Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Joins Growing List of Bidders For Hulu

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the you-will-be-assimilated dept.

Yahoo! 69

An anonymous reader writes "It's reported that Yahoo has formally put in a bid to buy Hulu only a week after adding Tumblr to the family. From the article: 'Yahoo just spent $1.1 billion of its cash hoard to acquire Tumblr, a blogging site with 300 million mostly young-ish visitors and 24 billion minutes of usage per month. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer's team can slap a lot of tasteful, personalized native ads into the Tumblr content streams to monetize the fast growing site. It's the same way that Facebook and Twitter hope to get into the tens of billions in revenue league, but it's a long and winding road. Now Yahoo is taking a run at Hulu, with its 4 million subscribers paying $7.99 per month, original programming , and more than 70,000 full TV episodes. Hulu could immediately put Yahoo's video efforts and revenue in a different league.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

With What Money? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831391)

Yahoo spent 1.1billion of 1.2billion in cash reserves to buy Tumblr. Where is this $200 million coming from?
Also, 300million seems low considering Hulu actually has decent revenue compared to Yahoo's other acquisitions which have lower revenue and were purchased for far more. E.g. Tumblr had $13 million in revenue last year, yet was purchased for 1.1billion; Hulu had $695 million in revenue the same year, 53 times that of Tumblr. Buying it for 1/4 the price would be a steal.
Hopefully, Hulu will refuse to be bought by a company so irresponsible with its money, or for an amount less than half of its yearly revenue.

Re:With What Money? (3, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831395)

Where is this $200 million coming from?

A bank?

Re:With What Money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831443)

Where is this $200 million coming from? Also, 300million seems low considering Hulu actually has decent revenue compared to Yahoo's other acquisitions

It seems you've misread the summary. According to the article:

Yahoo is offering between $600 and $800 million

Re:With What Money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831487)

How could buying a company worth $800 million put Yahoo's "revenue into a different league"? It's hard to believe it's that much of a bargain.

Re:With What Money? (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831583)

It's the dot.com 3.0 race (which was already a somewhat popular business model in other sectors): instead of growing your own company from within, you just purchase other smaller but successful (or popular) companies. And yes, it's still all about "eyeballs".
1) Buy a popular service
2) Add your own flavour of personalized promotions (= more stinkin' ads), or harvest the crap out of your visitors' data.
3) Profit! (perhaps... in Yahoo's case I am doubtful).

Personally I am a bit sick of these online services moving towards a revenue model that is business-to-business: ads and data mining. I'd much prefer a customer centric service, where the visitor himself is the prime source of revenue. Or a combination: offer a free service that includes ads and your personal details being sold, and a premium service with no ads and some privacy. You know, something like the Pirate Bay, but with money going to the people who created the content.

Re:With What Money? (2)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832035)

where the visitor himself is the prime source of revenue.

Just never going to happen for basic services. The price the market will bear for e-mail is $0. Basic web-hosting: $0. Basic video watching: $0. News: $0. These services will simply go away for most people if you put them all behind a paywall. For better or worse (I say better), "free at point of use" is here to stay. You just don't have the customer base to make a viable business if you charge everyone for access. Very few businesses can pull it off. People don't have the money, they're already stretched too thin. They'll simply go without, or consolidate and trim down what they use.

Re:With What Money? (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43834195)

More readily, they'll just go someplace else that's free. The reason these services have the price tag of "free" is because they are so commoditized and have practically zero cost per user. Running a datacenter is expensive, yes, but not per email user. So when you put tumblr behind a pay wall, people won't pay, and they won't quit posting furry porn, they'll just move on to "tmblr" and post there, until Yahoos buys them, too, but that will be the end of it because there's no more vowels left to remove from the name.

Re:With What Money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831469)

Yahoo spent 1.1billion of 1.2billion in cash reserves to buy Tumblr. Where is this $200 million coming from?

With a country trillions in debt (hint, hint, hint, hint), did you really just ask that question?

Who the hell needs cash reserves anymore.

Re:With What Money? (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832265)

Who? China ($2TT)? Japan ($13TT)? Germany ($3TT)?

Re:With What Money? (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43834209)

But you realize their central banks are just printing that money out of thin air, right? That's basically just more debt.

Re:With What Money? (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837635)

And if every country is printing money out of thin air then where does that leave everyone?

Re:With What Money? (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43837775)

Completely [www.cbc.ca] fucked [telegraph.co.uk] .

Re:With What Money? (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43845403)

So if the whole worlds fucked we're all in ok then? If everyones crazy then aren't we all normal?

Re:With What Money? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831663)

Revenue is far less important than profits in these purchases, Tumblr as you said had $13 million in revenue but actually made a loss of ~ $12 million, making it an even worse purchase. What are Hulu's profit margins?

Re:With What Money? (4, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831683)

By doing things like this [bloomberg.com] . Over the past couple of years Yahoo has reaped a lot of profit from it's overseas operations, esp. Yahoo! Japan(which is only 40% owned by Yahoo, but still), where they provide more than just search, they act as an ISP and provide other data services. The insanely strong yen has meant that over the past couple years the profit from Yahoo Japan when measured in USD has been incredibly high, and they obviously have some smart traders working for them as they foresaw the rapid weakening of the yen and made a huge profit off of it.

Dotcom era calling. Wants its bubble back. (4, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831835)

Yahoo spent 1.1billion of 1.2billion in cash reserves to buy Tumblr. Where is this $200 million coming from?

Yahoo has about $3 billion in cash and equivalents [google.com] as of their last quarterly statement. Additionally, purchases don't have to be made in cash on hand. The company could be bought using cash, stock, options or some combination of the above. Additionally the company could issue debt to raise the capital to fund the acquisition. Also they could partner with someone on the buyout.

For what it is worth, $300 million was last quarter's profit for Yahoo.

Also, 300million seems low considering Hulu actually has decent revenue compared to Yahoo's other acquisitions which have lower revenue and were purchased for far more.

Is it 1999 again? I thought the dotcom bubble burst. Here's why revenue doesn't matter. I can generate vast amounts of revenue selling $2 bills for $1. I'll have huge sales doing so. I'll also be bankrupt faster than you can say "Chapter Eleven". The only reason to use a revenue multiple for a buyout is because the company is not profitable and has limited prospects of becoming so.

The amount of revenue they generate is irrelevant unless it leads to profits. I've seen reports that Hulu has turned a profit though it is unclear how much or what the future prospects might be. Revenue without profits can only be a short term situation. Sometimes doing so makes sense for strategic reasons (see Amazon) but there MUST be a path to profitability. Either Hulu must be strategically vital or it must have future profit opportunities Yahoo is aware of and I am not.

Hopefully, Hulu will refuse to be bought by a company so irresponsible with its money, or for an amount less than half of its yearly revenue.

It's quite possible that a price of 0.5X revenue is a fair price. It might also be too high or too low. Typical multiples of revenue for buyouts are between 0.6X and 1.2X annual revenue for a profitable company. Varies by industry. Depending on Hulu's future prospects, a 0.5X revenue multiple might be a fantastic price for its shareholders. However that also likely means it is a questionable deal for Yahoo financially.

Re:With What Money? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832811)

Yahoo is offering between 600 and 800 million, not 300 million. It seems that Hulu is kind of playing a hide the numbers game after their last unsuccessful attempt to get bought, but back in 2011 they had a couple of quarters where they were profitable, but then they also made more like 700 million in revenue. It also wasn't mentioned just how profitable they were. I'm sure Yahoo has some visibility to those numbers that we don't, but as was the case with tumblr, this number looks far, far out of league with what a convention offer would be based on pure profitability. Tumblr was losing money, and for all we can tell now, Hulu is doing the same.
I haven't had any yahoo stock in about 15 years, but if I did, I would be selling now.

Better deal than Broadcast.com (2)

ron_ivi (607351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833561)

They spent like $5 billion last time they bought a leading video/audio website.

Compared to that, Hulu's a bargain.

But it's Yahoo, so they'll still find a way to make it fail.

Re:With What Money? (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | about a year and a half ago | (#43842827)

Yahoo just has a great portfolio of products it does not push or market right. There new hub is great but besides that mail stinks anymore, search engine is so so the old good purchases I can think of to date are flickr and maybe tumblr. I think Hulu might be a good buy for them.

Re:With What Money? (1)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about a year ago | (#43875309)

Where did you get the 1.2 billion in cash reserves? According to their filings, they have $3 billion, and they have a market cap of nearly $30 billion. And they're offering between $600 and 800 million... What are you talking about??

Tumblr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831401)

Tumblr: Known for it's stupid amount of porn!

Cash horde? (2)

SkyratesPlayer (1320895) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831407)

Is that what invades the stores on Black Friday?

Re:Cash horde? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832593)

I play Cash Alliance, you insensitive clod!

Spelling (1)

Meneth (872868) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831409)

"cash hoard", not "horde".

Re:Spelling (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831481)

But spelling it right is less funny. See the post before yours.

rf antennas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831427)

YEs this is wonderfull news

RF antenna [pantagonesatellite.co.in]

LOOKS LIKE MEAT'S BACK ON THE MENU, BOYS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831449)

pump and dump

subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831473)

Is Yahoo a money laundering operation? How the fuck did they have $1Bn lying around to begin with?

Re:subject (4, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831547)

Their homepage is still heavily trafficked, and it's stuffed with ads and monetization schemes. For a lot of technically unsophisticated people who first got an internet connection back in the 90s, it's synonymous with the internet. It's the familiar first thing you see when you "go online." It's mostly vapid, uninteresting, pop culture, detritus to you and I--not to mention tastelessly cluttered--but it's compelling to a lot of people. Here's a hint what I'm getting at, you'll find celebrity gossip and sports scores prominently placed on their front page. The kinds of people who care about that stuff are the kinds who don't block ads, or even know it's possible; better still (for Yahoo) they are also the type who occasionally even click ads. They are real-world NPCs, Neal Stephenson's "slines" from Anathem, proles.

I'm probably being too hard on them. Maybe some are brilliant in other areas of life and don't care one bit about technology, they're just sticking with what's familiar, and Yahoo actually was a decent company with some useful services. Back in the 90s they had a very useful directory style listing of most of the Internet that was cataloged by actual humans. Back before Gmail they were a decent, free, mail provider. Many people continue to use @yahoo.com accounts. Still, it's hard to defend users who visit a site which devotes some front page screen space for horoscopes. I should add most of these things are customizable if you log in, but I wonder how many people go that far. Tyranny of the default must reign here, too.

Re:subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831567)

I can have horoscopes on my slashdot page? I may log in.

Re:subject (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831631)

A decade (or more) ago I set my dad up with a .yahoo.com email address and made his home page yahoo.com.

Now he has shared that email address with so many business contacts that he's locked in for life.

I'm the same way with my gmail address. I'm essentially locked in as well. They can offer me 5 ways to get my email out (and I do back up my email about once a year) but it doesn't matter if hundreds of contacts have that address.

Re:subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831665)

Set your Gmail address to forward to your new, preferred address.
Set an auto-reply message asking your contacts to update their address books with your preferred address.
Use your new address for everything. Done!

Re:subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831667)

A decade (or more) ago I set my dad up with a .yahoo.com email address and made his home page yahoo.com.

Now he has shared that email address with so many business contacts that he's locked in for life.

I'm the same way with my gmail address. I'm essentially locked in as well. They can offer me 5 ways to get my email out (and I do back up my email about once a year) but it doesn't matter if hundreds of contacts have that address.

It's not that difficult, at least not with GMail, you can easily set it up to forward to whatever your new account is (it's under Settings / Forwarding and POP/IMAP). Then you give the new account details to all new contacts and reply from the new account. Your contacts will switch over time and the other account will just fall into disuse. No harm keeping the old one forever if you really want to but it's hard to see that as 'locked in'.

Re:subject (3, Informative)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831689)

Indeed. That's why I bought a domain ~14 years ago and have used that for all my personal correspondence (business-related stuff, of course, goes to the business address). It's extremely portable: I've switched back-end mail providers maybe half a dozen times in those years (mostly at the beginning when things were getting settled) with no disruption to mail service or needing to change my address. I highly recommend it.

For migrating to a new address, it's useful to have the old Yahoo/Gmail/whatever address forward to your new one at your domain (or otherwise setup the new system to periodically check for new mail from the old address). This way even contacts who haven't updated their contact list can still have their messages reach you (though you should remind them to update their contact list).

Having a "portable" address that's not tied to a particular provider is very handy.

Re: subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831805)

I have a PhD in Computer Science and work for Google. I access www.yahoo.com several times a day.

Re:subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43832241)

Their aesthetics is popular in Asia. Guess who has more people?
Remember, they're a global company. Your tastes don't reflect the world's.

You're committing the same mistakes advertisers do: "what works here, must certainly work elsewhere!"

Yahoo is still very profitable (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831851)

Is Yahoo a money laundering operation? How the fuck did they have $1Bn lying around to begin with?

Yahoo is quite profitable and has about $3 billion in cash on their balance sheet as of the end of last quarter. They also generate around $1 billion in profits (excluding one time asset sales) on $5 billion or so in sales. Yahoo is quite profitable and has cash to throw around. Whether they do so wisely is another matter altogether.

"...tasteful, personalized native ads..." ??? (2)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831475)

What are you, stupid?

Re:"...tasteful, personalized native ads..." ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831499)

Writing ironically isn't usually associated with stupidity. An inability to recognise irony is.

interesting choice of words (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831497)

Note all this discussion of "revenue" rather than "profits". Sometimes it's a useful proxy, but not always. In this case, they're spending $1.1 billion to buy Hulu. If that just gets them some revenue, that is by itself not very impressive, because they start $1.1 billion in the hole! They could've generated, say, $100m/quarter in revenue just by "paying" that money to themselves over the next 3 years. It's only worth buying a company with it if you hope to actually get back more than $1.1 billion!

Re:interesting choice of words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831527)

Well, they don't have to make that money from Hulu directly.
Having Hulu allows Yahoo to provide a video search that doesn't send the users directly to Google. Perhaps they think that is worth $1.1 billion alone.

Sales-Cost of Sales=Profit (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831669)

Note all this discussion of "revenue" rather than "profits"...

Because that is the right metric, because it shows growth, which is kind of what you want in a acquisition, In reality a company already serving web content should absorb all the costs, your right they could buy bonds...or lottery cards with the money, but they seem to be sensibly buying a company where they already have in house expertise, is aligned with their business model, is growing (in a market that is growing)...and has the potential for exponential growth.

In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/03/google-inc-goog-youtube/ [valuewalk.com] [valuewalk.com] $45.7 Billion Ironically in the context of this article Google outbid Yahoo. In terms of numbers http://allthingsd.com/20100319/the-numbers-behind-the-worlds-fastest-growing-web-site-youtubes-finances-revealed/ [allthingsd.com] [allthingsd.com] youtube revenue for the year before the sale to Google was $15,057 (whole making losses of hundreds of thousands each month)

There are problems but those are nothing to do with the figures...acquisitions often take time to merge successfully if at all. The fact that there is incredible competition from known established large companies (Youtube;Netflix Amazon etc)...with others controlling the ecosystems (Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft), and more.

I wish people would stop looking at financial figures in isolation..its just stupid.

Growth without profits = bankruptcy (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831917)

Because that is the right metric, because it shows growth, which is kind of what you want in a acquisition

Growth without a path to profits becomes a path to bankruptcy. Now Hulu may become wildly profitable in time, I honestly have no idea. But the ONLY argument Yahoo can make for doing such an acquisition without profits is for strategic reasons. Even then, they must have some idea how this thing might turn a profit in the future. The purpose of a business is to make a profit, not to just grow.

In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth $45.7 Billion

The link you posted puts the value of Youtube at an implied value of around $8.7 billion. The $45 billion number comes from (inappropriately) applying implied multiples for Facebook which have little relevance to Youtube. Frankly the assumptions the author used to get to the $8.7 billion number are a iffy at best.

Re:interesting choice of words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43832527)

While your overall point still stands, they spent the $1.1 billion on Tumblr. As for Hulu, FTA "Yahoo is offering between $600 and $800 million, depending on what content and licensing deals come with the acquisition."

Re:interesting choice of words (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833081)

Considering that hulu is doing an actual profit(?) the numbers don't make much sense.
Sensible paying would be paying an amount that gets you back to black on the deal in 5-8 years provided that the business doesn't bite an unexpected bullet.

Google should by hulu (2)

zippo01 (688802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831503)

Google should by hulu. Think of what they could do. Much better then yahoo.

Re:Google should by hulu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831541)

wouldn't the chair throwing monkey man raise a stink about this were it to occur?

Re:Google should by hulu (2)

gigaherz (2653757) | about a year and a half ago | (#43831585)

buy* than* And I disagree. Google already has Youtube, and they are adding subscriptions to it. Better to have competition than monopoly.

Re:Google should by hulu (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43841433)

Youtube doesn't have a lot of mainstream TV shows in there. What they need is more deals to get those online. The question is if buying Hulu just to get those contracts would be worth it or not.

Re:Google should by hulu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831979)

I think everyone's forgetting what shackles the networks have put on hulu. How many times have the engineers apologized that the networks make them block device X, or remove past episodes? (And this is while they're partly owned by the networks).
How much nicer do you think the networks will be with their content licensing when hulu's owned by Yahoo or Google?
If I were Yahoo or Google, I'd stay as far from this deal as possible.

Time to stop calling this "English" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831591)

Even CNET cannot be arsed to proofread their own scribblings any longer.

fa1lzors?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831641)

thing foWr the

Celebrity Biography (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43831647)

http://www.celzon.com

Yahoo is still alive!? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832055)

Just tried to access an old account I had with them, made me reset my password. Like most reasonable people I didn't want to give them any more information than necessary so got stuck when they asked for a phone number. Text on screen:

"
Congratulations! You have successfully reset your new password.
Never lose access to your account.
"

Entered "000.000.0000"

Result:

"The number you entered is invalid"

WTF do you want Yahoo? Some way to really identify me? Come on now, you can't be anywhere as near as bad as Facebook.

Re:Yahoo is still alive!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43835891)

Just tried to access an old account I had with them, made me reset my password. Like most reasonable people I didn't want to give them any more information than necessary so got stuck when they asked for a phone number. Text on screen:

" Congratulations! You have successfully reset your new password. Never lose access to your account. "

Entered "000.000.0000"

Result:

"The number you entered is invalid"

WTF do you want Yahoo? Some way to really identify me?

In Australia Yahoo is using two factor ID for changing passwords, and they send a one-time code to your cell phone by SMS that you must enter. That could be why they're asking for a phone number.

Posting as AC because of mod points.

Re:Yahoo is still alive!? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#43841459)

GMail regularly nags me to put my cellphone number there as well. Ever since Facebook started using this crap the other major sites have started using this to uniquely identify you thought your phone bill. Stuff them.

Privacy? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832493)

And again personal data is sold without any permission by the victims. Why can this even be legal?

Hulu needs to stay owned by the TV Consortuim (2)

HighOrbit (631451) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832647)

I am a Hulu Plus subscriber. Hulu is a joint venture of NBC, Fox, and Disney-ABC. Hulu only survives on the good graces of its owners who provide the content, and even then they only provide it grudgingly, because they perpetually fear it will undercut their broadcast business. Some of the basic cable guys (TNT, USA, SyFy, etc) also provide content, but mostly because they are also owned by NBC, Fox, or Disney. A few of the smaller cable networks or owners of shows no longer on TV at all also made deals with Hulu, but that's only because they a desperate to monetize otherwise worthless old stuff. Notice that CBS is not a partner, so you generally don't get a bunch of CBS shows available on Hulu. In fact, the CBS CEO recently bragged about this because he said valuable shows are worth more in syndication (i.e. reruns on TV) than online distribution. Even the owners sometimes withhold content. Fox, a Hulu part-owner, only allows the last few episodes of the current season, even to paying subscribers.

You can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the TV networks are no longer owners, the good content will disappear from Hulu, even to paying members on Hulu Plus.

Re:Hulu needs to stay owned by the TV Consortuim (2)

will_die (586523) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833819)

I am sure yahoo knows that. The value in Hulu is the content and with the price they are offering I am sure there is a clause in the deal that requires them to continue to provide the content as either exclusive or where Yahoo would have access to the content for a period of time before other companies can have access to it.
Alot of companies, including Google, Amazon and Netflicks, think this is the future of TV delivery so having a deal could help Yahoo.

Re:Hulu needs to stay owned by the TV Consortuim (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43834779)

Netflix says "I drink your milkshake". http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-drink-your-milkshake [knowyourmeme.com]

Networks need to watch out. $10 / month gets me all the TV and movies I can watch.

Content deals (3, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43832773)

What this article is not mentioning nor any comment thus far asking is the very important question of what happens to Hulu's content deals when it gets sold? There is a reason Hulu has access to next-day TV from NBC, Fox, and ABC... because they own the damn company. There is a reason they have no shows from CBS. If Yahoo! or anyone else buys Hulu, will they still have access to next-day shows from most US networks? Would they lose ABC? Or would CBS come on board? These are very important questions because the US network access is basically the driver for all Hulu subscriptions... no one gets a Hulu account to look at second-rate movies.

You lie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43842259)

except this question was already asked by HighOrbit. Any comment thus far my ./

hilarious (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43833661)

So whenever Yahoo buys something, they stuff it full of 10x the ads then kills it. Unfortunately, Hulu does actually need "more" ads. I mean a higher variety. If I see that stupid Nokia Lumina ad one more fucking time, my head is going to explode. What moron actually thinks forcing me to watch it 50 times while watching a Hell's Kitchen marathon is going to make me buy it? It's just fucking annoying!!! Yahoo cannot possibly do any worse.

Re:hilarious (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43836979)

The point of advertising isn't really to sell. It's to make you aware of the product. It seems to have worked spectacularly well in your case.

Re:hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43841311)

the advertising has failed if it creates a negative reaction to your product. Mix it up hulu.

anyone remember broadcast.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43835209)

didn't think so. 'nuff said.

Exclusive post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43837995)

this is a very resourceful post. Every visitor should read it. Thanks to the writer.
alherabd [alherabd.com]
Shahidul.

not sure why anyone should care (1)

JBaustian (1204174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43847737)

But it seems as though Yahoo is torn between preservation and relevance. It's kind of like AOL about 10 or 15 years ago.

flickr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43881037)

They just messed up Flicker! In just a couple days time they racked up over 30k comments, most negative, in the Flickr Help forums re the new layout.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?