I think that is is the completely wrong course for Hulu, and not just because I don't personally want to pay for the content.
Consumer purchased online content is the past, not the future. Advertisement eye-balls are the commodity that the interwebs run on now.
I think that the only way it could work for them at all, is to make it a very small monthly subscription fee. I'm willing to pay $15 for my Netflix subscription, mostly because I get to use it to watch whatever I want from their database whenever I want, on my XBox. If they charged per minute, or per show, I wouldn't use it, even if that would add up to less than $15/month (however, I still wouldn't subscribe to Hulu in that case, because I already have Netflix)
One thing is absolutely certain. Hulu's audience will not tolerate paying for content, and still having to watch ads. If they institute that system, they wont be around to regret it. Their audience will die so fast, they wont know what hit them.
Sigh. If I have to pay for it it better be cheap (more so then iTunes where you download and keep your video) and it had better not have any ads. I agree Jared, this is a stupid move and most people who use Hulu are just going to find another way to watch that doesn't involve paying.
It's not a "free lunch" when Hulu is getting money from advertisers. It just so happens it was the first ad revenue I was generating for the networks in over a decade.
Your summarization of the generation that expects content supported by advertising to be free for the viewer is pretty sad and far from accurate.
hulu make bunches of money off the ads, Id pay monthly ( like a 5 dollar subscription per month) but there shouldn't be ads! And as far as telling people to get off their asses and move out? Please you are so far fetched it isn't funny, Over half this site is Grown men with Jobs and family's ( kids or wives ) to support. So get off your soap box before you Humiliate yourself even more ( n00b )
If they leave the site alone like that article is stating thats awesome. Hulu Plus tho? It depends on what it offers and how much, Id seriously consider it tho, I have no problem paying for extra content
That article presents the issue completely differently.
If The free version of Hulu will be just like the Hulu I have now. I am totally unconcerned for their well-being.
They need to fix their spin on this. People all over the interwebs are thinkingthat Hulu is going to start charging, when, according to this article, that's not true at all, they're adding a new, paid service.
Getting a square deal for add revenue is tough right now. If things pick up prior to 2010 (unlikely) and people start consuming and company's feel reinvigorated they will start supporting ventures like HULU with increased advertising revenue. Right now, two 30 second commercials for a streaming show just is not enough to pay the bills. They are not limiting the adds because they want to be nice to you and give you a seamless experience, they are limiting the adds because most traditional advertisers don't want to pay the fee both for the broadcast time and they again on the back end on the internet. Blame the economy, blame advertisers, don't blame HULU.
What I will say is I think advertisers are missing a golden interactive opportunity and that long term internet advertising is potential a far more effective medium because you have your audience right there in front of you, ready to click. Real time feedback, and a real time gauge on how effective your adds really are. Hopefully some big advertisers will see that potential and keep HULU free, but given the current economic environment I would guess that to be highly unlikely.
0
AnnesTripped Up by Libidos and HubrisAlexandria, VAIcrontian
That article presents the issue completely differently.
If The free version of Hulu will be just like the Hulu I have now. I am totally unconcerned for their well-being.
They need to fix their spin on this. People all over the interwebs are thinkingthat Hulu is going to start charging, when, according to this article, that's not true at all, they're adding a new, paid service.
Completely different.
I agree completely. I'm honestly not sure which article to believe.
I hope the allthingsd.com article is correct. If it is I might even consider signing up for Hulu Plus depending on the price and the features. If they made it so that videos don't expire for Hulu Plus members and maybe they have earlier access to shows (I hate having to wait a week after the air date for most things to hit Hulu) that right there would warrant me paying a few bucks a month for it even if I still had to watch ads. If they went so far as to eliminate ads on Plus accounts or even reduce the number of ads they show, I'd consider shelling out 10 or 15 bucks a month. Especially if they expanded the content they have (I'd love to see live news broadcasts on Hulu from someone other than Faux News and all the time instead of just during special events for instance).
GnomeQueen
The Lulz QueenMountain Dew Mouth Icrontian
Comments
The Hulu "generation" does not like to pay for content. Hence why Hulu got so popular in the first place.
Stupid stupid move. Most people will just go else where, not pay.
Tell me, if I have to pay for content, why would I pay for a streaming service when I could use iTunes and at least physically have a copy.
Seems like a terrible move to me.
I predict '10 is the year Hulu loses ground on the comscore charts - no matter how many superbowl commercials they have.
Consumer purchased online content is the past, not the future. Advertisement eye-balls are the commodity that the interwebs run on now.
I think that the only way it could work for them at all, is to make it a very small monthly subscription fee. I'm willing to pay $15 for my Netflix subscription, mostly because I get to use it to watch whatever I want from their database whenever I want, on my XBox. If they charged per minute, or per show, I wouldn't use it, even if that would add up to less than $15/month (however, I still wouldn't subscribe to Hulu in that case, because I already have Netflix)
One thing is absolutely certain. Hulu's audience will not tolerate paying for content, and still having to watch ads. If they institute that system, they wont be around to regret it. Their audience will die so fast, they wont know what hit them.
Maybe it's the Hulu "generation" that needs to pull their heads of out their asses, Jared.
There is no free lunch! Tell the Hulu "generation" to get off the coach, get a job, and move out of their parents basements.
Your summarization of the generation that expects content supported by advertising to be free for the viewer is pretty sad and far from accurate.
Did the "generation" of the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's who grew up watching TV for "free" over the air have their heads up their asses too?
Actually, there is such a thing as a free lunch, and I intend to bail on Hulu to eat it.
That article presents the issue completely differently.
If The free version of Hulu will be just like the Hulu I have now. I am totally unconcerned for their well-being.
They need to fix their spin on this. People all over the interwebs are thinkingthat Hulu is going to start charging, when, according to this article, that's not true at all, they're adding a new, paid service.
Completely different.
What I will say is I think advertisers are missing a golden interactive opportunity and that long term internet advertising is potential a far more effective medium because you have your audience right there in front of you, ready to click. Real time feedback, and a real time gauge on how effective your adds really are. Hopefully some big advertisers will see that potential and keep HULU free, but given the current economic environment I would guess that to be highly unlikely.
I agree completely. I'm honestly not sure which article to believe.