The caveat is that the source of Amel’s predictions are a bit unfounded, as neither company releases its ad revenue data. Some, like Valleywag’s Paul Boutin argue that the figures are part of a promotional stunt. Mediamemo digs deeper into the details: Amel believes Hulu is already trumping YouTube when it comes to profits. He estimates that Hulu is bringing in about $12 million per year after everything’s all paid for—while YouTube continues to hemorrhage money each year.

Rafat adds: While YouTube certainly needs to step up its content monetization efforts, and its fits-and-starts efforts have been well documented before, I have continued doubts about Hulu’s claims, or proxy claims by others about how “successful” it is: firstly, six months of traffic growth doesn’t make anyone a success. Secondly, the company’s claims about 100 advertisers seems to always be undercut by tons of PSA ads, or the lack of ads in general on Hulu. I am a big consumer of Hulu video of all stripes, and I see more PSA ads than actual paid ads, so 80 percent sell through estimates by Screen Digest have to be taken with a big lump of salt.

Thirdly, how the Hulu deal works is that the site owns the inventory, so if JV partners Fox or NBCU want to sell ads across their own content, they have to buy it back. That’s maybe what’s giving bulk to Hulu’s revenues for now, but I would not be surprised if that deal term gets changed a year down the line. I have already heard rumblings of Fox Network people not being happy about Hulu, and how much exposure NBCU’s shows are getting through Hulu, as opposed to their own. So while the world’s gaga over Hulu for now, the real test is the actual revenues and the sustainability as a JV long term.