Looking at comScore’s latest Video Metrix rankings of video sites, I came across an interesting bullet point: Users watched an average of 11.6 minutes of video on Hulu. Eleven minutes! Actually, almost 12 minutes. That’s a long time. That’s more than YouTube. And almost four time longer than the average online video clip (3 minutes).

For years, online measurement companies like comScore and Nielsen|NetRatings have told us that the average video clip was very short. A few months ago, I saw it was at 2.8 minutes. Now it’s creeping up to 3 minutes. That’s not a large jump, but it’s noticeable because Hulu is the one drawing people to watch longer videos.

Hulu is managing to do what has been impossible for years; make people watch TV on the Internet.  YouTube’s strategy is more about user-generated content, connecting with others and creating the next Internet celebrity. YouTube is only beginning to license Hollywood content, and open up to longer-form videos, along with live streaming in order to maintain competitive.

Hulu is more about generating revenue and actually has a business plan. They partner with their parent companies NBC and Fox to get content that people actually want to see. That means that Hulu can actually sell advertising, whereas YouTube is finding it difficult to monetize user-generated content and spends untold millions on video hosting. In fact, some analysts believe that Hulu is (almost) profitable (unless you ask Henry Blodget).

But the important part is that Hulu is already beating YouTube in terms of the average vieweing time. comScore didn’t release the average length of YouTube’s videos, however I’d be interested to know what it is. Are they really far behind Hulu? Are they close?

Despite Hulu’s almost 12 minute average viewing time, the truth is that most people still don’t prefer to watch long-form content on the web.

However, the Internet may be a great way of delivering content to the TV. Just look at services like the Roku NetFlix Player which delivers movies to my TV or Tivo, where I can access any YouTube video from the comfort of my couch.

Well, the NetFlix Player (by Roku) has been out for about a month now and I was wondering who out there has purchased one yet. I held out, but this weekend I decided to order it and test it out. After all, hands on reviews are the best way to go I think.

While I was writing a story on NetFlix for the subscription-based IPTV Bulletin that I’m editing, I did some research on the competition, namely Apple TV and Vudu. They are all set-top boxes designed to deliver movies and TV shows directly to TV sets, not PCs. It’s not a very crowded market, so I’m hoping to get hands-on with all of them in the future.

In the meantime, here’s the comparison table I did.

The biggest plus about the NetFlix Player is its low price. Just $99 means it’s an impulse buy and not something you have to consider stretching your credit card debt such as with Apple TV (up to $329). Plus, you don’t have to pay per download like you do with Vudu and Apple TV. Again, this lowers the overall cost proposition for consumers.

I don’t think the NetFlix Player will be a killer device, but I think it’s definitely changing the game through its low prices.

So, I’m wondering… Have you bought the NetFlix Player?  If no, why not?

P.S. Seems like NetFlix Player shipments are delayed about two weeks, so I’ll have to wait a bit longer than I thought. However, this may be good news for Roku and NetFlix since it seems like demand is outstripping supply.

Technorati Tags: Vudu, Roku, NetFlix, NetFlix player, Apple, Apple TV