CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Hulu wants to screw you; wants to start charging for content
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hulu wants to screw you; wants to start charging for content

post #1 of 31
10/23/09 at 2:23am
Thread Starter 
Looks like it's back to waiting for TV seasons to hit DVD for me, as Hulu wants to start charging users for content starting as early as next year.

Quote:
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.
Thanks to Renn Brown's Twitter page for the head's up.

Also, I really hope this isn't considered main page newsworthy. If so, a million apologies on my part.
Reply
post #2 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:08am
I'm curious as to what the impact will be. I'm not a huge tv watcher. I'm usually watching at most 1-3 tv shows "as they air." I don't have cable, so I use Hulu a fair amount. I have such a backlog of movies and tv shows I want to watch, that watching things as they come out isn't that important to me.

I think the real question will be, though, do other network sites keep things free. If the major networks all keep putting their shows up on their sites for free, Hulu charging means Hulu will die a quick death (I assume).

It doesn't affect me much, but I'm interested to see how it all plays out.
Reply
post #3 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:17am
I honestly don't see this working out for them. unless they've devised some sort of amazing new pay model that no one has conceived of yet?
Reply
post #4 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:19am
Hulu is entrenched to some degree now. Which makes it surprising they'd come out in favor of piracy like this.
Reply
post #5 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:24am
Old media still clueless about this whole internet thing. News at 11.

Can't anyone look at the 22 fucking billions of cash Google has and take a hint? Or does being educated in business means you get stripped of logic and imagination?
Reply
post #6 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:44am
Quote:
i think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Reply
post #7 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:56am
I do think that while those quotes (thanks for highlighting that one, Francis) are silly, I don't completely understand the "screwing us over" mentality.

They own the site. It takes work and money to run the site. We have gotten used to it being free. It isn't our right, though, to get television and movies for free, is it? We may not like it, but are we really "getting screwed" by this decision?
Reply
post #8 of 31
10/23/09 at 4:03am
Lame. Hulu actually lured a lot pf people away from torrents and made a pretty nice chunk of change from the ad revenue. NONE of those people will pay for that site, they'll all just go back to piracy. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Rupert.
Reply
post #9 of 31
10/23/09 at 5:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kungfumonkeyMike View Post
They own the site. It takes work and money to run the site. We have gotten used to it being free. It isn't our right, though, to get television and movies for free, is it? We may not like it, but are we really "getting screwed" by this decision?
I don't think it's that so much as just the plain fact that it ain't gonna work. people are happy to watch shows (and ads) on hulu rather than pirate them. but if you start charging them, how many people do you think are pay up? that's just bad bidness sense.

edit: yeah, what Anjin said. also, hey Worcester!
Reply
post #10 of 31
10/23/09 at 5:01am
Yeah, I was under the impression that they actually made money off of those ads I willingly watch instead of downloading torrents. Oh well... they can charge for whatever they want. I don't find ANY television shows worth paying for so I'll just slide my attention over to other things.
Reply
post #11 of 31
10/23/09 at 6:03am
Actually, they can charge more per ad, but there are less ads per show compared to regular TV. So in the end, the ad revenue is less.

That said, most of it is broadcast TV is it not? We get it for free because of the ads, admittedly we're supposed to watch them. It's not all premium content like the stuff from FX, and the movies. There's going to be a lot of dropped users if they start charging for a lot of the stuff.

"[N]ot all content on Hulu would be behind a pay wall." That may be the important thing though, what breaks down into pay vs. free. I believe the TV Everywhere thing is working to make cable channel content online be part of an overall subscription pacakge. And Hulu does have cable channel content.
Reply
post #12 of 31
10/23/09 at 8:06am
As has already been said, it boils down to a "they just don't get it" concept.

Sure, they'll capture SOME revenue by charging, but Hulu's hit count will plummet and the torrent sites (or whatever direction piracy evolves into this next round) will see a huge spike in traffic.

And I'll keep using Blockbuster online, either way.
Reply
post #13 of 31
10/23/09 at 10:39am
I think the concept behind Hulu was less "fighting piracy" and more "let's not let Apple do to us what they did to the music industry." Instead, they may have cut off their nose to spite their face, because they've created the expectation that "everything's free for everyone, always!"
Reply
post #14 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
Actually, they can charge more per ad, but there are less ads per show compared to regular TV. So in the end, the ad revenue is less.
Or they could remove their dumb region restrictions and get millions more pageviews.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The first one who will offer a Google ads type service that can easily be embedded into online video will make billions. And it can really be done.
Reply
post #15 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:28am
Well TV shows have always been free... I don't think HULU created that expectation. Culturally we will never pay for network television unless its the only option. Although, I wouldn't be shocked if they came up with an upgraded pay service that included cable TV (HBO/Showtime) shows and movies. That's the only way I can make any sort of sense out of this news.
Reply
post #16 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:30am
Hooray for entitlement!
Reply
post #17 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:44am
It's the drug dealer mentality--"Sure, you can have this, no charge." Then when they get ya hooked, *BANG* You're sucking dick just to get your next fix of Glee.
Reply
post #18 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:51am
Can we not use the word "free"? Because it isn't. You watch ads, you participate in the monetizing of content. This is the traditional pay structure for network television. To take that same content that is available through said structure on tv and put the onus on the viewer to pay for it? That's a pretty distinct shift in how people are used to interacting with network television. I don't think people are going to go for it when there are far more appealing options (television, piracy, DVD) available to them.

On a personal note, guess this means I'm not going to watch Glee anymore. Huh.

eta - I hadn't seen Martianman's post when I referenced Glee. I haven't been.... oh, never mind. Make your little jokes, you perverts!
Reply
post #19 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman View Post
It's the drug dealer mentality--"Sure, you can have this, no charge." Then when they get ya hooked, *BANG* You're sucking dick just to get your next fix of Glee.
So, I dunno, turn on your tv? Save all the faux indignation until you see some price points or a revised business model.
Reply
post #20 of 31
10/23/09 at 11:55am
I saw this coming the second they took away the ability to access the site from the PS3.

Personally, I wonder if a lot of the networks' issues would be fixed by simply having the episodes up the second after they air, and charging for the early access as opposed to slapping everything with a price tag.
Reply
post #21 of 31
10/23/09 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman View Post
It's the drug dealer mentality--"Sure, you can have this, no charge." Then when they get ya hooked, *BANG* You're sucking dick just to get your next fix of Glee.

This is the same thing Pandora did a few months back. I imagine they'll keep it free up to a certain number of shows/hours per month, and then have a paid service with unlimited access.

ETA: Jeremy, I don't think it's faux indignation so much as it is concern about what kind of price point they're going to trot out. Broadcast TV (and Hulu) uses ads to monetize the product, so I'm curious as to how they're going to swing this.

Making that announcement with no detail probably didn't help ease the teeth-gnashing, either.
Reply
post #22 of 31
10/23/09 at 12:06pm
Yeah this makes no sense to me. I like Hulu because I don't have to go through the work of downloading the show and it gives me peace of mind. With Hulu charging for content, that changes things. If they need more money, why not play two ads per commercial break like NBC.com does? Problem solved. My guess is the paid stuff will be the uncensored movies on their site while the broadcast TV stuff is still for free. I'm hoping that's the case anyway.
Reply
post #23 of 31
10/23/09 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
eta - I hadn't seen Martianman's post when I referenced Glee. I haven't been.... oh, never mind. Make your little jokes, you perverts!
Yeah, yeah, whatever you gotta tell yourself to make you sleep better at night.


And for the record, I don't use Hulu. I've gone on there a couple of times to see what it was about, but I just use my satellite TV and DVR. HOWEVAH...I would think that if they introduce a pay model then I would think the programs need to be commercial-free.
Reply
post #24 of 31
10/23/09 at 1:20pm
I've normally flip flopped between Hulu and the website of whichever network the show in question is on. If Hulu's going to start charging, I'll just stick to ABC.com for Lost, NBC.com for SNL and The Office.
Reply
post #25 of 31
10/23/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
If they need more money, why not play two ads per commercial break like NBC.com does? Problem solved. My guess is the paid stuff will be the uncensored movies on their site while the broadcast TV stuff is still for free. I'm hoping that's the case anyway.
That's been suggested before. But, the rates that Hulu charges is based on a number of factors, including retention rate of the ad in the minds of viewers. Changing the ad mix would likely result in lower per ad revenue, so they'd have to figure out the formula that would maximize the total revenue, and also renegotiate any existing contracts I believe.
Reply
post #26 of 31
10/23/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissZooey View Post
Can we not use the word "free"? Because it isn't. You watch ads, you participate in the monetizing of content. This is the traditional pay structure for network television. To take that same content that is available through said structure on tv and put the onus on the viewer to pay for it? That's a pretty distinct shift in how people are used to interacting with network television. I don't think people are going to go for it when there are far more appealing options (television, piracy, DVD) available to them.
EXACTLY. I pay for my internet connection, just like i pay for my cable. Nothing's fee.

Hulu can do whatever they want (I'm not entitled to their content), but so can I. I can choose to get my content elsewhere.
Reply
post #27 of 31
10/23/09 at 2:35pm
These Hulu people crack me up. They finally come up with a business model that people prefer to just outright stealing and pirating their content, and now the bean counters want to sabotage the whole experiment and send viewers back into the arms of pirates. Well good luck to 'em....
Reply
post #28 of 31
10/23/09 at 2:48pm
yeah, Hulu is free to do what they want ... I'm not getting 'screwed' by them if they start charging. I just won't watch stuff on there anymore.

Now, does it seem like a good business move? Well, if they're bleeding money by not charging then probably. A lot of hits doesn't do you any good if every click loses you money.
Reply
post #29 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:05pm
Them aliens gotta make money somehow.........

ETA: Mushy brains aint free!
Reply
post #30 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
Now, does it seem like a good business move? Well, if they're bleeding money by not charging then probably. A lot of hits doesn't do you any good if every click loses you money.
They're probably bleeding money by buying expensive TV ads. But what do I know?
Reply
post #31 of 31
10/23/09 at 3:13pm
Well, they're owned by NBC/Universal, Fox, and Disney so it probably cost them less than you'd think.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Hulu wants to screw you; wants to start charging for content