this year during the Tibet protests.  But hey, if that happens, we still have almost 7,000 hours of NBC coverage to look forward to.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed