In the same way that Web 2.0 and social networking led to profound changes in user behavior online, TV viewing habits are morphing, and at a rapid pace. Video is being treated as a collection of digital artifacts, and artifacts, notes Benn Konsynski, a chaired professor of Business Administration at Goizueta Business School, can be unbundled, bundled and remixed. Content sources, content production, post-production, viewing, exhibition, processes, decision models, and who has legal rights to content—it’s all in flux and the changes will transform the industry.
And the video industry is taking note of recent history—in particular, the fracturing of the music industry in the aftermath of Napster, file sharing, and MP3 players.
Konsynski, who moderated the Goizueta panel discussion, is encouraged to see the video industry’s major players moves to be proactive. “[The movie industry] is being much more intelligent about it. It’s getting control of very expensive assets early in the process,” notes Konsynski. “It’s rethinking the sourcing, distribution and exhibition of its content.”
Hulu is an attempt by network television to remain relevant. So far, so good. In March 2009, a mere two years after its inception, Hulu scored 41.6 million video viewers. While YouTube maintains a tight grip on the number one spot (it totaled 100.3 million unique visitors in March 2009), Hulu is gaining momentum.
Hulu boasts nearly 150 content providers and added a significant provider this past spring when ABC, Inc. (Disney) announced it would join Hulu’s joint venture partners, NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp) by taking a 27 percent stake in the venture. Gartner Inc. research vice president Allen Weiner dubbed the deal “An extremely big blow to YouTube,” and described the amped-up Hulu on his Blog as resembling “your low-end cable system, with only CBS absent.” (CBS acquired TV.com last year, but Hulu’s trifecta of ABC, NBC and Fox gives it the apparent edge).
FreePint Family
Quilting big data threads
The fallacy of information overload
Information overload: fact, fantasy or filter failure? 
