HULU to start charging in 2010...

[Random_Spock]

It's actually only co owned by Fox. NBC started it and wanted other networks to go on to, so Fox joined in too.

Ah... good old Fox. I should have seen this one coming.

I'm sure this actually has nothing to do with Fox, NBC should be the one with the greatest share.

Ah. I see. Well they both suck.

Like some other people said here... they'll certainly be the effects of people leaving the site.

 

[KB24]

Here I thought people were watching all the classic content that you can't watch anywhere else but on hulu and its competitors. The big networks offer their shows at their own websites, there's dvr, there's on demand, and yes illegal ways to find newer shows. I think Hulu is going to loose just as many viewers who can go out and buy the dvds of classic shows. Then again, shows like Journeyman aren't available on dvd.

 

[Sakrysta]

^I downloaded Journeyman and Drive both from Amazon.com. I'm not a huge fan of downloading my purchases - I'd much rather have the physical media - but at least I have a few gems that I couldn't obtain legally any other way.

 

[KB24]

When is the true combination of television and internet going to happen? Imagine if there was just a web address to go to and stream what you want ala cart. Instead of getting with the technology and audiences, each of these venues are trying to make money on it first. Isn't this why hulu won't stream over the roku and boxio systems?

 

[Roshi]

^I downloaded Journeyman and Drive both from Amazon.com. I'm not a huge fan of downloading my purchases - I'd much rather have the physical media - but at least I have a few gems that I couldn't obtain legally any other way.

Tour of Duty comes to my mind.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

$9.95 Hulu Plus subscription service May 2010

viewers who want to see additional episodes would pay $9.95 a month to access a more comprehensive selection, called Hulu Plus,

Hulu is under pressure from its owners to collect a subscription fee to both bolster revenue and train viewers to pay for online access to professionally produced content.

they can no longer justify offering the same shows online for free. Shows on Hulu also carry commercials, however there are fewer spots there than on regular television. Ultimately, Hulu is expected to adopt the same commercial loads as network television.

April 21, 2010
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...es-forward-with-995-subscription-service.html

With this type of tiered system and offering all-you-can-eat monthly subscription fee on Hulu you can be assured Youtube will follow.

like this other blog article on the Hulu Plus announcment mentioned:

And if I really like a TV show and I want to spend money on it, I’d probably hold out for the season on DVD.

This is consumer's thinking.

Another article mentions an important point:

Netflix + Hulu is still less than cable, right?

Also of note:

Fox Mobile Group, which is part of the News Corp. family, has announced a mobile video subscription application that will launch on a variety of handsets,....Called Bitbop

Fox’s Bitbop plans to charge $9.99 a month.

Will CBS Television also create a mobile app that will include the entire back catalogue of Trek TV series on a monthly subscription charge?

related:
Poll: provider for new Trek series as original series download

 

[Checkmate]

"and train viewers to pay for online access to professionally produced content"

 

[jefferiestubes8]

"and train viewers to pay for online access to professionally produced content"

That my MY underlining in case you were wondering, not the writers.

 

[23skidoo]

Re: $9.95 Hulu Plus subscription service May 2010

With this type of tiered system and offering all-you-can-eat monthly subscription fee on Hulu you can be assured Youtube will follow.

And the will both fade into obscurity.

I hear rumors Napster is still around. Does anyone use Napster anymore? Really? Everyone used Napster until they started charging. Now no one does. Kazaa was another big one that faded away. Yes, I know iTunes is the same thing and it's going strong, but it was never introduced as a freebie.

Not that I give a damn about Hulu. I haven't read this whole thread but I'm sure someone (heck it might even have been me) has mentioned its utter uselessness as it's only available in the US. (Even if the subscription model changed that, which I doubt, the damage is done.) So it can charge all it likes; it's irrelevant to the majority of Internet users. If YouTube starts charging, well big deal. People will just take their farting dog videos and TV show/music video mashups to DailyMotion or one of the hundreds of other video-uploading sites out there.

Alex

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Re: $9.95 Hulu Plus subscription service May 2010

With this type of tiered system and offering all-you-can-eat monthly subscription fee on Hulu you can be assured Youtube will follow.

And the will both fade into obscurity.

I hear rumors Napster is still around. Does anyone use Napster anymore? Really? Everyone used Napster until they started charging. Now no one does. Kazaa was another big one that faded away. Yes, I know iTunes is the same thing and it's going strong, but it was never introduced as a freebie.

Not that I give a damn about Hulu. I haven't read this whole thread but I'm sure someone (heck it might even have been me) has mentioned its utter uselessness as it's only available in the US. (Even if the subscription model changed that, which I doubt, the damage is done.) So it can charge all it likes; it's irrelevant to the majority of Internet users. If YouTube starts charging, well big deal. People will just take their farting dog videos and TV show/music video mashups to DailyMotion or one of the hundreds of other video-uploading sites out there.

Alex

People use torrents now, mostly. The centralized models used by Napster, Kazaa, and the like have fallen victim to legal threats. Torrents are inherently decentralized so they can't be killed without great difficulty.

ETA: It makes no sense for YouTube to start charging, either. Unlike Hulu, YouTube's content is primarily user-generated. If they drive away users, then the flow of content will plummet. Hulu can perhaps get away with charging because it's strictly a "push" system.

 

[nevermore]

Re: $9.95 Hulu Plus subscription service May 2010

Under the proposal, Hulu would continue to provide for free the five most recent episodes of shows...

Then this does not affect me. If they start charging for these too, I will simply go back to waiting until the DVD is out and rent it on Netflix, which is the only entertainment subscription I intend to pay for.

 

[bigdaddy]

Re: $9.95 Hulu Plus subscription service May 2010

Under the proposal, Hulu would continue to provide for free the five most recent episodes of shows...

Then this does not affect me. If they start charging for these too, I will simply go back to waiting until the DVD is out and rent it on Netflix, which is the only entertainment subscription I intend to pay for.

Yeah if you missed 5 episodes of the show then just wait and buy the DVD. I watch it when I miss an episode or two a season.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If they go to a paid system, Hulu's business model is already owned by Netflix. It's not worth the bother to subscribe to Hulu instead just to get things sooner - that's what DVR'ed TV is for - unless Hulu also re-creates Netflix's monstrously large library of everything (TV and movies).

They should just add more commercials, I don't mind watching commercials if I can watch a TV show on my time

Considering that Hulu is showing stuff whose production has already been paid for by network ad viewing, any ad revenues from online would be gravy. If they're getting greedy, they just need to figure out where the ad tolerance level is for online viewing. It's probably higher than the tolerance level for paying for online TV.

No great loss to me. I saw one show via Hulu once. I'm just not motivated to watch anything over 10 min on my computer or figure out how to get it connected to my TV. Netflix does the same, just fine.

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.

They manage to pay for production without Hulu, and online revenues are so paltry they don't impact anything. They aren't trying to support current shows with Hulu revenues, but maybe create a new revenue stream that would support different sorts of shows eventually, that can't survive on regular TV.

 

[firehawk12]

I have to imagine that advertisers are afraid that online streaming is cannibalizing the number of viewers during the live airings. It's like the Tivo thing all over again.

 

[Prophet1701]

My impression is that the 5 most recent episodes of various current series is all that is available on Hulu currently. So, the free content doesn't seem like it is changing much (at least for current series... who knows about older shows like Quantum Leap that are available on the site). The pay tier of the site will allow access to an expanded number of episodes. For my use (watching current series within a week or two of airing), not much appears to be changing. We'll wait and see if this is actually the case once Hulu Plus is put into effect.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I have to imagine that advertisers are afraid that online streaming is cannibalizing the number of viewers during the live airings. It's like the Tivo thing all over again.

As long as they can slap their ads on whatever is shown, they won't care where it's shown. This new system is a competitor to advertisers, though. In theory, if paid online TV takes off, then it won't need advertisers for economic support.

This is the networks trying to find a new revenue model because ad-supported TV is telescoping into just the most mainstream fare like sitcoms and police procedurals, but who knows how long that will last? Those types of shows could be the last bastion in a larger trend away from ads altogether.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, the alternative to ads is the HBO model. High subscription fees and then high home video prices. Hulu is basically a "light" version of that, since it's substantially less than what HBO presumably costs in the US and the content has already been paid for via network/cable airings.

The alternative to being free of advertising completely is a fully paid model. Either the fees go up or you have higher per episode fees.

I look at the Stargate movie DVDs as the perfect experimental model. They don't have a network to air the Stargate movies, but if half a million people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a movie, they are probably making a tidy profit even with the increased production values.

Personally, you can't compete with free. It's why most people are fine with commercials and network TV still draws the largest numbers of all the models out there... but you can certainly exploit the niche audiences. Whether it's David Simon fans (Treme!) or whatever, they're more willing to pay for content that's catered to them.

 

[bigdaddy]

I look at the Stargate movie DVDs as the perfect experimental model. They don't have a network to air the Stargate movies, but if half a million people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a movie, they are probably making a tidy profit even with the increased production values.

There were increased production values?

 

[firehawk12]

Hey, they got the Navy to lend them a submarine. I never know how the military movie deals work, but that must have cost someone some money.

Although, I find it kind of funny that Canadian/BC tax payers paid for a US submarine to burst out of the ice in the Arctic, however indirectly. It's just wrong in so many ways.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Well, the alternative to ads is the HBO model. High subscription fees and then high home video prices. Hulu is basically a "light" version of that,

Hulu would have to create their own premium content to be a light version of HBO. AMC is a light version of HBO. Hulu just takes crap that no one is willing to pay extra for, and is trying to get us to pay extra for it. Good luck with that.

I look at the Stargate movie DVDs as the perfect experimental model. They don't have a network to air the Stargate movies, but if half a million people are willing to pay 20 bucks for a movie, they are probably making a tidy profit even with the increased production values.

Stargate hardly qualifies as premium anything, so it's not the same idea as HBO. The DVDs are more analogous to tie-in novels and other merchandising aimed at the most fanatical fans who will stop at nothing to get more Joe Flanigan.

Although, I find it kind of funny that Canadian/BC tax payers paid for a US submarine to burst out of the ice in the Arctic, however indirectly. It's just wrong in so many ways.

I remain astonished that Canadian, or any, taxpayers will put up with footing the bill for Hollywood product squarely aimed at making a buck. Why can't they make a buck without needing charity? These runaway productions don't remotely qualify as art (and even with genuine art, people scream their heads off if they think their taxes are used to support stuff they don't remotely understand or value), and Stargate doesn't even qualify as decent commercial entertainment. It's bargain basement sci fi. I'd be livid if my taxes were used to fund stupid nonsense about killer legos and space parasites, and I actually watch Stargate (sometimes)!