Ok some points for us viewers to consider. While of course we love free (I mean seriously who doesn't). The content isn't free (its actually very expensive), and the networks (and studios) counter those costs primarily through commercials. Commercials that are targeted as the specific audience breakdown of that show. So far ads on the online broadcast do not even come close to bringing int he revenue (per viewer) that a network broadcast brings in. So the idea of increasing the ads to that of broadcast still wouldn't generate the same (per viewer) revenue. They would ahve to put out even more. How would you feel with 30 minutes of commercials or even more? I am quite sure most would be against that. We also need to understand that currently there is no way for them to get the demographic background of the online viewer (age, race, income, education and gender) all of these are very important and to the amount of revenue that gets generated. Now of course they could just assume the same audience watches online that watches live. But I think that wouldn't actually be accurate. And advertisers don't like to pay premium prices on a guess of what the audience is. Now of course I already pay for content that I want online (if available). And we have several services that provide just that (and many shows are available in that manner. Now of course many people don't have the finances to spend money on tv episodes. Hell I have been in that boat many years myself. But, advertisers are interested in people who primarily have income to be spent on non necessities. As most merchandise and services that ads are not geared to necessities.
I've actually read the opposite. The ads on Hulu bring it roughly three times as much revenue per viewer when compared to an ad of equal length on broadcast TV. The article said that users were less likely to use the bathroom or get a drink during commercials when they can pause the video and the ads can be custom tailored for different shows so a higher percentage of people watching are interested in the product. I'll try and dig up the link. Well that didn't take very long. The Simpsons worth more per viewer on HULU than FOX
How about this: instead of the old "bait and switch" if they were going to charge, they should have charged out of the gate. Personally, I resent the duplicity. It's clear the "free" period was an allowance to develop an audience and to set them up in viewing habits and then *bang* hit'em with a fee once they're used to the service. This kind of manipulation is one of the things I find contemptuous in modern American business.
Each of these competing sanctioned free video websites should all just make themselves available on the roku box with the limited commercials they have now. If enough customers give them serious ad revenue, it would be more profitable then losing half your viewers if you make them pay. Then again, if web based viewing becomes the norm, I think someday, cable might one day return to free ala cart, because no one would watch it otherwise.
Goodbye Hulu. I hope people continue to torrent shows and movies rather than get sucked into the subscription crap. Maybe after the studios lose enough money they will have learned their lesson.
I agree..we are already watching commercials..it would be like watching regular TV, then paying to watch on top of it. I guess we do pay 'mentally' to watch NBC's lineup, but thats another entire issue. Rob
For me what's great about Hulu is I get to watch what I want WHEN I want, it's just like watching "real" TV, but on my schedule. The commercials don't bother me. However, I already pay for cable and a netflix subscription. I ain't going to pay for Hulu too.
Here's the thing. Is anybody using hulu to watch recent shows or current programs? That's where all their fees are at. I enjoy hulu for all the classic shows and stupid stuff that can't be found on cable. That's why I stopped watching cable. Of course, how can hulu charge for the public domain content it offers?
Yes, it's why I use it. That was the whole point of Hulu to have the 6-7 latest episodes for shows, that's how the site started. They make me pay I will download.
There actually seem to be a lot of 'unofficial' sites with tv episodes on them. The quality is not as good as hulu but they are there. I wont say where, but its not hard to find. I imagine they must be foreign based.
Not only will I not pay for Hulu, if they add more commercials and it's still free I'll dump it. I already pay for this shit on my satellite, and my tax money already pays for the dvds at the library and I already pay for netflix. Fuck em. I'll download like crazy.
If they start charging, it will actually end up saving me money, because I won't get to know any new shows, which means I won't have any reason to buy DVD sets for future shows, etc. Since I don't have a TV signal at home (not even the free stuff - I can't be bothered to set up an antenna), I use Hulu to try out new shows each season. I will occasionally track down a show on the network's site if I'm either already familiar with it (such as Medium) or have heard about it someplace online and am intrigued (such as Castle before ABC got involved with Hulu). Other than that, I occasionally try an old show on Hulu, but there's too much new stuff to take up my time to do that very often.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain this is the main reason people use it. At least everyone I've ever talked to. Nobody has time to watch regular TV broadcasts, so Hulu provides you with a way to watch new shows on your own schedule. I don't watch current TV anyway, but I will be once "Chuck" comes back on the air. Hulu was how I watched the whole 2nd season.