Hulu Says Goodbye to Free Entertainment
Filed under: Home Entertainment
Almost nothing will stay free on the Internet forever. In the beginning, it will be available to all -- tantalizing you with its new ways, sucking you into addiction. And then the inevitable announcement will come: We must add ads! We must require payment! This stuff isn't free, you know! We need to make ends meet!Broadcasting & Cable reports that News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey says: "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online." All about "value," he continues: "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."
NewCorp swears that there's no timeline set yet, but "supposes it's at least in 2010." So, as soon as next year, you might have to pay to delight in all things Hulu. But would you? I can't see most Hulu fans continuing to visit the site if they have to pay to do so. Isn't that the whole point of the service? Now maybe if that pay service came with every single TV show to air, available whenever you want, I'd consider it. Otherwise, no way.
Will you pay for Hulu?
[via EW]
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
10-22-2009 @ 5:22PM
Reuben said...
I certainly wouldn't pay a dime. I barely go there as it is.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 5:35PM
Matthew said...
I either DVR or wait for DVD. Hulu has mediocre quality and there's barely an archive. I've only used it to kill down time at work, so paying would be counterproductive. If I really wanted to watch TV while on the job, I'd bring a torrented copy with me.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 5:37PM
Dan said...
Good. Free streaming TV is bad for the industry and for the public. Yes it seems awesome. Free everything is awesome, but revenue and the budgets for these shows are generated from advertising which people don't have to watch online. You will need to pay for these shows in some way or another and the free ride people have been getting has gone on too long as it is.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:31PM
Charlesv said...
Except that hulu has ads? That can be better targetted and tracked for performance, therefore are more valuable?
I have been on a no-cable, only-torrent input for several years (even though I only really watch network shows) because I can watch at my convenience, whenever I want. I would gladly watch commercials if a show was made available at the same instant it aired, or at least the intsant its airing finished. Having to wait til the next evening means I'm more likely to pirate the show in that amount of time.
Give us a reason to do the right thing, and make it easy to do so, and consumers will. Making it harder to consume their content with a paywall will only make things worse.
10-22-2009 @ 6:33PM
Charlesv said...
not to mention that ads onhulu can't be skipped. I would wager a hulu watcher watches more ads than the average DVR-savvy user.
10-22-2009 @ 6:35PM
Dan said...
Ad revenue from the internet isn't worth jack because people switch tabs and even if they don't, it is so small it can barely afford to pay cheap sitcoms much less full production value programs.
Hulu is training entitled media goers such as yourself who feel they have a "right" to anything when it comes to material that is being produced for them.
People don't understand that there will be no more films or tv shows if there is no income to pay the people who make them. Or the quality will dip greatly.
10-22-2009 @ 5:42PM
Hatch said...
I might pay. I only watch a few shows and at odd hours; I can do that with Hulu. I also appreciate the short commercials. I might pay $10. If it's much more, I'll just buy individual episodes on iTunes.
---
http://geeky100.com
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 5:45PM
Rich said...
If they offer more shows including more previous seasons then I might before it. Otherwise, there are other options out there, or will be.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:38PM
Michael said...
Pay Hulu for content that already has ads?
Hulu may be saying goodbye to free entertainment but the internet will say goodbye to Hulu if they start charging. Oh well, it was an interesting experiment while it lasted but like the music industry the tv industry continues to shoot itself in the foot.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:01PM
Jacob Klinger said...
The way Hulu operates, you'll pay AND get more commercials. Count me out. There are easier, and better, ways to see the shows.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:02PM
Rob said...
Now they should start charging a subscription to watch ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc. over the air too. Because it's bad for the industry too because people can turn away or leave the room when the ads are on to skip them. Honestly, why do they need to go to a subscription model when these shows are already getting their revenue from the ads on broadcast television then Hulu is running ads (just fewer) to pay for its licensing and operating costs...if they really need the money they should up the advertising. Look at how the broadcast companies easily survive from an advertising model and they have way more overhead (employees, equipment, buildings, etc.) than Hulu ever will. I see it as a bad thing for Hulu and the shows, either people will just DVR the episodes, miss them entirely or watch them on TV for free like they were originally broadcast.
Reply
10-23-2009 @ 5:42AM
Allan said...
What I think would be awesome is if they kept uploading more recent episodes for free, but charged an additional fee to watch shows that aren't being put up on hulu
(such as the rest of the episodes of SNL...)
The Hulu business model is a great one. I don't believe they will switch to a completely payed service, but I do think an optional subscription service would make it a lot more useful...
10-25-2009 @ 12:34AM
nerrojj said...
So you telling me you or your parents don't pay for cable or satellite television. If I am not mistaking there is a mouthy fee of some sort that has to be pay or buy-buy television. But I do agree with you on some level because a lot of the network are now allowing viewers to watch full episodes on there own site like NBC.com and Heroes. So if other "free' outlets like Hulu are make change to a chargeable model then why don't I just go to the networks site and watch the episodes for "free" there
10-22-2009 @ 6:22PM
itscoldmilk said...
if they completely went cold turkey and made the entire site paid, I can't see this move doing much for the site. I'd rather just wait another day for the episode to hit Netflix streaming at HD quality and without any advertisements.
I really love Hulu's RSS options, instead I'd rather have them set-up a premium service where you can stream entire seasons and find some way for them to open up streaming to TV I can see this working.
either that or I'll just go back to torrenting everything.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:31PM
Charlesv said...
Also:
"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content."
You mean a free model, like the BROADCAST MODEL? What a bunch of numbnuts.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 6:38PM
The Deej said...
I can't see anything on Hulu anyway being in Canada. Maybe this will put an end to preview and / or clips from shows being blocked because they are on Huly.
It's called the WORLD wide web for a reason.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 7:16PM
faketrout said...
I will gladly pay, if Hulu offers a streaming service on devices like XBox, Playstation, Blu Ray players, etc.
Keep it under $20/month and give me HD streaming, and it'll make me cancel cable.
...and I work for Comcast.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 7:29PM
NP said...
Nope, not gonna pay for it.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 10:29PM
Joel said...
Dan, your argument doesn't hold a lot of water. That fear that people turn away from ads would be more legitimate if not for DVRs (and long before that) channel surfing. That's the advertiser's job, isn't it? To get you not to change the channel (or open a tab, or whatever).
I can recognize the need to change the model, but I wouldn't pay for hulu. Movie selection? There are more and better selections on Netflix, which has a pay model but offers you more (like DVD and Blu-ray, as well as xbox compatibility) for as little as $10 a month. TV shows? When my DVR service fails to record or something I'll go to Hulu, but most of that time that content--especially for network shows--is free online already through network websites.
To make the service worthwhile, they'd really need to change things up, because what they're doing now I don't see too many people willing to pay for.
Then again, I don't understand people who buy shows on iTunes, and there seems to be a market for that, so who knows.
Reply
10-22-2009 @ 9:33PM
Johnny Cat said...
One word: Crackle.
Reply