Hey, remember Hulu.com? It was a Web site that sort of came out of nowhere, and offered streaming TV shows from NBC and other networks. It was ad-supported, and free. People liked it. And then, one day, in October, 2009, a completely bonkers TV executive all but killed it with one sentence: “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online.”
Those are the words of News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey, uttered at some sort of broadcasters pow wow.
The idea that News Corp. (and the other broadcast execs) expects to be paid for something that travels through the air 100 percent freely, and has for decades is, that’s right, ludicrous. And I’m referring only to broadcast content here. Shows like The Office and The Simpsons, and not Curb Your Enthusiasm or Weeds. Ads pay for the broadcast shows, and that anyone expects us to pay for those shows again! Ha!
It’s like this: Hulu already runs ads. I’m not gonna pay for access to the site when there’s already ads on there.
Never mind the fact that people only put up with the ads because the site is a convenience. “Sure, I’ll put up with a few ads so long as I can watch 30 Rock in between CrunchGear posts.” Otherwise, yeah, I’ll head right back to alt.binaries.multimedia and start downloading away. No ads there, and in 720p!
I mean, was I stealing all those Seinfeld reruns or 24 (aka the Jack Bauer Power Hour) when I had an HDTV antenna hooked up to my TV? I don’t recall paying to watch those shows; that’s what the ads were for!
In essence, charging for Hulu is a one-way to Irrelevant Town. I don’t care either way, seeing as thought I really haven’t watched TV for several years now (outside of live sports).
rubbish indeed
This was my point as well. I’m not paying to watch ads. It was goodbye to cable, soon, it will be goodbye to Hulu…sadly.
The convenience of watching the show anytime you want is worth something. This is what the companies should be compensated for. Currently they are being compensated by selling ads on the site. If they removed the ads but added a subscription service (essentially shifting the cost burden to the watcher), would you be willing to pay then?
Uh….no?
Many people do, though – this is basically what cable tv is. However, cable also has ads!! If hulu was able to expand its shows as well as giving a subscription service that was completely ad-free (crunchyroll, etc.) then I’m sure many people would like it.
I would say if Hulu were comprehensive, I would pay for it. That is, if i drop my cable service and pay fro internet only, i would be willing to shell out 50 bucks a month to Hulu to stream to my TV.
But lets be honest, HULU has been making osme bonehead moves lately. They are blocking people from using a number of media streaming solutions, and configuration is likely too difficult for the average user.
I’ve been watching a lot of Hulu lately and I in most cases, I actually watch the ads because they’re short and it doesn’t really interrupt watching the program. However, I rarely watch live TV anymore and use TiVo to record my favorite programs. On playback, I ffwd through all the commercials.
Another factor is scripted shows versus reality television. Many of the programs that I watch are reality shows so they are already extremely profitable to the networks over scripted programming. Some of the shows have ads within the program itself. NBC’s Biggest Loser is forever shamelessly plugging products like Subway, Glad products, gum, 24-hour fitness, milk, Activa yogurt, etc.
The day Hulu starts a subscription service for broadcast network shows is my last day on the service. It might be understandable to use that revenue model with pay channel programming like HBO and Showtime. I’d be willing to pay a subscription for Weeds or True Blood but not a dime a for broadcast.
Cable is a subscription service, too, and we’re still bombarded with ads. I don’t like it one bit but its far better than watching network so to me it’s worth it.
But that’s about as far as I’ll go – Hulu is convenient but certainly not all encompassing so I’m not paying for cable AND paying for Hulu. Besides, Bittorrent is free.
Farewell Hulu, we Europeans even never got the chance to know you.
I only watch Hulu to catch something I missed. Even when I could watch it on my PS3 I didn’t sit there for hours watching Hulu.
So for me when they start charging… Hulu is dead to me.
I’d pay only if their service got *that* much better. And I’d only pay $5 a month maximum. But that’s just me. You know what most people are going to do? Fuck Hulu, long live The Pirate Bay! You can’t be anymore “duh?” than that my friends. Get a clue, you’re going to see a drastic drop in users if you start a paying program.
However, I would be behind leaving it as it is now and then offering a premium service for a low monthly fee. I’d say $10-$15 a month, completely commercial free and only if you get more networks signed on, like Discovery and such. In other words, I ain’t paying shit until you become as good or better than my TV or Pirate Bay.
You can’t control the internet. It’s not yours TO control and it never will be. Start thinking smartly or die out like the dinosaurs. My above suggestion would be a good start.
Hulu is rubbish…YouTube is that ish!!!!
Does anyone remember when tv used to go off the air and when there were only like maybe 15-20 channels? It costs money to make all that content, and somebody is going to have to pay, its either advertisers, viewers, or some combination of the two
Hate to chime in on the side of Hulu here, but…. The key value Hulu offers is on-demand viewing, which is not covered by and was never contemplated within the ad-supported broadcast revenue model. That’s the part of Hulu I like: being able to go there to watch something when I wish to watch it. So yeah, I would be willing to pay a (small) fee for that privilege.
If Hulu goes the way of pay per show, then it’s no better or worse than iTunes, save perhaps for pricing (assuming its pricing was better). If it goes subscription, it will have to first prove that the content it offers will not come and go like it does now. Since a subscription will be sold as a gateway to get all you can eat access, users will have the right to expect that shows will not disappear and that full back seasons will be available. If Hulu can’t do that, then the service’s value is way more limited.
Even if they do subscriptions and guarantee availability of content that won’t change, Hulu will absolutely decrease in popularity. Making the transition from free to paid is very painful and since this content can be had elsewhere for free, many users will likely abandon the service. Hulu likely won’t disappear, but could become what the current Napster is now. It’s there, it operates, but it isn’t the phenom it once was…
Why on earth shouldn’t terrestrial networks get paid when their content is resold by digital providers? I don’t feel bad for DirectTV or BrightHouse or Hulu or anybody trying to sell me the “Oh, your local stations are evil because we charge people forty bucks a month to watch them and now they want a cut of that.”
And yeah, slapping your own paid ads on top is reselling it. Definitively.
“Oh, your local stations are evil because we charge people forty bucks a month to watch them and now they want a cut of that” *story,* I meant.
The day Hulu charges is the day it dies.
I agree, Hulu, is done for if they start charging, another site will just start up. Take over from where Hulu left off.
nice known ya HULU. Who’s next?
Just think of it like bit torrent sites, one goes, new one pop’s up next day in it’s place.
Maybe only when I can’t wait for the torrentto finish. How about charging viewers outside the us instead. Ppl pay $20 per month just to get a vps to get ard the ip restriction.
I don’t use Hulu a lot, but I say if you’re going to charge: See you later Hulu!