Dish exec says Hulu is killing TV industry

According to Dish Network's VP of Online Content Development and Strategy Bruce Eisen, Hulu and sites like it, are hurting the TV industry. He feels that you should pay for your TV service rather than get the content online for free.

Eisen spoke as part of a panel about cord cutting at the Streaming Media West conference and said:

If I can watch Glee tomorrow morning and I don’t have to pay a pay TV service –- I think that’s bad. The model of sites like Hulu that make catchup content available immediately isn’t benefiting the industry. Broadcasters should instead reserve catchup episodes for authenticated TV Everywhere services, and only make them available freely after 30 days. If people decide that they don’t have to pay for pay TV, then one of the pillars (of the TV industry) starts crumbling.

Also on the panel was Greg Kampanis, SVP of Content Strategy and Operations for South Park Digital Studios who countered Eisen's comments saying that South Park's online venture is a pretty successful online advertising business and when they started the venture they felt the the industry was too slow to roll out online content so they needed to do something on their own to allow users to view their content in whatever manner is most convenient to them.

Moderating the panel, according to GigaOm, was Jonathan Hurd from Altman Vilandrie & Company, who shared research data on the subject of cutting the cord. He said that based on research his company did back in June found that 3.9% of 25 to 34 year olds have already cut the cord and use the Internet to watch all of their content. They also found that more than 20% of the same age group are considering cutting the cord in the near future.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

LG giving popular apps to WP7 buyers for free

Next Story

Microsoft holds massive Kinect party in NYC

73 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is crazy. Hulu killing the industry? Due to factors beyond my control (i.e. layoff). I couldn't pay my Direct tv bill for 2 months. I now have no tv(cable is not available and broadcast stinks where I live). However via the net and many more sites than just Hulu I can follow all the TV shows I used to watch and more. No more $80.00 a month for Direct TV although I may catch up with the bill and pay for basic only cause all the local stations I find are not from my area (Scranton PA). For movies there are plenty of sites too. I'll start netflix and get a roko box once I'm on my feet again but for now ITV serves me well. Dish and standard cable suppliers are going to loose in the long run unless they adapt.

Well...ok?

What's the difference between watching Hulu or TIVO? I mean..both of them are recording the show for later viewing. Only difference is one is on the web and one isnt.

texasghost said,
What's the difference between watching Hulu or TIVO?

Isn't that a bit like saying 'What's the difference between gas and electric, they both let you drive your car from point A to point B?'? But I'm sure the oil industry and the green earth people will tell you they are different

Ha. I would say they're killing themselves... Charging a subscription and feeding people ads for a third of the time. But no, it couldn't be that. Blame it on Hulu, that's fine with me, Fox can also go to hell.

So an online site for showing TV shows that are broadcast on channels I can grab with my antenna for free are killing the industry?

People pay for service if the service is good.

If people are willing to use HULU instead of a pay TV service as opposed to using it to complement their normal TV viewing, either they thought the service sucked, thought it was overpriced relative to their viewing habits (don't watch enough to justify the price), or have a low enough income that not paying the monthly fee for pay TV service makes a significant difference.

On Comcast many shows are available the day after they air on the On Demand part of their service, mostly without a PPV charge, I find that preferable to HULU most of the time and Comcast makes many of the On Demand shows available online now, which may or may not be preferable to HULU, but at least they are thinking about the 'service' aspect of 'pay TV service' and keeping themselves relevant instead of just complaining 'If people can drive automobiles, who's going to buy buggy whips? We need such and such a thing to happen so we don't have to adapt to the modern world.'

Later, Seeker

I use Hulu, Netflix and EyeTV. EyeTV picks up OTA TV or Cable and turns your computer into a DVR. I bought an external 1TB drive for video for the price of one month of cable. The EyeTV gadget costs an amount equal to another month or two of cable tv. Netflix is $9/month. Hulu is free. I pay $49 for Roadrunner. Nice thing about netflix is you can go back and pick up old series. I started Fringe from season 1 ep 1 a couple of weeks ago. I get a disk, import it that day, and mail it back. I have an HDMI cable from my Mac to my 52" Sony TV, surround sound and all.

The Government killed my TV with digital. I can't get cable. Dish won't work at my location.
Truthfully I think Hulu has a way to go but I can watch it. Netflix is much better with the Roku box but it is different content and is not free. They may think Hulu is killing TV but it's the only thing keeping it alive in my house!

If you're paying your TV license (and maybe a Sky subscription or whatever), you're paying for services like this anyway.

Just dropped Comcast yesterday... my bill was now $180 a month !!! Triple play + HD-DVR. When I call to cancel, I was offered a $130 deal... I still cancelled but you can be sure they still make profit at $130 so it means they make well over 30% benefit.

I am fine paying for content - netflix, hulu+, amazon vod, whatever... but I am done being a sheep.

we are all claiming to want better content
but we are all forgetting who makes the content
it's the individual stations that license the show from the production studio (or commission it) that make the content not the cable provider

sure the provider has some leverage in the shows but only if they own the station (or give the producer a "reason" to listen)

change is a fact of life, those who deny it get left behind much like whats happening to dish right now

LOL kinda stupid...Who is providing DISH with a lot of their online content at DISHonline? Hulu.

what a idiot to say this when they rely on Hulu for alot of their content haha

Actually, we "pay" for watching TV in the form of advertising, or for some subscription to Hulu service.
I can see evolution of digital media cutting in to his business model. It's not killing it, it's changing it.

What's killing tv is the price. Sure, you have alternatives to cable with satellite and AT&T Uverse, but all the prices are virtually identical. And after 6 month or 12 month "introductory" rates they jump. I don't want to pay $80 a month to get 10 stations I want. I'll pay for basic (which is still more expensive than it needs to be) and download what I want for free.

Offer me an a la carte package for a reasonable price and you'll win me over. Until then you're getting as little of my money as possible.

There's more than one side to this story. To quote the DISH exec, there are multiple pillars to the TV industry. One of them is distribution, which is what most of the comments seem to be focusing on. I agree that if there's a better distribution model (e.g. Internet versus satellite) then we should use it. That said, most TV shows cost quite a bit to produce, and it's the whole industry that ensures companies get the type of profit needed to produce them. If we essentially "de-centralize" the TV industry, it might lower consumer costs and improve things like distribution, but it might hurt content creation. Basically I'm saying we need to be aware of unintended consequences and be careful what we ask for. Not that a major change in distribution would cause these problems (I wouldn't know) but perhaps it could? Just something to think about.

SkolVikings said,
That said, most TV shows cost quite a bit to produce, and it's the whole industry that ensures companies get the type of profit needed to produce them.

But is it really necessary to pay actors $1.5 mil an episodes? That's what Seinfeld was making in the last season of two of his show, and that was years ago. What is the salary of actors on some current top shows? The industry could cut some spending if they really wanted too, yet they elect not to.

I ave dropped my cable provider because the packages are outerageous and I ave torrents and now veetle and icefilms, this replaces hulu as that is US only, dont miss it. Long live the internet.

$101.00 per month for cable. Dropped it down to 25.99 per month for just basic cable. The basic comes with 25 channels.
Channels 2,3,6,11,24,28 and 29 are the only channels of that 25 that are worth watching. The rest are CNN1,CNN2 (on 2 separate channels). Weather channel and those local advertising channels that have static pictures on them and only sound.
So out of the 25 that I pay for only 7 of them are relevant.
And the cable company has the balls to complain about anything?
Thank God for Hulu and Netflix. The only this I miss is the DVR.

I haven't watched a television in almost a year since I moved into my new apartment. I subscribe to phone and Internet service through my local provider but I won't sign up for their overpriced and valueless TV service.

As it's been mentioned already Hulu is killing the industry; greed is. I hope these ******* get the shellacking they deserve.

I currently subscribe to Dish Network and the only time I've been remotely tempted to use Hulu over Dish was when they decided to drop my local ABC station a couple years back. They told us they refused to pay the outrageously high rates ABC was asking and as a service to the customers instead of jacking our rates they dropped the network. So a few months down the road we have ABC back and my monthly bill goes up. The same thing is currently happening for the National Geographic Channel. (but not the new NatGeo Wild Channel...)

Hulu is not killing pay TV, Dish is.

"Hulu is killing TV industry" -Dish exec.

No! Poor quality TV show production, too many ads, mid season breaks, show cancellations and expensive subscriptions are killing the TV industry. Lets get our facts right Mr TV Exec.

Sooooo, Hulu is killing the industry by having a good idea before Dish....I say Dish network needs to get over themselves and stop thinking that everybody should make things convenient for the big players. It's a free market, get over it.

I disagree with Dish Network. Considering there are commercials in the hulu content, the TV industry is most likely getting some sort of revenue from it. As for Dish Network, they are losing customers because the content can be obtained via other means.

actually darts is probably one of the better things on sportsnet. the crowds are pretty funny.

bah, was supposed to be a reply.

I'm sure it has nothing do with the fact that you're charging me $60 a month for 100s of channels full of poker, darts, infomercials and sitcoms that sucked when they were new in the 80s. And then instead of actually putting good programming on these channels full of **** you instead want me to pay an extra $5+ / month for each half decent channel.

Now answer me this Mr. mentally handicapped TV Exec why the hell would I pay that when I can pay less money for an internet connection and watch everything you offer online?

Being a media junky for a very long time I have switched over to Internet only years ago. As it has been stated I don't find it fair that I have to pay for a ton of crap channels to get the 5 I would watch. Plus, as most of you know, TV is crap these days. Us geeky types prefer the Science Channel over the regular networks and reality TV garbage. It's sad that I watch more shows from the 40's through the 90's than anything made in the last ten years. TV is dying because it SUCKS! No because people watch online. If people watch it through HULU or Netflix at least there's some revenue.

You know where they make their money. Charging a **** load of money just to lease out their set top box that only works with their service. They want to control the method the media is streamed and the hardware that renders it. With the introduction of ITX technology many people are already creating computer set top boxes that can stream internet media on their TV. It's cheaper and it's standardized not to mention with that you can rip the media easily which is what the industry is trying to prevent with their set top boxes.

dvelez1985 said,
You know where they make their money. Charging a **** load of money just to lease out their set top box that only works with their service. They want to control the method the media is streamed and the hardware that renders it. With the introduction of ITX technology many people are already creating computer set top boxes that can stream internet media on their TV. It's cheaper and it's standardized not to mention with that you can rip the media easily which is what the industry is trying to prevent with their set top boxes.

I haven't paid a lease fee for Dish or Direct in many years.

I can't stand watch Hulu. The quality is horrible. If I can't have HD and 5.1 surround sound I don't bother. For movies I want 1080p DTS-MA HD/TrueHD. I feel like with these streaming services we are actually moving backwards in quality.
I do have an HTPC and tons of bluray rips. I also have youtube, netflix, hulu and boxee all in media center. But I never watch the streaming services.
I still also have TV service through Dish as they are the only ones to offer HD only packages and it costs me a whopping $36/month.

archer75 said,
I can't stand watch Hulu. The quality is horrible. If I can't have HD and 5.1 surround sound I don't bother. For movies I want 1080p DTS-MA HD/TrueHD. I feel like with these streaming services we are actually moving backwards in quality.
I do have an HTPC and tons of bluray rips. I also have youtube, netflix, hulu and boxee all in media center. But I never watch the streaming services.
I still also have TV service through Dish as they are the only ones to offer HD only packages and it costs me a whopping $36/month.

Not any longer. Dish dropped their HD only packages. If anything they are stepping back in time.

spartyjohnson said,

Not any longer. Dish dropped their HD only packages. If anything they are stepping back in time.

Nope, they still have them. They don't advertise them on their website, but they are there. If you call and ask they will tell you. And if you log in to your account on the website and go into programming you can add them there.

archer75 said,

Nope, they still have them. They don't advertise them on their website, but they are there. If you call and ask they will tell you. And if you log in to your account on the website and go into programming you can add them there.

To clarify, packages are called Dish America, Dish America Silver and Dish America Gold. Prices are $30, $45 and $55 respectively.

No, the TV industry is killing itself with lousy programming (reality TV), ever increasing number of commercials, and constant rate hikes. Why the hell would I want to pay damn near $100 a month to watch ads all day and maybe use 10 of the 100+ channels you're forcing me to pay for? Start making real shows again, reduce the amount of interruptions per show, do away with "infomercials", allow me to pick/pay for only the channels I want and finally stop raising your prices annually! Even If Netflix/Hulu disappeared tomorrrow, I'd never consider paying for Cable/Dish again.

The problem with cable is simple, content has gotten crappier, i can now rent shows from a number of sources, my music and my movies are all there without needing cable, so yea, i only have basic for that reason, its not worth the extra cash spent

Also, i have a WINDOWS MEDIA CENTER PC attached to my tv which streams quite the few IPTV shows,

Simply put, when the Internet can deliver TV to your computer, there's little point in having a "separate cable box". We should be way past that.

The only way companies are going to be able to compete is giving you content through a browser like Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, etc.. are the new broadcast medium. Traditional TV isn't going to be the same in the future.

dagamer34 said,
Simply put, when the Internet can deliver TV to your computer, there's little point in having a "separate cable box". We should be way past that.

The only way companies are going to be able to compete is giving you content through a browser like Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, etc.. are the new broadcast medium. Traditional TV isn't going to be the same in the future.

No but with a wide range of internet available TV's rapidly flooding the market, it's becoming even easier to stream your content On Demand. Here in the UK, Sky and Virgin Media are rolling out loads of On Demand services via their boxes as well as Sky's own Sky player. It actually has improved revenue streams as people want to watch content when it suits them not the other way round and not a single company has made a complaint regarding this (well as I'm aware anyway)

Wow... Clueless... Who the hell hired this guy for the "VP of Online Content Development and Strategy" job? They should both be fired

Temuulen Battumur said,
shut up and improve your ****ing service. beat comcast first then talk **** dish.

beat Comcast in what way dish has better customer service (but it's still not very good) Comcast is well-known for its completely horrible customer service (even to non subscribers like me)

Temuulen Battumur said,
shut up and improve your ****ing service. beat comcast first then talk **** dish.

forgot to mention they do need to improve their service with customizable pacages so you can pick and choose your channels

Of course he's going to say something like that. The reality is that it's not hurting the TV industry so much as it's hurting the providers such as satellite and cable. In the future probably all of our shows are going to come through the internet or its successor. This isn't even the beginning of the end, that happened when sites like Hulu first went live. He should have started preparing for it then instead of crying about it now and trying to hold onto the past.

imho For me TV still has a big role in my entertainment.
Simply because I need to be less of a "director" and pick up new stuff more easily and this "live stream" (even though the show on tv is not "live" casted) feels less dead and all, can't really describe it.

On another note:
Car industry killed hackney cab industry!!!

GS:mac

If people would rather get there TV Through the internet then it is time for you to start becoming an internet service provider instead of a Satellite TV operator. Move with the times and you can make more money. Trying to keep the industry stagnant will not grow your business.

Companies in the UK learned this a long time ago. Sky which is pretty much the biggest Satellite operator here now offers Telephone services and Broadband. This is new for them and they make very good money from both and have subscribers on their internet service in the millions. They are quickly becoming one of the largest internet providers in the country and only a few years ago they didn't even exist in this sector.

tens of millions of Americans pay outragious prices for ****ty television. and then pay even more for HBO and Showtime. it's not Hulu that killing the industry, it's the greed of the studios, broadcasters, and tv providers that will kill everything

*I only said Americans because Hulu in not available outside the USA

*I only said Americans because Hulu in not available outside the USA[/quote]

America is made up of 36 countries including the USA, so, might want to rephrase your statement, not sure if it makes sense

rippleman said,

America is made up of 36 countries including the USA, so, might want to rephrase your statement, not sure if it makes sense

No, the CONTINENTS of North and South America are comprised of 36 countries. The colloquial term "America" is commonly used to define the United States of America.

Pretty much translates to "This does not allow me to continue living in giant mansions and making tons of money, and therefore is obviously terrible for society in general and needs to be changed for my.. err our sakes.".

TV is TV, if Satellite can't compete with IP distribution then its doomed to fail. That isn't the fault of Hulu, thats the beauty of competition in an open market. Compete or GTFO

blahism said,
TV is TV, if Satellite can't compete with IP distribution then its doomed to fail. That isn't the fault of Hulu, thats the beauty of competition in an open market. Compete or GTFO

Bailout next year, calling it now.

blahism said,
TV is TV, if Satellite can't compete with IP distribution then its doomed to fail. That isn't the fault of Hulu, thats the beauty of competition in an open market. Compete or GTFO

+1000

They execs are killing the industry by not adapting. People had OTA TV forever and everyone seemed to do OK. How is it NOW killing the industry that people don't watch through a cable/dish service?

farmeunit said,
They execs are killing the industry by not adapting. People had OTA TV forever and everyone seemed to do OK. How is it NOW killing the industry that people don't watch through a cable/dish service?
I generally agree, but OTA TV does not really compare to Hulu (on demand with wide selection).

I do not subscribe to Cable, Satellite, or FiOS TV. I have FiOS internet though.

Like everyone else, I am tired of seeing the cable rates changing month-to-month. TV is also not worth $100 per month when I really only want a few channels, but I am forced to buy everything under the Sun to get them. No thanks. I'll skip TV altogether in favor of Netflix (if they kill Hulu), which I already subscribe too as its reasonably priced.

But you're right that the industry is not adapting. Technology has changed; they can let us pick channels, but they refuse because their margins would plummet, and the networks can't have that.

@pickygp. Farmeunit does not compare OTA TV to Hulu. He says, poeple got OTA TV for years without paying any license fees to the TV industry, and TV industry did just fine.

The big problem is that on air TV is now swamped with millions of extremely cheap air time commercials whereas Hulu is smartly targeted with one ad at the beginning, middle, and end...much more like the "sponsored by" model of old.

TV needs to move back to fewer, more expensive to air ads per show. The revenue model then becomes the same across all distribution platforms.