As board member Jon Miller forecasted a few months ago, streaming video powerhouse Hulu plans to start charging for content soon. Subscription-based? Pay per use? Nobody knows. What we do know is that the Consumerist community wasn’t fond of the idea back in June. [Entertainment Weekly]
More From Consumerist
-
Does Hulu CEO’s Resignation Mean What You Watch, How You Watch It Will Change?
-
Southwest Raising Bag Fees, Will Start Charging For No-Shows
-
YouTube’s Subscription Service Kicks Off With Sesame Street, Ultimate Fighting Channels
-
Baseball Fan Or No, Time Warner Cable Charging All L.A. Customers More For Dodgers Network
-
Are We Over Pay TV? DirecTV Lost Subscribers For The First Time Ever
Good luck charging for something you can get for free elsewhere…full episodes on official websites and clips and others from youtube.
My husband and I are talking about ditching cable and the god-awful DVR provided by TWC to a PC/Hulu/P2P type thing. Honestly, we only keep cable around for Noggin/Nick Jr (and now that my kids are old enough to understand how to play videos on the internet, we don’t even need that). I’ve used Hulu a lot – when traveling, when the aforementioned DVR up and decides it doesn’t feel like recording something, or just when I’m feeling lazy and want to watch something in bed.
I would pay if:
1. NO ads. That eyelash enhancer commercial makes me want to stab things.
2. HD. None of this 420p stuff.
3. Convince other stations to expand content. Hello, CBS/Bravo/CN – talking to you.
4. I would LOVE to see a situation like Netflix, where it would work on my Xbox. Or the PS3 – I don’t really care which. Just make it easy to get this stuff on my tv.
5. Remove the limitations on “last 5 episodes”, or “we’ll post it a week after it airs”. I understand that’s got more to do with the studios and stations, but this is the kind of thing people expect from a subscription service. So find some kid with a shiny new MBA or JD who can’t get a job elsewhere in this economy, and sic him on the people who make those decisions.
I feel like most people are able to bit torrent to their heart’s content. The second they start charging they’ll lose whatever small group can’t and choose to watch the limited episode choices on hulu.
RIP Hulu. It was nice knowing you.
Too bad they are so afraid of what Hulu is for many people (and what the people obviously want): a la carte TV. I guess they aren’t ready to open those floodgates just yet.
I hardly ever watch any TV as it is — especially “news” — and haven’t for nigh on twenty years. This past week was the first time in a dog’s age that I actually made a point of being in front of the TV set for anything, as it was the six-part Monty Python documentary on IFC.
If the TV is on at all, it’s usually to watch any one out of a pile of VHS cassettes I have of old movies taped off of TCM, old cartoons, old Larry Sanders episodes, or BBC America’s Monty Python Marathon.
So, while in principle I’m down on Hulu for charging us to watch crap on the ‘Net when we could watch the same crap on our TV sets for free, my “real” reaction has to be “M’eh; I don’t watch TV enough to make any difference.”
@pecan 3.14159265: or not…..
In fact, with YouTube’s help, Google is now responsible for at least 6 percent of the internet’s traffic, and likely more – and may not be paying an ISP at all to serve up all that content and attached ads.
Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was binging on bandwidth, losing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streams 75 billion videos. But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that Google’s traffic is approaching 10 percent of the net’s traffic, and that it’s got so much fiber optic cable, it is simply trading traffic, with no payment involved, with the net’s largest ISPs.
“I think Google’s transit costs are close to zero,” said Craig Labovitz, the chief scientist for Arbor Networks and a longtime internet researcher. Arbor Networks, which sells network monitoring equipment used by about 70 percent of the net’s ISPs, likely knows more about the net’s ebbs and flows than anyone outside of the National Security Agency.
[www.wired.com]
The only way I would pay for it, is if.
There are no ads.
Every tv show that they have up there, they should have all of the episodes, not just 1 or 2 seasons, like I want every episode from every season of house on there.
And more shows.
More movies, and newer movies.
Every show that is available in HD, show it in HD.
Then that will only be like $10 I’ll be willing to pay.
And this is all speculation.
I agree with many of the changes people have said they should make but I think they’ll make at least a few of those up front. I remain optimistic that they will not immediately make paying for Hulu too sucky to tolerate.
This is probably stupid, but oh well…
I wonder if this might finally mark the beginning of the collapse of ad sponsored content. In general I think the ad revenue model can work, especially for sites with lower costs, but not at the current volume. We’ve saturated the ad market beyond the breaking point and customers are not only over exposed to ads, they are turning against them entirely (note how many people use Adblockers online and skip commercials with their DVRs.)
So on that note, I’m glad to see services like Hulu looking for more sustainable revenue solutions, they just need to be very careful how they act. People are too acclimated to free online content for Hulu to simply cut them off and ask for cash upfront. Ideally Hulu will offer a premium service (that improves overtime) while slowly downgrading the free service to more of a demo/catchup service. Slowly and kindly turn “free” customers into paying ones and leave some free for the light users and potential new ones.
In the long run I still think services like Hulu will be the future of TV, so it does seem ridiculous to expect that the same service that currently costs $50-100 (depending on package) can be delivered with only a few 30 second ads online. (Not that cable shouldn’t be less expensive…)
I’m honestly not sure if this is going to be the Hulu-killing move that the majority seems to think it will be. Streaming doesn’t cost all too much – especially since Hulu doesn’t do user-submitted content like YouTube – and Hulu’s pretty popular. Even if a good 75% of their user base leaves over this, the subscription fees (or whatever) from the remaining 25% would likely still fund Hulu and then some, plus I’d say it’s almost guaranteed that there will still be ads so they’ll still get the revenue from that. I’m not an economist but this seems like a pretty solid move for Hulu, if not for the people who use Hulu.
I wonder how much they will charge? Will we still get ads? Will entire seasons be available rather then just a few episodes per show?
Depending on the answers to these questions I might be willing to pay. If the only difference is you now to pay then forget it. I wonder if the streaming video sites I visited before Hulu still exist, I can always go back to them true the quality is a bit lower but I don’t mind that much
I think that hulu could make this work for them — or it could be a complete disaster.
The way they could make it work: Leave all content that is available for free now, completely free. IE – keep doing the 5 episode rotation for currently airing shows, keep some classic shows available online for free, enticing some using to swap to a monthly subscription by teasing old pilots or episodes of old shows. – meanwhile, negotiate agreements with entertainment powerhouses to put their full archives online for a monthly subscription fee. Then sell customized subscriptions – ie. Once price for Television online, another price for Movies only, etc.
If they kill their current content it will destroy the original purpose of hulu – a promotional site to drive people back to network shows. However, people might be willing to pay a subscription to get access to the entire archives of Quantum Leap, instead of just the first two seasons, or the entire series of Gilmore Girls. — Or people might be willing to pay for premium hulu content and interviews with cast and crew on their favorite shows that they would not be able to get elsewhere.
The way to kill the site in 6 months or less: Lock down all current content and charge for everything. People will go back to torrenting so fast it’ll make your head spin.
If they kill their current content it will destroy the original purpose of hulu- a promotional site to drive people back to network shows.
@AshleyKeen: Or was it? I think that they always intended to turn this into a service where people paid for the content. It is, after all, owned by NBC. Why the heck should NBC care if people go back to watch a show on ABC or Fox the night it airs? The only reason it’s been free this long is that they’ve been working out the kinks and probably working on getting the content.
I’m a huge fan of Hulu. I JUST finished watching 30 Rock, Community, It’s Always Sunny and Parks and Rec. Basically I just pretend they are on Friday mornings instead of Thursday night. I also occasionally watch Conan, Colbert, Daily Show, and every once in awhile I go through the whole series of Strangers with Candy. I don’t have a TV anymore, just internet. I’m also (and I’ll wait for the annoying arguments) not a fan of not paying for something I like. If I like a product, like a TV show, I will usually watch it and buy the dvds. Torrenting because you think it should be free is ludicrous. That’s why I put up with ads, because HOPEFULLY someone involved with the show is getting something. Now, if I am paying Hulu for a service AND watching ads, I’ll be a little upset, but no more upset then the people who are currently paying for cable and have the worse ads (Hulu ads are great, usually short and sometimes none at all). Basically, if I have to pay $5 month (and no higher then that) to watch the only few shows that I actually watch (TV is terrible….) I can live with that. That’s $60 a year for TV that I will actually watch and on-demand. That’s not bad. Now, with ads, it would be very annoying, but I would be fine with it. Also, they better unveil some new perks to paying customers, such as maybe having auto downloads of shows to my hub or something that I can then make either a playlist/tv schedule for myself. Like maybe every Wednesday at 9pm I can just sign on and have my own little night of TV from the previous weeks shows without clicking all over the place. Something to that effect. Also, not just have 4-5 trailing episodes, have the whole season for the year it is on, just like if you had dvr. I’m getting really sick of people just wanting things for free anymore. Get over yourselves like you deserve it. Shows just don’t appear from nowhere, they cost money. I am annoyed that there are ads that you think would pay for the show, but it might not pay for everything, like your convenience of watching whenever, the quality of the broadcast as a download, the fact that none of the shows are taking up your hard-drive, etc. I knew this would happen eventually and I’m not that upset. It seemed to good to be free in the first place.
I think they’ll find their traffic decreases significantly.
Is there a reason they don’t just post full episodes with full commercials for free? This seems like such a sensible model that there must be a big catch.
@NobleCrayfish: They know no one is going to sit through 5 minute commercial breaks while watching something online. That’s one of the problems with TV now: 30 minute shows where 15 minutes is just commercials.
If the issue is profit margins or overhead costs, charge the sponsors more money for commercial space or have more/longer commercials. Clearly, if it’s so popular they can’t meet demand without charging, then it’s popular enough to charge sponsors more money. But if they charge customers money, many will go elsewhere for this content, and we’ll see how that helps their profit margin.
I pay for cable tv.
I pay for high-speed internet.
Why would I pay again to watch cable tv on my high-speed internet?
It’s not going to happen Hulu. I would stop using almost anything online if I had to pay for it.
Apparently they’ve never heard of the history of AdCritic.com
@LVP: Or Heavy.com either.
If hulu can get to the point of showing all the major networks, it could charge for subscription I think… as a cable-replacement. But it lacks enough content to substitute for cable right now. Hulu as it stands is not something i’d be willing to pay for, but here’s hoping it evolves into something better.
And I will stop watching Hulu right after.
Looks like I’ll get my free TV viewing elsewhere. C ya Hulu.
Hulu is all the crap no one wanted to watch on TV, why would any one pay to see it on Hulu. Makes no sense at all. I will never pay to watch Hulu.
There are several shows I watch through Hulu, but half the time I end up watching them elsewhere because Hulu won’t buffer the entire show at once, and it ends up stopping and starting! I don’t mind the commercials, but I certainly won’t pay for that kind of service.
Time to check out fancast.com.
Why in the world would I PAY for Hulu? Everything I’ve ever watched on there was from broadcast TV! Sure, I was able to catch up on a whole season of “Lost” – but I could have done so with far less annoyance by borrowing the season on DVD from a friend. The last thing I wanted to watch was the most recent episode of House, M.D. due to the baseball game previous to it running into OT and screwing up my recording. The episode wasn’t going to be available for several more days, after the NEXT episode had already aired on TV, which meant I’d have to record that episode, watch the one on Hulu, then come back and still be behind everyone else.
…Which is owned by Comcast. That’s the real answer. On one side you have a partnership of two networks (Or a network parent co, Newscorp, and ABC) to see if there’s a way to make money with online shows, and then the big cable conglomerate on the other side seeing what angle they can play.
The FCC backed up net neutrality because every network and content provider out there is afraid of being shaken down (or blocked) by the cable/satellite providers. So make of Fancast what you will — this is a cutthroat battle, and as a consumer, I figure our best bet is to be fickle and unwilling to get to attached to any particular way of getting our shows. (And this is just the “little” test, with only a small % of viewers online yet anways.)
Umm, yeahhhh. Great idea. As if you’re not getting a butt load of dough from the friggin advertisements – let’s stick it to the consumer too! Are they aware they’re not the only one’s offering free tv shows for streaming? Well, until they start charging, that is. Idiots.
FAIL