PBS Goes Commercial on Hulu

By Saul Hansell

In the world of broadcasting, PBS shuns commercials. On the Internet, things are different.

The publicly supported, not-for-profit television network just announced a deal for several programs to be streamed on the Hulu Web site. These include “Nova,” “Wired Science,” “Carrier” and “Scientific American Frontiers.”

Hulu will place a 30-second advertisement before each program, splitting the revenue with PBS. Andrew Russell, the senior vice president who runs PBS Ventures, the network’s money-making arm, said the company was trying to balance its need for revenue with its noncommercial heritage.

“It is very important to carry the principles of public television into these environments,” he said. Most significantly, he said the network will allow commercials only at the beginning of its shows.

“We do not allow interruption of our programs,” he said. Also, it won’t allow the companies to sell commercials on its programs to certain types of advertisers, such as tobacco companies or politicians.

Mr. Russell said PBS was looking for any complaints from viewers. It hasn’t heard any, but the program is new.

This isn’t the first ad deal that PBS has struck, although it is the first that will get widespread distribution. The network distributes some programs on Joost, which carry advertising that is superimposed over the programming, and on a few other smaller sites. PBS has created shorter clips of its programs for YouTube. These don’t carry ads yet, but they likely will in the future, Mr. Russell said.

It also has some programs available to watch on its Web site, PBS.org, without commercials. In addition, PBS does a brisk business selling programs over iTunes.

PBS has moved online slowly, and right now it makes only a small fraction of its content available over the Internet. One reason is the complexity of the rights to its programs. “Nova,” for example, is produced by WGBH in Boston, which acquires individual episodes from various production companies. Only in some cases does PBS actually have the rights to distribute shows online.

Mr. Russell said that by exploring digital distribution with the programs that the network does have rights to, it hoped to build the case to show that producers should let it distribute their shows online. This means offering them a good share of the advertising revenue or download fees. The online deals also show corporate and foundation sponsors that the programs are reaching a wider audience.

The network is even building its own ad sales staff to so it can sell the commercials on its Internet video itself, perhaps to the same companies that pay to sponsor the shows on the air.

“We have sponsors who would like to see their sponsorship carry over to these partnerships,” Mr. Russell said.

Another constraint is that local PBS stations are afraid that if too many people watch shows online, the stations will lose relationships with viewers who respond to their regular pledge drives.

The network is trying to help the local affiliates by linking to them from its site. It also puts the more recent programs on PBS.org and for sale on iTunes. Hulu and other sites that are less connected to local stations are only given access to most programs weeks or months after they are first aired.

By the fall, however, PBS expects to redesign PBS.org and present a much greater percentage of the network’s programs there.

By the way, here are two other tidbits from the online video world.

Viacom’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” is now also available on Hulu, with ads sold by Hulu. This has gotten a fair bit of notice online. But it’s not really a surprise. Once Viacom decided to start syndicating its programs on other sites, despite resistance from cable companies, it was a short step to put the shows on other sites willing to offer reasonable terms.

And Disney is testing streaming some of its most popular movies online with advertising. In keeping with Disney’s longstanding approach to managing scarcity, each film will only be available for one week, coinciding with its broadcast on ABC. The first film, which is available now, is “Finding Nemo.” Disney still insists that people come to its own sites to watch its programs online, but it is at least trying to figure out the value of making some of its crown jewels available free.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Nick S. June 11, 2008 · 10:39 am

I’ve found Hulu’s ads to very fairly non-intrusive and I like the fact that good quality television programs and movies are available on it. I’m more than happy to watch PBS programs on it, especially when some of the money goes to the organization. Most of PBS’s normal programming has short ads in the beginning and end anyway, so I’m used to it.

Graham Mudd June 11, 2008 · 12:29 pm

Agree with Nick S. God knows they need the money. PBS programming is well worth the 30 second wait.

Kevin M June 11, 2008 · 12:39 pm

I agree with Nick S. about Hulu and their ads. I think they were able to find the right mix and did it in a well done way.

boston pbs viewer June 11, 2008 · 12:57 pm

PBS doesn’t use commercials?

Then, why does the 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after anything on PBS sure feel like a commercial their “generous supporters”?

What happened to full hour programming on PBS?

Scott Slack June 11, 2008 · 1:21 pm

As a part-time documentary producer who has produced content for PBS, I have come to the belief that the PBS business model is quickly becoming irrelevant. The Public Broadcasting System was created at a time when the three main networks dominated television and when the cost of production was orders of magnitude larger then it is today. Even if PBS had healthy federal funding and a more engaged membership base it would still be poorly equipped to fulfill it’s mission of showcasing stories and reporting not seen on commercial broadcasts. In my very humble opinion it is time PBS (and it’s parent the CPB) to refocus on creating infrastructure for a system of community media centers with the ability to both distribute media through cost effective digital and non-traditional channels and with the connections to filter up great content to national television broadcast syndication.

Longwind, Fl June 11, 2008 · 1:51 pm

“PBS doesn’t use commercials?”

Lighten up, boston pbs viewer. If the government would give them the money they needed with out stealing it from them to make bombs, maybe there wouldn’t be 10 min lead-ins thanking their generous benefactors.

and to #5: I disagree; PBS is still giving quality programs/stories and reporting.. I’m always suspicious of those who come out and say “this doesn’t work, just look how it functions; tear it up and start over”. meanwhile, PBS has been programming this way for years, and I’ve always found it entertaining and the news informative.

Take public schools for example:let parents take their school tax money so they can send kids to a charter school, who’s tuition is usually double that of the taxes. Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase the taxes, be stringent in their usage, in improve what we’ve got?

But no, we have the Bush generation:if it doesn’t work for us in making the people STUPID…we don’t want it to work at all….

Impeach Bush for his crimes against the Iraqi people and against the Children of the Uniteds States…as evidenced in his War on Educated Children by starting no child left behind…

NK June 11, 2008 · 2:20 pm

AWESOME! GO PBS!! Now please can we have the Antiques Road Show online??? Please, please, please? :-)

Jamie June 11, 2008 · 2:20 pm

I agree with the other comments. I actually don’t have a tv in my house, so I use laptops and a high-speed internet connection (and a very large monitor) to stream things from Netflix, network websites, and Hulu (which everyone in my house LOVES).

The commercials aren’t near as intrusive as tv commercials and since I’m not paying a cable bill to watch it, I don’t mind having a few quick commercials. I think it’s great that PBS is making its programming available in this format, especially since I know more and more people using the internet to watch tv these days.

Marie June 11, 2008 · 3:44 pm

PBS’s disavowal of the word “commercials” is disingenuous. They have gone well beyond merely mentioning sponsors to what can only be considered full-bore commercials, albeit not interspersed with the programming.

I would much prefer that they make an honest buck and say their programs have no commercial interruptions.

And let’s not throw more government money at them. They’re better off without it. Have we not yet learned that there is no money without strings attached? Commercial sponsors are much quicker to respond to public pressure than the government.

bob June 11, 2008 · 4:38 pm

Either it’s public, in which case the public pay for it, or it’s commercial in which case the commercials pay for it. All donors should remain anonymous.
If PBS has to scale back operations to fit within the budget provided them by their public, so be it. If the public wants more programming, they’ll buy it.
No one here would donate their dollars to Fox or CBS. Who’s buying your media for you? Why?

Gleo June 11, 2008 · 5:26 pm

PBS uses 5-6 minutes of commerials before the hour and after the half-hour of almost every one of its prime time broadcasts. To indicate that it “shuns commercials” is absolutly incorrect reporting! The NYT would never do that though.

Avi June 11, 2008 · 6:42 pm

I can’t believe how much Charlie Rose charges on iTunes (up to $6.95 per episode). If it’s paid for by the public, it should be made available to all taxpayers through all available mediums.

Artie June 11, 2008 · 7:10 pm

To Scott Slack:

While many critics (usually conservatives) claim that PBS is redundant in an era of hundreds of cable channels, the fact is that none of these networks (A&E, etc.) is willing to cover an even moderately controversial topic, and their specials are usually underfunded and poorly produced. Frontline stands alone; I only wish there was more of this on PBS, and less fluff. I certainly don’t object to PBS distributing good work by independent producers; they do a fair amount of that already (Independent Lens, etc.) But it’s still important to have local PBS stations, which have their own identities and local shows (at least mine does).

As an aside, Scott: you might want to learn the proper usage of “it’s” vs. “its”….

Scott Slack June 11, 2008 · 7:51 pm

Artie, I am not advocating doing away with local PBS affiliates as they indeed play a vital role in providing local programming and are an unique voice among most local television environments. I also agree that Frontline stands alone in its production values and journalistic standards. Finally, I also share your wish that PBS would produce less fluff and more engaging works. All I am merely saying is that PBS think strategically about the online environment it is entering into and become a LEADER in providing public oriented programming over the web. I would also say that instead of doing away with local affiliates, PBS should re-invest in them, except that instead of buying six figure broadcast spec HD cameras they buy smaller cheaper broadcast spec production packages and invite emerging filmmakers to work with the stations in producing original fare.

Finally Artie, thanks for your well intentioned and informative suggestion on the proper usage of “it’s” vs. “its”. It is nice to know there are such selfless and vigilant crusaders protecting the proper usage of the possessive.

Magic Dragon June 11, 2008 · 8:02 pm

Money is ‘God,’ in the world, so I’m not surprised! ‘We have met the enemy and he is us!’

Rob L; N Myrtle Beach SC June 11, 2008 · 8:52 pm

I agree with the others here who disagree with Mr. Hansell’s repetition of the journalistic myth that PBS “shuns” commercials. If one counts self-promotional spots as advertising (“This week on Masterpiece, Jane Austen’s etc, etc”), there is plenty of it on public television and radio, sometimes to an irritating degree. And major companies get the juicy “five after” spot on the NPR newscasts now. I never heard commercials for GM and Ford Motors on NPR 20 years ago.

I think Scott Slack makes some good points. Public broadcasting is now an established entity, with its own good-boy/girl networks and cozy partners. If they could move into sponsoring more (high-quality) user-produced content, AND put more of it on the Web, I think they would make themselves more relevant to those of the Digital generations. Sometimes, even to this Old-Schooler, public broadcasting has a musty, fusty smell to it. Does everyone in dramas speak with an English accent?

jacques coffe June 11, 2008 · 9:26 pm

PBS is a commercial station now. It starts late, and ends early for what amounts to commercials.
If all these firms and people are supportive why do you keep endless pledge drives, cut short some interviews in order to end sometime 10 minutes early for more of them?
Your nightly news uses so many sources from bbc etc. why not show some transparency on what your costs really amount.
Pledge drive uses E. Murrows statement that you will not have commercials and yet what do you call all these thank you’s for sponsors and orgs?

david June 11, 2008 · 9:56 pm

I didn’t mind when PBS just recognized their sponsors, but the longer bites of the last few years go too far. The tone and content often make me sick at my stomach. I like the programs though…. :)

Junk June 12, 2008 · 12:18 am

I watch PBS, and I enjoy PBS.

They are not commercial free however.

A rose by any other name…

Rich Tubbs June 12, 2008 · 12:47 am

I’m hoping PBS will put that DooWop show on Hulu. With the goofy pledge breaks intact.

That would so rock.

PBS…yawn.

John June 12, 2008 · 1:45 am

Having lived in Europe for many years, what surprises me about PBS is it’s lack of sports programming. I’m not saying they should waste money on professional sports, but what about the athletic endeavors of the local high school or beer league? Seriously, building community is lacking on TV and a public broadcasting is all about the community, right?

Morrissey June 12, 2008 · 2:49 am

@Avi. If you go to //www.charlierose.com, you can watch pretty much every episode that he has ever done free of charge. And you can do it by guest so you don’t have to watch the entire episode or fast forward if you don’t want to. I will bite my tongue about iTunes.

Megan June 12, 2008 · 9:12 am

I’m very supportive of PBS making their content more accessible using Hulu:

A. We paid for it already, and this is the cheapest way to make past episodes available for viewers without PBS having to build their own infrastructure to do so (very expensive).

B. Hulu commercials just aren’t that intrusive, and especially if restricted to just the beginning of the program, that seems quite fair.

C. It makes PBS programming available to a much broader audience, who may not have seen these shows before. Additional exposure leads to additional support for the institution, which is well worth supporting!

Steve N. June 12, 2008 · 10:19 am

Surely there’s nothing wrong with producing within budget. Hey what ever happened to dear old Bob Edwards…why isn’t he on NPR any longer?

DJH June 12, 2008 · 3:43 pm

John (#21) lamented a lack of sports on PBS. FYI, I don’t know about other outlets, but Connecticut’s public television, CPTV, carries UConn women’s basketball, and this spring just committed to picking up all the UCWBB games that won’t be on ESPN or CSN, for the next 4 years. (This means they carry the majority of games.)

In fact, CPTV has gone the extra mile for UCWBB, managing e.g. to broadcast some 2008 Big East tournament games that they initially did not have the rights to, but no one in CT could see on the obscure cable outlets that had them.

For their coverage of UCWBB, see //uconn.cpbn.org/

Go Huskies!