Do you Hulu?

Look out YouTube, there's a new Web site looking to capitalize on the popularity of Web-based video. Hulu.com is a new venture born of a partnership between NBC/Universal and Fox, along with several other partners, including Sony Pictures. Unlike YouTube however, which features low-quality user-generated content, Hulu serves up high-quality movies and TV shows on demand, for free (the service is ad supported). A typical 30 minute TV show would include 2 15-second promos at the beginning and end, plus one 30-second spot during the show. Advertisers feel that showing fewer ads will make them that much more memorable.



My take? I don't think Hulu.com will change the way people consume entertainment, but I agree with Entertainment Weekly when it said this will be just "one more way" people consume what Hulu calls "premium" entertainment. My only problem is with the assumption that people will accept the advertising model. When I encounter an ad that blocks me from the content I've tried to access, I view it about as happily as a pop-up. I try to close it or fast forward it, and when I can't, I'm not only less receptive to the message, I suddenly have negative feelings for the advertiser.

In an increasingly on-demand world where we can time-shift virtually any content, advertising that is forced is both unwelcome and increasingly antiquated. Although Hulu will suggest their model is permission-based, I think the industry needs to find new ways to reach (and interact with) audiences. Otherwise, solutions like Hulu will be viewed as somewhat less helpful than a DVR that enables millions of viewers to save programs and fast forward through the ads. Watch the video and make up your own mind.

Academic Differences

A report released Monday by the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports compared graduation rates at the four number 1 seeded schools in the NCAA tournament. The results put UNC heads and shoulders above the rest, graduating 86% of its players compared to KU (45%), UCLA and Memphis (40%). The report, however, measured a period from the '97-98 school year through '00-01. Central Florida's release of such outdated data is misleading, irresponsible and opportunistic.

That's strong language. After all, the data is intended to highlight possible trends. The reason I take offense is simple. Since the time the study was conducted, KU's basketball program has a different Head Coach, a different academic adviser and a different A.D. Do those three positions have an impact on graduation rates or the extent to which they are a priority at a school? Absolutely. Could changing those three positions initiate a renewed committment toward academic progress and even change a trend over the course of 7 or 8 years? No question.

Central Florida's report would almost be irrelevant were it not for the national data that can be drawn from such a study, repeated over time. I guess the thing that gets me is the implication that North Carolina, under Head Coach Roy Williams, demonstrates a stronger commitment to academic progress than Kansas. With all due respect to Coach Williams and his staff, he was at Kansas during the length of the study, along with the program's academic adviser. It's unfair to compare this year's four number 1 seeds- their current coaches, players and athletic departments- using such outdated data. Whether KU fans like it or not, a lot has changed since Roy left, but KU's commitment to academic excellence remains as strong as ever.

Political Humor

Given that the U.S. is fighting an unpopular war in Iraq, and that Bush's approval rating is embarrassingly low, it would seem the democrats would have a lock on winning the White House. It would seem. However, as previous elections have shown, the dems can often be their own worst enemy. John McCain has been able to save his money and coast to the nomination while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spend millions attacking one another while trying to secure the nomination. It's almost funny. Enjoy this recent political cartoon.

The Cancer Question

The role of celebrities in this year's presidential election is interesting to watch, with famous endorsements coming in from all sides. Although it is admirable for stars to leverage their celebrity in support of a particular candidate, I'm more impressed by one who uses his to support a cause.


As I've noted before in this blog, I'm a fan of Lance Armstrong for the way he's used his celebrity to fight for the cause that is near and dear to him: Cancer. Last night, Armstrong appeared on Larry King Live to push for cancer to be a national priority after an unprecedented drop in federal funding for the National Cancer Institute. During his interview, Lance was asked the question "which candidate would do the most in the fight against cancer?" In other words, who would Lance be endorsing as the cancer candidate?

Lance has always contended that cancer is not a partisan issue and he's admirably remained non-partisan in his advocacy. He answered the question by saying that, obviously, every candidate opposes cancer. It is up to us to challenge them on this complex issue by comparing specific policies, such as whether they would support a national smoking ban, following the lead of 23 states that have adopted statewide bans to prevent the single most preventable form of cancer death in America. Where do they stand on early detection programs? Federal funding for drug discovery? Access to clinical trials? Treatment for the uninsured? The list goes on and on.

While other celebrities will support the candidate they believe can change the world, Lance is asking them to support his cause and his fight. To me, this is a tremendous example of leadership on both a public and a personal level, and it is why I admire the man even more than the cyclist. Last August, the Lance Armstrong Foundation hosted the first ever LIVESTRONG Presidential Cancer Forum, demanding that each candidate answer what Lance refers to as the "cancer question." I hope you'll watch the video below.

A Tradition of Dominance

A great player was humbled by a great team. In fact, player-of-the-year candidate Michael Beasley's quiet 39-point performance saved kstate from one of the worst blowouts in the lopsided history of sunflower showdown. With no other wildcat teammate in double figures, it was up to Beasley to deliver on his profoundly arrogant and ill-advised guarantees of victory in Manhattan, Lawrence, Africa or anywhere the two teams would play. He failed, spectacularly.

Before the tipoff, Mike Lickert and his world-class videoboard team delivered one of the most stunning video tributes to Kansas Basketball I've seen- mainly due to the way it took an incredibly amped crowd and sent them into a fever pitch. Not the loudest I've ever heard (not even the loudest this season- a distinction clearly earned by the half-time presentation of the Orange Bowl trophy during the MU game)- but deafening by any standard. This was without a doubt the biggest kstate game I've seen in Allen.

And what to make of it? Although kstate's surprising win in Manhattan may have led some to consider the possibility of ksu sweeping the Jayhawks in basketball, Saturday's victory proved one thing. One victory in 25 years for kstate against the Jayhawks in Manhattan is considered absolutely unacceptable by KU standards. Without kstate having recruited (shockingly) a "player-of-the-year" candidate who poured in 39 points, can you imagine the outcome? A great player was humbled by a greater team, and as the pre-game video showed, KU's is a tradition of dominance. See you in Africa...