We’re getting back to that old saying, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” with news of Hulu’s possible plans to charge for at least some content. So one of the biggest advantages (and reasons for putting up with poorer video quality than broadcast/cable) just might be going away. According to an article in dailyfinance.com, News Corp’s chief digital officer:
envisions a future where at least some of the TV shows and movies on Hulu, the premium video site co-owned by News Corp., NBC Universal and Disney, are available only to subscribers.
If this is in fact the direction Hulu is going, it definitely would put a dent in the number of people interested in Hulu. The exception might be if they really are considering putting Hulu on a set-top box or other CE devices. Dave noticed an article stating Roku might be getting Hulu on their media player and there have been several rumors of Hulu coming to the XBox 360. I can see a paid model being more palatable to the owners of Hulu than the current free for all.
I kind of hope this isn’t true, but it probably is the future. Newspapers, TV and other online media is very likely moving towards more paid or at least subscription models going forward and this goes follows that trend. Put Hulu in high definition or at least much closer-to-HDTV quality, put it on as many CE boxes as possible like Netflix has been doing, and I think it just might work. (via MissingRemote.com)
Check out more of Brent’s reflections on tech, gadgets, software and media at Geek Tonic.
Is it me or between my dual-tuner Tivo and ahem, illicit means, I just have way more content than time to consume it? Hulu’s content providers have already been charging in my mind – it’s called my DirecTV bill.
Hulu is great. No doubt. Attempts to monetize this content will hamper its growth if its competing with content that users are already paying for, even though most of it is already free OTA.
There is a business model somewhere in subscribing to cable, buying a massive 100Mbps circuit, and reselling Cable DVR & Sling services.
Not for me, at least with the current content library.
Sure I watch it once in a while. But the buffering restrictions keep it from working in most hotel rooms, or over 3G. Just too stuttery. And that means the only place I would watch it is either at work, which would be very rare, or at home to catch up on an episode I missed. I’d either live with missing the episode, buy the episode off Amazon or iTunes, or stream it for free from the ABC/CBS/TV.com website.
If it were available via STB, with good quality (think 720p widescreen), and had content that would allow me to kill off some cable channels like HBO or Showtime, then maybe. But not very much.
If they want me to prove I’m already paying for their channels, well fine, I am. No problem there. If they want me to pay again, no thanks.
hulu can expect a the usage chart to instantly point straight down if they start charging.
Nice to see the dinosaurs reveal themselves, prove they didn’t actually evolve at all, and are now reverting back to that same mentality that caused them to jump ship from iTunes back in 2007.
Dear decision makers at hulu:
You were making a very handsome profit selling The Office on iTunes, but you wanted even more, so you pulled your content and built hulu.
Only now, the number of YouTube users as grown exponentially since 2007. So weight carefully the cost of sending out and enforcing 1,000 times more DCMA take down notices than you were in doing 2007 while still on iTunes. Is it more than you stand to lose in advertising revenue once hulu usage plummets to near zero because you started charging?
I would also remind you that you dodge a bullet in contract negotiations with SAG during the last strike, citing “hulu is free, we don’t charge for it.”
For charging to work, they will need to do a few things:
1) Get on the TV itself. Sorry, no, my computer is not my TV. They do two different things. I did not spend money on a 50″ HDTV to watch TV in 480p on my MacBook’s 13″ display. Roku, TiVo, Apple TV, Boxee – I can’t say I care which one(s) they use, but they need to deliver the content to the TV itself.
2) Speaking of 480p… I want at least 720p.
3) Increase the library selection. I appreciate what is on there, but it’s miniscule compared to what is actually on DVD or can be found on a torrent tracker.
4) They should only go to a charging model if they know an advertising model will not work, and I still think it could. Look, I’ll be honest: I have no problem with giving up some demographic data if I’m not going get Cialis and Sham-WOW ads. Give me ads for things I’m actually interested in… this whole internet thing makes it pretty easy to target a specific type of user with ads he/she would actually find useful. A net-delivered ad model is the only way content providers can do such a thing – the broadcasters are stuck broadcasting ads for the widest general audience (and the highest bidder).
I’m not opposed to charging, I’m just not sure Hulu has figured out how to approach what it is. If it were focusing on being a true IPTV content provider, and provided a ton of past shows alongside new series, then a charging model might still work. It all depends on how greedy they get.
Geoffrey, You may not have to worry about that ShamWOW guy much longer… ;)
http://gawker.com/5187540/shamwow-guy-beats-up-cannibal-hooker
Regarding a premium Hulu tier, it needs to be commercial-free higher quality video and entire seasons if they want my money. Otherwise, I’ll just Netflix the DVD or get the content via my cable subscription and whatever DVR I’m using at the time. Right now Hulu’s content library is incomplete and unpredictable.
“…Hulu [ needs ] to be commercial-free higher quality video and entire seasons…”
@davezatz
The equivalent doesn’t exist in iTunes ( no super high fidelity songs made with max sampling rate, iTunes dashboard is overloaded with ads for crappy bands, concert tickets do not come with full album purchase, etc. )
If the industry leader, Apple, can’t/won’t make that work, why do you expect the dinosaurs at hulu to?
Dave,
Agree with you. A higher tier, or a limited amount of pay-for content could work. Think 720p day and date with movie release. And a way to watch it on my actual TV. Happy to pay a rental fee to whoever can offer me the movie I want.
And yes, we’re all used to the rules now–either the show is free and comes with ads, or you pay for it and it doesn’t. You can’t do both.
I doubt they’ll find a way to get me to pay for it, but lets see what happens.
Hulu, I love for your basic principle of freeness. You already have adds in the programs like FREE TV and that is the limit. No double dipping! I already watch your ads in-program, I will NEVER pay for programing I already pay every month in my cable bill.
Sorry to hears this news, but if it happens, my family is gone. BTW, how can you do this when so many people are unemployed. Did you hire some stupid 20 something to run your company? Wouldn’t be the first time. Grow a brain.
Charging a fee for a nice place to watch some older network series before they were canceled and also occasionally catching a past episode of a current TV series. Sorry I think the consumer is becoming weary of the ever increasing double and triple dipping of fees for a little entertainment. Hulu your new business model will soon make you just a fond memory.
Hulu programming isn’t free; you pay for it by watching ads, the same way you pay for almost all broadcast TV (all that isn’t member supported or public access). Hulu isn’t giving something away to us charitably, but to use the terminology “free” implies that they have been. It frames the argument as “we’ve been giving this away for free, but we may have to start charging for it,” when the truth is “we’ve been supporting this with ad revenue, but now we’re debating whether we can make more profit now that you’re used to using it by also charging you directly, or by running more ads, or both.” Broadcast and a DVR keeps as much of the power as possible in the hands of the consumer; I don’t think we should give that away so readily.