Hulu to go paid in 2010

xycury

xycury

CAGiversary!
Feedback
17 (100%)
http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2009/10/hulu-to-charge-viewers-money-i.php

Chase Carey, the deputy chairman of News. Corp -- which co-owns Hulu -- says the popular online destination that carries TV programming, will start charging users, probably as soon as 2010, B&C reports.

Noting that “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online,” Carey added that “I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”

Carey made his remarks at B&C's On-Screen Summit in New York on Oct. 21. He later told B&C's Claire Atkinson that not all content on Hulu would be behind a pay wall.

Interestingly, at the TVWeek Innovation360 Conference last week, Jeff Bewkes, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, said that Hulu would eventually go to a pay model. "That's not an if," Bewkes said, "that's a when." Looks like "eventually" is coming sooner than later.

More importantly, it indicates that a number of media executives at the very top of their companies believe that TV shows on the Web cannot just be given away, especially to those users who don't have cable or some sort of TV service for which they pay.

--Chuck Ross
Click to expand...

If they are paid, and they don't buff up their content and only charge $5/mo and NO commercials, with offline view, then no thanks.

Thoughts?
 
Why the hell are there commercials if they're being "given away"? Do they not get paid by advertisers? Isn't that how TV has always worked? This seems like it would be a lot cheaper on their end, yet they need more than advertising?
 
Damnit Hulu, I've been around since launch. If they feel the need to zap more money from me (there are ad's already) I'll stop using the service and look elsewhere.
 
I refuse to pay for online content. I'll stick with DVRing and Netflixing. I don't watch stuff much online anyway (only if I miss something I didnt' DVR etc.).

Sucks watching on a monitor and there's not an easy way to hook my laptops up to my 50" TV since it lacks an RGB port, and my laptops don't have any other video outs.
 
Good, then maybe Hulu will get some decent fucking content. Right now all they have is The Mole 1 & 2 (HELL YEAH!) and Temptation Island 1 & 2 (DOUBLE HELL YEAH!)
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Good, then maybe Hulu will get some decent fucking content. Right now all they have is The Mole 1 & 2 (HELL YEAH!) and Temptation Island 1 & 2 (DOUBLE HELL YEAH!)[/QUOTE]

They have a teeny bit more than that, but yeah, I agree that the content of it needs a massive increase to justify the price.

I'm not paying them $$/month just for 3 or 4 new shows... It's worse than VoD with Cable....
 
If they can't see that this will effectively kill the service, they're obviously not familiar with the internet. I use hulu all the time but won't pay a dime to do so. Raise your ad rates if you need more money.
 
[quote name='bvharris']If they can't see that this will effectively kill the service, they're obviously not familiar with the internet. I use hulu all the time but won't pay a dime to do so. Raise your ad rates if you need more money.[/QUOTE]

I will not pay for hulu as it exists in its current state. If they bring something new to the table, and aren't going to overcharge for the service, then I'll think about it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why the hell are there commercials if they're being "given away"? Do they not get paid by advertisers? Isn't that how TV has always worked? This seems like it would be a lot cheaper on their end, yet they need more than advertising?[/QUOTE]

You have to pay for TIVO and they still have advertising on their menus.
 
If they try to pull this with Hulu as it currently exists, I, like many others, will turn to alternative means.

However, if they can make this content readily available on PS3/360/Cell Phones, they don't delay the release of TV Shows and air it as close to the original airing as possible, I might consider it. Not really holding my breath for that though.
 
it was bound to happen sooner or later. i rarely use hulu, so i dont mind much. my gf has used it quite a bit though, oh well.
 
Ha ha its so funny because everyone is already preparing for alternatives for it. They need to recoupe the money for getting all those actors doing their hulu commercials, and their viagra commercials arent cutting it. Of course as stated above, if they knew anything about the internet, the money comes from ads for more successful businesses, not something that everyone can/will get for free either way. Oh well, my random watching of stuff on there is no big loss.
 
[quote name='mtxbass1']This really isn't a surprise, considering they are owned by News Corp.[/QUOTE]

ah, they're owned by News Corp, GE and Disney. If your going to point one out, point them all out.
 
I don't own a TV, so I normally just download shows I want to see, since it's the poor man's DVR. Hulu is usually easier, and at least the networks get SOME compensation through ads.

They seem to be forgetting that TV shows are already widely distributed for free on the internet. Sites like Hulu bridge the gap; make it a pay service and it's back to the free distro that networks have no control over.
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']ah, they're owned by News Corp, GE and Disney. If your going to point one out, point them all out.[/QUOTE]

I was just going by what the article said. I didn't know GE owned them anymore.
 
[quote name='whoasaywhat']You have to pay for TIVO and they still have advertising on their menus.[/QUOTE]

So does Xbox Live, what's your point? When's the last time you had to pay to use an antenna?
 
I would pay for Hulu - it's an awesome site with a ton of stuff I watch, and it's far more convenient than having to catch a show on its original showtime. I'd get my money's worth out of it easily if it was $5-$10 a month.
 
I'd gladly pay for Hulu, if it's a reasonable amount (and I'm sure it would be)...

Hulu's offerings are super to what I had with Comcast, in a more convenient format, with fewer commercials, and Comcast was charging me $80/month... I dont think there's any way Hulu would charge anywhere near that. I'd gladly pay $20 or so. Hell of a lot better deal than the current telecom companies offer.
 
I gotta see expanded offerings before I'd pay for it. I wouldn't pay more than $5 a month.

One thing that would get me interested is if the fucktards at Fox put Murder In Small Town X on there. Temptation Island is on there, why not MISTX? That was just as big a milestone in reality TV as TI. At least that one dude still has all the episodes up on Youtube. Picture quality is shit, but the only other option is VHS bootlegs.
 
I used to watch Colbert on Hulu but I've experienced some slowdowns with my internet connection on occasion. This kinda made watching Hulu problematic sometimes...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hulu if it went to a paid model even a cheap one would pretty much go the way of Napster. Sure someone out there uses it but most folks would just go back to downloading episodes off sites like they did before.

They should keep it free but offer a Premium service for folks who want to watch ad free or have full access to an entire shows seasons. That's the only way I see how a paid model would work.
 
It really tells you something about the state of online video.

Youtube has yet to turn a profit. There are tons of other websites out there but who knows how long they will last...
 
[quote name='Xevious']It really tells you something about the state of online video.

Youtube has yet to turn a profit. There are tons of other websites out there but who knows how long they will last...[/QUOTE]


Yep. That's why I have no problem with charging a reasonable fee. It's not just about me, it's about someones job.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Why the hell are there commercials if they're being "given away"? Do they not get paid by advertisers? Isn't that how TV has always worked? This seems like it would be a lot cheaper on their end, yet they need more than advertising?[/QUOTE]

Companies aren't willing to pay nearly as much for online ad space as they are broadcast or cable ad space, so if you're thinking it's a 1:1 ratio, it's not. On top of that, the overhead on a streaming video site (especially one as popular as Hulu) is quite high, and people who are watching online probably aren't buying the content on DVD afterwards. This all eventually translates to either losing money, or merely breaking even. So no, free streaming with ads is not cheaper.

Certainly there's a thresh hold for this sort of thing. I wouldn't be willing to pay more than say, five bucks a month for the premium access with no ads. I don't see it as any different than various donation based message boards and sites out there. I'm willing to give those guys a little scratch for the great content they produce, so why not hulu?
 
Give me a way to get that content to my TV without constructing a special HTPC, (XBox 360 Streaming, etc), and give a reasonable value proposition i.e. similar content and quality to NetFlix streaming, but with a differentiation on content, and sure. I'd pay.

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. Unless they screw up the model, of course. They're not really pioneering anything here.
 
[quote name='yesiamaplant']Companies aren't willing to pay nearly as much for online ad space as they are broadcast or cable ad space, so if you're thinking it's a 1:1 ratio, it's not. [/quote]

I know that, but only because they're assuming they're not getting as much out of it. If it becomes more popular and more people are watching it then they'll pay more. I imagine at the beginning of ad-supported TV the advertisers weren't willing to shell out as much either, but it seems to have worked out.

[quote name='yesiamaplant']On top of that, the overhead on a streaming video site (especially one as popular as Hulu) is quite high, and people who are watching online probably aren't buying the content on DVD afterwards.[/quote]

How is that? I would think that streaming from some servers would be much cheaper than maintaining broadcasting stations in several cities in each state, which is supported entirely by ads.

And why won't the people watching it buy it on DVD? They don't keep everything up forever, so it's not really like an online DVD for free (plus they have ads).

I'm not saying that they're definitely making a ton of money on this right now as it is, but if they fuck it up and start charging, then it won't grow to the point that advertisers are willing to pay more, etc. and the ad-supported model definitely won't work. I don't think they're doing this so that they can break even or because the old ad-supported model can't work. I think they're doing it because they don't want the ad-supported model (exclusively at least). They want to charge directly for content and are probably hoping that they can make DVD-like revenue without even having to make anything, just by serving the digital copies they already have.

I don't know if they're planning on doing a monthly fee (so that you have to keep paying or you have nothing) or a nickel-and-dime iTunes/XBLA/etc. type model so that you pay a little for each thing and you get to keep it (sort of, depending on the model). But either way I doubt it's because they think they won't make money if it's free and ad-supported, but rather because they think they can make more money if it isn't, and if they get you used to that then you'll never question it, and if they directly control it then you won't have any options. And if they can get you used to paying for it and put ads in it (which will become more expensive over time), then even better.

Now if they can defeat this pesky net neutrality stuff then they'll really be set.
 
I would consider this if this pay system eliminated the "must be in usa" thing they have that requires users outside the USA to use a proxy and mess w/ all that. $60 a year to get American tv would seem worth it to me and others outside the USA I think....

*messing w/ torrents/proxies is just a pain...
 
My first reaction was "2010? Who cares? That's so far away!" Man, this year has been a blur.

That said, I like Hulu a lot, but I'm not going to pay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top