Hulu踏上没落之路？

    可是，好一阵以来，吉拉尔和这些媒体老板之间的紧张关系一直在加剧。有关Hulu发展方向的失策之举和内部争论在公司内部不断升级。有时候，这些内斗甚至会在公开媒体上曝光。

    2011年2月，吉拉尔在自己的博客上发表了一篇长达两千字的批评文章，迎来了自己的《甜心先生》时刻（Jerry Maguire moment，以同名电影得名，指突发奇想认为找到了拯救公司之道旋即又意识到想法荒唐——译注）。该文主要是宣称，传统电视已经寿终正寝了——这种宣言当然让像新闻集团的福克斯公司（Fox）和迪斯尼公司的美国广播公司

    （ABC）这些媒体老板们很不舒服。而此前一年，他对老板们要给月订阅计划增加9.99美元的计划表示反对，他的建议是，只合理增加4.99美元以保持竞争力。最后，老板们做出了妥协，这就是后来标价7.99美元的Hulu Plus应用。此外，每次得知有些媒体老板和网飞公司（Netflix）这类对手达成内容交易后，他也非常激动地表示反对，因为在他看来，这些行动会削弱Hulu的产品。

    随后就是2010年Hulu计划上市而未果，2011年试图出售却没有下文。据知情人士透露，曾有公司执意要高价收购Hulu。此人还表示，媒体老板们不愿意卖，因为他们想保持对自己内容的定价和授权的控制权，这样才能确保Hulu不会蚕食传统电视广告的收入。结果，这直接导致视频领域竞争的白热化，网飞、亚马逊尊享计划（Amazon Prime），谷歌公司（Google），卫星电视（DISH Network）的“电视无处不在”计划（TV Everywhere），康卡斯特公司的Xfinity计划，NimbleTV和其他方案纷纷开始加入混战。

    这种混乱局面让吉拉尔和Hulu的第四大老板、私募基金巨头普罗维登斯资本（Providence Equity Partners）非常恼火。2007年，普罗维登斯曾用1亿美元买下Hulu公司10%的股份。但这是带卖出期权的，该期权2012年秋季生效，即可以2亿美元由Hulu赎回。

    去年10月，普罗维登斯卖掉了这笔期权，让业内大跌眼镜，同时也让大家纷纷猜测，Hulu将往何处去。毕竟普罗维登斯唯一的兴趣是看到自己对Hulu的这类投资能实现收益增长并获利。这么看来，如果它依然深信Hulu仍将大幅增长，为什么要卖掉这些股份呢？由于普罗维登斯的利益与吉拉尔一致，因此传言日益甚嚣尘上：吉拉尔留在Hulu的时日无多了。信息技术分析公司佛雷斯特研究公司（Forrester Research）的媒体分析师詹姆斯•麦奎维称：“那些想看到Hulu的营收和观众人数双双增长的人再也兴奋不起来了。不过吉拉尔还能待这么长时间让我颇为惊讶。”

    However, tension between Kilar and the media owners had been escalating for some time. Missteps and internal bickering over Hulu's direction had been rising behind the scenes. In some cases, it spilled out into the public domain.

    In February 2011, Kilar had a Jerry Maguire moment when he issued a 2,000 word diatribe on his blog, basically claiming old TV was dead -- a manifesto that didn't set well with media owners like News Corp's Fox and Disney's ABC. The previous year, he opposed the owners' plans to add a $9.99 a month subscription plan, suggesting instead a more reasonable $4.99 fee to stay competitive. In the end, Hulu's owners compromised with a $7.99 rate for what became Hulu Plus. Kilar also made frantic calls to owners when he learned some were making content deals with rivals, such as Netflix (NFLX), a move he felt undermined Hulu's product.

    Then there was Hulu's proposed IPO that never happened in 2010, and the failed effort to sell itself in 2011. There was a firm -- and high -- offer to buy Hulu on the table, according to one person familiar with the situation. But the owners were reluctant to sell the venture because they wanted to maintain control over the pricing and licensing of their content thereby ensuring Hulu didn't cannibalize conventional TV ad revenue, the person said. This came as competition was heating up in the sector from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Google (GOOG), DISH Network's (DISH) TV Everywhere, Comcast's Xfinity, NimbleTV and others.

    All of this turmoil vexed both Kilar and the company's fourth owner, private equity giant Providence Equity Partners. Providence had acquired a 10% stake in Hulu for $100 million in 2007, but had a put option, which became exercisable last Fall, to sell the stake back to the company for $200 million.

    In October, Providence exercised that option, raising eyebrows and opening up a Pandora's box of speculation about Hulu's future. Afterall, Providence's sole interest is in seeing its investments, like Hulu, grow and profit. So, why would it sell its stake in Hulu if it believed there was still considerable growth ahead? Since Providence's interests were aligned with Kilar's, rumors went into overdrive that Kilar's days at the company were likely numbered. "Someone who wanted to see financial growth, audience growth, wasn't so thrilled anymore" says James McQuivey, a media analyst at Forrester (FORR) Research. "I was surprised Kilar stayed as long as he did," McQuivey adds.