Seeking Alpha

A source tells Business Insider that Yahoo (YHOO) is willing to pay $2B for Hulu ... but only if...

A source tells Business Insider that Yahoo (YHOO) is willing to pay $2B for Hulu ... but only if Hulu was guaranteed 4-5 years of "exclusive access to current TV shows and older movies." Considering the value of Hollywood's content deals with Netflix (NFLX), this is probably a deal-breaker. GOOG and MSFT have also reportedly expressed interest in Hulu.
Comments (10)
  • bilton
    , contributor
    Comments (2404) | Send Message
     
    "Considering the value of Hollywood's content deals with Netflix (NFLX), this is probably a deal-breaker."

     

    Did a "source" say this? I don't think Starz exclusivity is part of any Hulu deal unless you have other knowledge you would like to share. The other deals have little to do with current TV shows. So why you find it necessary to mislead investors is very puzzling.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2705) | Send Message
     
    Bartz is going to pay $2B for Hulu? She better get a grass skirt with *that* purchase.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • bilton
    , contributor
    Comments (2404) | Send Message
     
    This is nothing but misdirection on the issue. Yahoo! was the original bidder. As a result Hulu's owners decided to see what other interest was out there. How about DISH adding Hulu to Blockbuster. Now there would be real news.
    19 Jul 2011, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    There's nothing misleading about it. Netflix has signed a number of deals involving current TV shows, as a quick look at their library demonstrates; and many of these shows are also carried by Hulu.

     

    If you're talking about exclusive Hulu getting exclusive access to episodes that were only aired for the first time very recently, that's a separate matter - Netflix typically doesn't receive content that quickly. But this isn't specified by the article.
    19 Jul 2011, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • bilton
    , contributor
    Comments (2404) | Send Message
     
    No Eric, I am taling about your need to pump a story. This is old news that has nothing to do with the current shopping of the company. An example of the pump is the addition of:

     

    "Considering the value of Hollywood's content deals with Netflix (NFLX), this is probably a deal-breaker."

     

    This is YOUR opinion not news and belongs in the comments not the body of a "current" event announcement. Report the news. Don't try to make it.
    19 Jul 2011, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    This particular story (i.e. an M&A source providing details of Yahoo's offer) isn't old news, Business Insider reported it this morning. The second sentence of the current is indeed an opinion. It's certainly not the only current which attempts to provide some color or analysis on a story.

     

    Either way, there's no need to accuse people of trying to "pump" a story. I don't have any position in Netflix, and like other editors, have made posts containing both positive and negative news about the company.
    19 Jul 2011, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • KipCFACFP
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    No, bilton is absolutely right -- EVERY media report suggests that 2 years of exclusivity is on the table, but YOU, without any basis whatsoever, conclude that's "probably a deal-breaker."

     

    Whether you have a position in NFLX is irrelevant. What matters is that, as the saying goes, "Dude, you're doing it wrong..."
    19 Jul 2011, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    I'm well aware of those reports - the BI article references Bloomberg's report. The question is what kind of exclusivity they're talking about. The article talks of Yahoo wanting exclusivity on "current TV shows and older movies," something that sounds a lot like content currently offered by Netflix. Whereas Hulu's owners seem to be offering the kind of exclusivity Hulu has right now for the most recent episodes of a show (with exceptions for TV network sites and on-demand services).

     

    If Yahoo only wants the kind of exclusive access Hulu has right now, then its insistence on 4-5 years of exclusivity might not a deal-breaker. Though even then, the fact that the studios would prefer to limit exclusivity to two years suggests their long-term plan is to also license such content to third parties.
    19 Jul 2011, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • KipCFACFP
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    So you openly acknowledge that you were "well aware of those reports" -- yet "reported" something completely different?

     

    Glad we cleared that up.
    19 Jul 2011, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    Not at all. Netflix, like a few other companies, seems to be an emotional subject for some investors.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:21 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|