ComScore (SCOR) says Hulu generated 856 million video views during the month, second only to Google’s (GOOG) YouTube in the U.S. This makes sense given that Hulu is driven in large part by broadcast TV, which starts running new shows in the fall.

And if Hulu didn’t post record numbers after adding ABC’s shows to the mix, there would be some real head-scratching. But it will be very interesting to see what happens to these numbers next year if Hulu does move ahead with some sort of pay service.

As always, note the huge disparity between YouTube and everyone else. And it’s also worth noting that while Hulu generates more views than any of its non-YouTube competitors, its reach isn’t quite as deep:

All of which is less relevant than the joint venture’s performance, which is still the subject of much debate. People familiar with Hulu tell me it is “close to break-even,” but I worry about putting much stock in words like “close” (or “break-even,” for that matter) without seeing numbers.

And in any case, that’s only half the issue for its owners these days; just as important are the performance of its parent companies and whether all the free stuff on Hulu is helping or hindering their networks and studios.

But more on that after the holiday. For now, here’s wishing you and yours a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.

Internet advertising increased a bit–1.7 percent, precisely–over the past three months. But that’s only when compared with the previous three months, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Compared with the same period a year ago, Web ads are still down 5.4 percent, the trade group said (see chart below; click to enlarge).

Given that I work for a free, ad-supported Web site, I’m anything but an unbiased observer here, and I’d like to put a sunnier spin on things. But recall that the economy started its freefall well over a year ago, so comparisons to Q3 2008 should be particularly easy to beat. Even the boosterish IAB can only call the numbers a “hopeful sign” at best.

Still, if you’re looking for positive signs, you can take Google’s (GOOG) declaration that the worst is over, and I’ve heard plenty of anecdotal stories from small online players that spending is perking up again–though I’m also beginning to hear that some folks may have been overly optimistic about Q4. We’ll know soon.

Personally, I think this stuff needs to be a lot shorter, like the industry satire that CollegeHumor put together a while back. But whatever. It’s amusing enough, and it’s not aimed at me, anyway.

Which is a good reminder that despite what armchair ad critics like me have to say, a lot of the rebranding efforts that Yahoo, and now, AOL, have underway aren’t aimed at us anyway: They’re aimed at a relatively small number of ad buyers, planners and other pros who decide where marketing money goes. But we’re still going to enjoy assessing them.

And yes, while we’re at it, let’s note that this video is running on YouTube, which is owned by Google (GOOG). What does Carol Bartz plan to do about video, anyway?

No purchase price disclosed, but I’m fairly confident this was in the sub-$50 million category. Teracent had been looking to raise something like $5 million earlier this year and had previously raised around $6 million, much of it from New Enterprise Associates.

I’m told the company was doing something under $2 million a year in revenue, and when I talked to CEO Vikas Jha in September, he told me that the three-and-a-half-year-old company is profitable.

One immediate beneficiary of the deal: Rival ad optimizer Tumri, which does very similar work.

But Spotify has yet to make a key expansion: To the U.S., where the big music labels worry that consumers will love everything about the site except paying for it. That’s bad, since Spotify is supposed to work best as a subscription service.

Most Americans have never heard of Symbian, though it remains the biggest player in the global smartphone market (as long as you use a broad definition of smartphone). But it’s telling that Spotify made a point of making its service compatible with Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone and Google’s (GOOG) Android handsets first.

In any event, Spotify is only available via mobile to paying subscribers, who shell out around $16 a month in the U.K. (and less in some countries). They key question for the music business is how many subscribers there are.

Spotify won’t release statistics, but one number that I’ve heard from people close to the company is 100,000, which works out to less than two percent of the company’s overall user base (free users can listen to the service only on their PCs and have to endure a small smattering of ads). But U.S. music industry executives worry that the subscription number may be even lower than that.

The two sides continue to chat, and conventional wisdom is that the service will indeed get to the U.S. one day. But at one point, Spotify was talking about coming to America in 2009, but that looks just about impossible. Now, CEO Daniel Ek is talking about the first half of 2010.

Want to watch YouTube on your TV? There are plenty of devices and services that let you do that, with more on the way.

But starting next month, at least one gadget is getting its YouTube feed shut down. Syabas Technology, which makes a line of set-top boxes called “Popcorn Hour,” says Google’s (GOOG) video site has told it to remove YouTube content beginning December 2.

This one is a straight he said/he said: Syabas, via a blog post from COO Alex Limberis, says it has an agreement to use YouTube’s clips, but that YouTube had changed the terms of the agreement recently. YouTube won’t address that claim directly, but offered this statement:

Since July of 2008, YouTube’s Terms of Service has restricted implementations for televisions based on our APIs. YouTube has been in active discussions with various developers on how best to implement YouTube on set top boxes and TVs. There are several companies, however, that have deployed solutions, like video scraping technology, to circumvent the rules and violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.  Companies that have negotiated agreements to use our APIs, like TiVo, Sony, Panasonic and PS3 are not impacted.

The first-gut reaction here is to draw a parallel between this move and Hulu’s attempt to prevent video software start-up Boxee from using its stuff.

But in that case, at least, Hulu was trying to restrict access to a data stream it was making freely available to the rest of the world. Here, both sides agree that YouTube requires a contract before it will release its API to commercial partners.

So, the real question is: Did the two companies have an agreement, and what if, anything, has changed recently.

Gentlemen?

[T-shirt image courtesy of Zazzle.com.]

Call me Professor Positive if you must, but I don’t think that’s terrible: It means that 60 percent of phone users are okay with ads. And I suspect the number will be higher once the ads move from the theoretical/novelty realm into something you see whenever you use your phone or in exchange for getting something of value.

(And yes, I understand that a vocal minority absolutely hates advertising of all sorts and is reading this story on a computer that runs ad-blocking software. Good for you! Please let me know how you’d like to pay for this stuff and everything else you consume on the Web).

Here’s the research from Parks Associates, via Mediapost (click to enlarge):

Remember that even if mobile ads do take off as expected, it’s still going to be a relatively small business for some time. Bernstein Research figures mobile ads may generate $2.2 billion by 2013, which is nothing to sneeze at, but still a small fraction of the $32 billion Web ad market. Most of the mobile ad dollars, of course, are expected to flow to Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

The Web is full of chatter about yesterday’s game, but video is hard to come by. Again, this appears to be a case of Google’s (GOOG) YouTube flexing its ContentID system on behalf of copyright owners, in this case the European sports marketing company Sportfive.

This is a theoretical victory for content creators, who want to be able to control how and where their stuff appears on the Web. But since there doesn’t seem to be an approved video, it’s not really a solution. If it’s a story that’s attracting most of the world’s attention, someone’s going to find it, somewhere.

For instance, a bit of searching did yield these two, at least for now: A high-quality YouTube version of what appears to be a French broadcast, via the Los Angeles Times, and what appears to be a German highlight reel, via DailyMotion and FootyTube, which consistently has great soccer highlights, legal or not (thanks to Zen Web Solutions for the reminder).

For those who haven’t been following along, here’s what we know about Vevo:

• It will be powered by Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which will share ad revenue with the joint venture.
• It is being run by Rio Caraeff, Universal’s veteran digital guy.
• In addition to its equity partnership, its distribution strategy is modeled after Hulu: Sony and Universal videos will appear exclusively on the site and/or YouTube, but the site plans on licensing its stream to other outlets, as Hulu does with portals like MySpace and Comcast’s (CMCSA) Fancast. One obvious place to license the stuff: Hulu itself.
• Neither EMI nor Warner Music Group (WMG), which has created its own Vevo-like channel with YouTube, is participating in the venture, but they could.

But oddly, the deal is the only one of its kind. While the big music labels have played footsie with Hulu in the past, they have yet to actually move any of their clips there.

That could still happen one day, and the site hints that you may see more clips coming down the road. But Hulu is less valuable for the labels than it could have been a year ago: Since then, three of the big four have struck deals that give them much more incentive to show their stuff on Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, the world’s biggest video site.

Vivendi’s Universal Music and Sony (SNE) have a deal that locks up their stuff exclusively on Vevo, a sort of “Hulu for music videos” that will be powered by YouTube. And Warner Music Group (WMG) has convinced YouTube to give the label its own branded channel for its clips.

No word on financials for the Hulu deal, but I’d surprised if this generates much cash for EMI. Hulu’s core partners–News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and Disney’s (DIS) ABC–have deals that let them keep 70 percent of any ad revenue their stuff generates on the site. But other partners get closer to 50 percent.

In other Norah news, my soon-to-be sort-of neighbor is having construction problems. Here she is taking on one of the great Wilco songs:

Haven’t heard a price yet, but I wouldn’t expect much, given that this deal, like the iLike purchase MySpace made earlier this year, is an “acqhire”–News Corp.’s (NWS) social network/portal wants to buy Imeem for its “sales team, engineering, Snocap and other Imeem IP,” a person familiar with the transaction tells me.

The deal, which isn’t finalized, was first reported by TechCrunch.

Once it’s finished, it will conclude an up-and-down year for Imeem, in which the service pleaded with the major music labels, successfully, to change the terms of its music licensing deals, which were killing the streaming music site. But that wasn’t enough to prevent investor Warner Music Group (WMG) from writing off the money it had sunk in the service (though Warner later ended up increasing its stake in the service without actually writing another check).

Like other Web music services that sprang up in the past few years, Imeem wanted to provide users with free tunes, and pay the licensing fees by selling advertising against its user base. But the economics for that proposition appear unworkable: The labels, who are afraid that giving away music on the Web will kill any chance they have of selling the stuff, are reluctant to cut their fees substantially, and ad dollars for music sites have been relatively hard to come by.

That dynamic is still causing problems for MySpace’s own music service, one of the few remaining sites offering free streams. It will be interesting to see how that company is affected by “OneBox,” the new Google (GOOG) search feature which provides free streams for searchers, then directs them to MySpace and LaLa, one of the other surviving services.

But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.

Little by little, AOL is offering investors more and more details about what the company will look like after it spins off from Time Warner (TWX).

The problem: The more AOL discloses, the less attractive the company looks.

The most recent nuggets come from a preliminary prospectus Time Warner filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday. Some, but not all, of this has broken out in previous filings or earnings announcements. In any case, it helps to see it all in one place.

The big picture: AOL’s subscription service, which accounts for the “vast majority” of the company’s operating income, is withering away. But advertising revenue, which was supposed to replace that money, has been declining for nearly two years (see tables below; click to enlarge):

And here’s a closer look at the ad business and its recent performance:

The good news for AOL is that some of this is the result of self-inflicted wounds, and it’s possible to heal some of them. The company’s previous regime seemed to go out of its way to mismanage and dismantle the sales force, for example, and if new CEO Tim Armstrong can rebuild that team, he can make a bit of headway.

The flip side is that some of AOL’s woes may be well beyond Armstrong’s control. Money from a Google (GOOG) search deal, which provided a third of AOL’s $2.1 billion in ad revenue last year–and had been increasing up until this year–is now dropping off, too.

Google dollars fell by $42 million in the most recent quarter, representing more than half the $75 million drop in ad dollars from its AOL Media unit. And Google income fell by $90 million in the last nine months, representing about 40 percent of $197 million decline in that period.

AOL says some of the Google decline stems from its declining subscriber base, which brought down search query volume. The rest is due to lower revenue per search query–that is, Google has changed its algorithm in way that ends up punishing AOL. But Armstrong can’t do a whole lot about either of these variables.

He can try extracting more money from Google, whose search deal expires at the end of next year, or from Microsoft (MSFT), which is trying to gain share any way it can.

Earlier this year, Armstrong turned down a new deal from Google and now says he’ll deal with search after he gets other things in place. But the longer he waits, the less leverage he may have.

AOL shareholders will be paying Armstrong well to figure this out, though. His three-year deal pays him a base of $1 million a year, plus annual cash bonuses of up to $4 million. In addition, he’s getting $20 million worth of stock grants to make up for Google shares he left on the table when he resigned from his old employer. And he’ll get stock options worth as much as 1.5 percent of the company once the spinoff is complete.

That said, AOL will also be paying former AOL CEO Randy Falco, who got tossed out in March. Falco will continue to pull down a $1 million salary through 2010–and he’ll get $7.5 million in bonuses through then as well. Former AOL COO Ron Grant, meanwhile, will earn $750,000 a year, plus another $3.3 million in bonuses.

Or at least that’s the way I read it. My guess is that Jim is using the “leaky wall” strategy to access the rest of the Journal piece rather than using a paid subscription. But the writers seem to have made that deliberately oblique. Or perhaps they think their audience has zero interest in the minutiae of media economics.

And for the record: In addition to Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.

The tool has been around for a while and got a formal roll out earlier this fall, but Google (GOOG) product manager Nick Jacobi just showed it off to the chattering (and tweeting) classes gathered at the Monaco Media Forum, so it’s going to get another burst of attention. (Also of interest, apparently: A dustup between Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner and Arianna Huffington. Looking forward to watching that.)

Anyway, the Insights tool is self-explanatory and entertaining, at the very least. For instance, I used it to find out what 35-44 year-old males who like advertising, beer and football (ahem) are watching, and got this results page.

The most interesting part of the results is a mosaic of videos (above; click to enlarge) that my target demographic is watching, which includes some obvious stuff, like “Amazing NFL Football Catches,” and some really obscure stuff, like an episode of “Shazam.” I also found this Kirby Puckett tribute, which pleased me to no end: