"I think what works for consumers most likely-and this has to be tested, frankly-is bundles," he said. "I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what's contained in that bundle. For example, you could have-and I'm making this up entirely-you could have a New York bundle, and that could consist of various papers or publications that are relevant to the audience in New York, and you could make that all, potentially, a bundle to a consumer at one price."
What do you guys think? Would you pay for Hulu? Tell us in the comments.
Hulu board member: let's talk subscription fees [Ars Technica]
]]>Idiots......simple as that.
I watch the occasional show on HULU but if I had to pay.....no way!
Who needs hulu or any other "internet tv service" when its all out there already.
]]>That said, we use 3Ghz P4's at work here and they are more than adequate for business uses, and even YouTube.
If it makes you feel any better, Flash is evern worse on Macs than on PCs. On my brand new Mac laptop, Flash still hogs a huge amount of CPU and usually turns my fan on. Adobe seems to be completely ignorant of how to write efficient code.
]]>I'm not being sarcastic here, but I just want to know, what IS the AppleTV for? Without hacking it, it can't play any video formats besides QuickTime so it's obviously not for watching streaming video from the Internet, it's not for watching things you downloaded via torrents, it seems to me like it's not "for" anything besides paying a rather large sum of money ($2+ per episode) to buy TV shows from iTunes that you could have watched for free on network TV, or on Hulu.
So I'm just curious, why did you buy that? What do you use it for? What am I missing here?
]]>And bundling? If I wanted to be forced to buy bundles (mostly) of crap I don't want, then I'd just buy a cable subscription.
]]>@BytheSea: That depends on the show. There are some few shows where the episodes they get just stay up there.
So, it's nice if you want to use some alternative site to watch the latest must see network tv, but if that's what you're into, why are you watching tv on the internet?
Because it's cheaper. Also, because Charter sucks.
]]>I almost forgot: i'd also need to only be paying for the stuff I like to watch and nothing else. I'm not paying for shit I don't like.
]]>Once they start charging for content I stop using it. Back to isohunt and mininova for me.
]]>However.
I am not going to pay for a fucking BUNDLE. That's what I hate about Cable NOW. I only want to pay for the shit I'm actually going to watch, that way, my ass can vote with my dollars when I like something and give the finger to shows I think are stupid.
If I am forced to continue paying for bullshit TV, I would rather not bother and just continue stealing it on some other video service.
]]>Regardless, I have a lot of alternatives until I need to pay for Hulu.
Hulu should be happy with the advertising dollars and stay popular.
]]>I agree with someone upthread: Leave the free service as-is, but add a pay service with "extras" - no ads, full seasons available, extra content.
]]>@fantomesq: Uh, they have software that makes it easy and you can even use a remote!
]]>If you want people to pay you have to give them more: more GOOD movies, more shows, more episodes of those shows. The only thing people want less of are ads.
Furthermore, I want my viewership to matter if I'm paying to watch a show online. I don't want these networks taking a cut and then deciding to cancel a popular show anyway because there aren't enough people watching it on TV instead of online.
]]>Searching by tag would be awesome.
]]>There are some shows though that aren't on any other web site as far as I can tell (at least not legally). There's an anime called Bleach and although Cartoon Network airs the dubbed version they don't put the episodes online.
]]>It's hard to make people pay for something they view as a public good.
]]>@Jessica Haas: on Cable/OTA for each commercial break I have 2-3+ minutes to get up go the the bathroom, get a snack, take the trash out to the curb,or throw some laundry in the dryer, all without a DVR, But on Hulu, you have 1 commercial per break, so you only have about 30 seconds to get up and do something during the commercial. There is not much one can do in 30 seconds, so most people are forced to watch the commercial.
]]>@TheWillow: I need to start off by saying that I am opposed to Hulu going to a paid service. Thus far, the content that is available through the service is not really the content that I am typically looking for. That said, iTunes is a pay model on the web that does work (or did until they raised the prices of the songs). If you make something easy enough and cheap enough, I think that most people would rather pay for the convenience rather than wasting hours to try to get it for free. If Hulu put all of the NBC and Fox shows online and charged $5.00/month and allowed you to install a Hulu player on your Xbox, PS3, Apple TV or media center PC connected to your TV would you pay if the only other alternative was to download the content from torrents? I think most would just for the convenience.
]]>First HULU does everything it can do to get me to log onto their site, to look at the embedded commercials. They run these funny ads all the time, and almost beg us to go to their website. Now they want me to PAY to watch the commercials they already get paid to display?
I was doing fine without HULU, and I will do so again! As soon as HULU adds a fee..... or anything that smells like a fee, I will somehow lose my HULU ID and Password.
]]>Actually, I should go write this to Hulu.
]]>Otherwise, TV = dead to me.
]]>if i had to pay for hulu, i'd just get cable - with a free dvr to skip channels and the opportunity to randomly catch stuff while channel surfing. hulu's great, but literally its only advantage is that its free.
]]>Well, let's see. I watch:
Survivor (available CBS.com)
The Office (available NBC.com)
The news (available internet)
Sorry Hulu, you lose.
]]>@Justin Larson: +1.
]]>@WillG: I guess you're not watching "Pitchmen" on Discovery Channel then.
]]>I watch TV online, because I don't have time during the week to watch it. I'm a college student, and I don't watch enough TV to warrant a DVR. So, for the handful of shows I do watch, I will stream them online, either Hulu or ABC online (I like their player). If networks take away my ability to stream these shows, I will probably seek ways to download them, as I did before most shows were viewable online.
]]>Doesn't matter to me. Can't watch it in Canada anyway.
]]>I save money this way and help drive library usage which increases its overall funding so everyone in my community is better served. They'll even frequently order stuff they don't have if asked via the proper web form. Why oh why would I ever pay for Hulu, especially with metered Internet looming over us?
Plus, our DVR has a direct link to Hulu and we've used it once: to see if it worked. When I've missed eps of shows I like, I go to the network website through the DVR's browser.
]]>- That means that for a small monthly fee, $15 or so, I get:
- all the shows on hulu plus episodes from shows on hulu that are not on there (older episodes).
- They must leave all the shows on there all the time for me to watch (never take it down, EVER).
- All the shows from most or all other channels espe. ones not currently on hulu (national geographic, USA, travel channel, etc).
- No ads or at the very least very light ads (as much as they have right now but not a small amount more).
- I want to watch it on my terms, that means boxee on ubuntu AND hulu desktop.
When those things are in place and are consistent, they can have my money. Oh, and the second my ISP starts capping internet bandwidth and usage the whole deal is off.
]]>Hulu gets its feeds from the network sites, just like Fancast (and Hulu is owned by the networks, while Fancast is owned by Comcast).
Problem with something like Hulu is that programming, particularly cable programming, is dependent on both ad sales and on the fees cable/satellite providers pay to the programmers. Without both of those flows, the business model doesn't work, and the cable/satellite guys are saying "hey, if you're putting all this content online for free, why should we pay you to distribute it?"
]]>If they charge, I'll just use Tivo more.
]]>The only reason I watch Hulu is because it's free, and I'm willing to sit through the ads. I definitely would not pay for it at all.
]]>If there are any commercials or limited content or the service is more then $10 or so a month forget it. I guarantee it will be a failure if any of those above 3 things are implemented.
]]>Seriously. Bundles is the reason I canceled my cable years ago and use Netflix and Hulu exclusively. So, no, I won't pay for "bundles".
]]>UR DOIN IT WRONG
Regards,
M.B.
There was, is, and will probably always be free options for most things. This wasn't always the case. But because it is now, if services like Hulu start charging, we'll just go elsewhere (and WITHOUT any - of less - of their advertising). They may as well continue to NOT charge fees AND get their advertising in front of us; rather than lose us totally.
]]>The answer is NO. Paying for Hulu would be like paying to use Youtube, or Myspace, or Consumerist AND watching mandatory commercials AND be part of a "bundle". Its overkill and unnecessary and anyone with with an IQ above single digits will see that.
]]>The media industry just doesn't get that they have to evolve to make money on the internet.
]]>Even if I were willing to pay for Hulu, bundles can bite me. As far as I'm concerned, a la carte is the only way to go. I don't want to pay for all the crap I'm not watching and have no interest in watching.
]]>Figure out a revenue sharing formula with the content producer, networks, and local cable and over the air stations and I bet you'd have a nice little additional profit center.
]]>Internet is another story.
]]>That said, if Hulu was a few bucks a month and gave me access to lots more content, I might consider it. I think anything over $5 would be a fail.
]]>No, he's an AOL refugee, meaning he's used to a clueless captive audience.
I'm thinking the rest of the board of Hulu should reconsider this guy - look where AOL is now. Um yeah, they're in the shitter now and it's because of bone-headed thinking like this.
]]>Thanks, Andrew. I wasn't aware of Fancast, but I'll be getting to know them now. Your're right. Even the suggestion that Hulu will start charging is leading viewers to other sites.
]]>I also would have zero interest in any "bundle" of content based on where I live. People are not city based in their interests, they are far more individual and diverse. That is why that whole wacky intertubes thing took off so well.
]]>>: and the bundle concept is what I'm running screaming from by watching tv on the internet. What do they mean bundling hasn't been "tested?" I guess the concept of "thirteen channels of shit on the tv to choose from" (nowadays, hundreds of channels of shit) goes right over these guys' heads.
]]>This catalog should be searchable not only by title and actor, but by tag. If I search for "Shakespeare Moonlighting" it should return the episode of Moonlighting that is based on Taming of the Shrew.
The maximum fee for that level of service should be $20. At $20, I am not likely to pay. At $15 I probably would, and at $10-12 I am already getting my wallet out.
Sadly, we are a long way from seeing this. Providers are far too protective of their content to permit an encyclopedic searchable corpus of the last 60 years of television, but it would be fantastic. I am thinking that if all that content were streamable, It would be a simple matter to extract script content into text files. 60 years of television zeitgeist to pour over and parse? A deconstructionist dream.
]]>Something tells me he'll be receiving feedback.
]]>On a side note, does anyone remember when cable tv first stepped into the market. People used to ask "why would I pay for tv when I get it free?" and cable tv people would say "Because there will be no commercials since you are paying for it!!!" Man, what happened there?
]]>Basically, as soon as they start charging, I'm going to go elsewhere.
]]>I can't imagine giving Hulu money when there's Netflix.
]]>Keep all of the current content that they have (say, the last 5 episodes of a show) free, but charge for the back cataloger of shows for those that want to watch shows from the beginning or something (which they don't even offer anymore)
]]>/What really gets me is the commercials "Hulu users are proud to support the efforts of ______." I'm not proud to support them - in fact, I would not give money to them anyway. Thanks for deciding what "I'm proud to support.";
]]>Why would I pay to watch commercials when I can watch commercials for free (unless I DVR'ed it and can skip past the commercials) on TV?
And bundles is a huge clusterfrack. Clearly the guy who thought that up is from the cable TV division.
Maybe if it were free with a few commercials for recent shows but for being a paying subscriber you get no commercials and full archives of shows, then it would be worth paying for.
]]>If that stops too, I'm definitely not fine.
]]>How many of us buy DVDs of our favorite TV programs?
How many of us pay for cable? And for many people that charge is bundled with rent in apartments or college dorms, so we have no choice.
My point is that many of us are already double and triple paying for the same content over and over.
If HULU wants to charge, they'll forget bundling and they will offer complete series runs of a much larger variety of television programs than they currently do. And no week long delay on some new programs.
And no more than $5 per month.
]]>That said, I can almost promise that I will not pay for a bundle, ever. I don't have cable television for this very reason - I watch maybe 3 channels, but the cable companies give me no choice but to pay for 85 channels. That's a lousy deal. And if Hulu adopts the same pricing model, I'll have no use for them. I would rather live with no TV at all (something I've in fact done in several long stretches throughout my adult life) than pay too much for TV. It just isn't worth it to me.
]]>They can be skipped. I do so all the time.
]]>3) Everything on Hulu is already available for free elsewhere, whether it be on the TV network's site or via BitTorrent. If Hulu begins charging, people will simply change to one of the other outlets where the same content is free.
]]>Now Hulu wants to charge for the service, just so you can watch reruns with commercials on your computer........ If IM gonna pay a fee to watch shows and movies on my computer, its gonna be cable (with commercials) or netflix.
If Hulu wants to charge for their service, then charge for no commercials. (Good luck with making a profit on that one.)
]]>I dont watch much on tv besides sports and I don't watch local tv because of the crappy digital signals. I can live without it all. I am paying for Sat dish for ESPN and news, sat radio in car (for hubby) a home phone I havent used in 2 years but have to have for DSL A(another fee and slow as heck). Cell phones I dont use much at all. The only one I want is the internet. I can look at scores and still follow my teams that way. I have never used Hulu.
]]>It's not enough for AD revenue, It's never enough. HULU can be just another site bought by conglomerates that jumped the shark. PAY HULU??? MUHAHAHAHA, That is funny. Back to Youtube, tvants, or million other ways to get media. Did they think embracing internet media then trying to control market share online would work??? They must have forget they don't own internet and never can.
]]>The thing is, Hulu was conceived as a way to curb torrent downloads of television shows. If they start charging for service, everyone will flee back to torrents, and TV industry will loose altogether.
]]>Change the model. Don't become the equivalent of cable companies on the internet or your competitors will run you over.
]]>Blame Disney. That RAT-BASTARD Corp screws up everything it touches. They may make swell theme parks and awesome animation, but their media empire just sucks balls- wrote about this here, when Disney first started making ovetures towards Hulu, and now it's come true.
This is why, on the internet, the pay-per-song format of I-Tunes is wasting the subscription (aka bundling) competition.
On the other hand, paying a subscription fee to eliminate ads might be a good idea. People who don't pay still watch the ads.
]]>Hulu is an excellent idea as it is. The suits really need to stop being Greedy and need to start understanding moderation.
If they need to add two more 30 second commercials fine. If they want to offer a premium section for a fee that includes no commercials + some sort of extras thats fine. But the basic service they currently provide should be and should stay free.
]]>@DanteDiablo: Some independent podcast/videocast networks are doing this. They have a nice audience (games, technology, wine, food etc.) and all of their ads are selected specifically to target that audience. Ads are inserted in the content (just like TV and radio), they are non intrusive (usually 30-40 seconds), and targeted towards the audience...guess what, I DONT skip them, I do listen to them, and I actually buy the products using the shows promotion code to send a message to the advertiser that their ad is working, and hopefully they will keep supporting the shows that I love
]]>We have to pay something by watching commercials or direct payment. I just think that there are so many hands in it that we are now being asked to pay for more than we used to.
If I get a DVD from Netflix, my average cost for a DVD is around $1 and I can watch 4 shows. If I pay for the show from Amazon it is 1.99 per episode, so the 4 shows costs me $1 from Netflix and $8.00 for streaming. I thought streaming was supposed to be cheaper?
With the economies of scale should a show cost less than $1 to watch, more like 25-50 cents?
]]>Bundles ARE NOT consumer-centric, they are a corporate price fixing tool. Anyone claiming that providing bundles to their customers will be good for them is blatantly lying.
]]>I agree, though. Watching TV shows on the computer kinda blows compared to broadcast TV. Audio/video quality kinda sucks, too. Connecting it to TV just makes the streaming quality even more obvious.
]]>Back to torrents for me for everything. I'm not going to support Hulu growing their business just so they can turn around and start charging for everything.
]]>Yes, I would pay for a la carte.
]]>Could I forsee paying a reasonable low fee for Hulu LATER, under an inevitably changed system of content delivery, 5 or 10 years down the line? Yes.
]]>I don't mind the commercials so much, so I can go pee or get a snack. But just when I was getting ready to think about ditching satellite to save money, they have to go and do this.
Jerks.
]]>The switching costs for me to go back to free TV on the television (or a DVR if I won't be home) are low. I've already been annoyed at the limited # of episodes of shows available at Hulu.
If they really want me to stop watching their shows, the networks should keep down this path along with producing all the reality tv crap they've been making.
My money will go to Netflix over Hulu any day.
]]>So I pay $20 a month and watch more than I should, including Showtime and HBO shows.
]]>Now, what I *would* consider, if Hulu wants to boost revenue, is paying for movie content, similar to Pay Per View.
]]>I wish Networks would reduce their commercials and get more for them, thus limiting the flight they see from normal viewing. You almost have to skip the commercials or find a different way to watch or you will go bananas!
]]>At what point in this world will content creators all stand up, band together and take control of their own work and make what the nincumpoops at the top make.
]]>If they charge for this, I suspect, many, including myself, will stop using it and migrate back or to torrents and other ways of getting it.
]]>If they go to a pay service, the only way I will use Hulu is if it is streamed through netflix, otherwise they can kiss my ass.
]]>As far as the amount of commercials, there are more on cable channels per hour. They charge less, but they also have smaller audiences, so I don't know enough if they charge less per viewer. I suspect so.
It just seems funny that we are charged extra for watching channels with MORE commercials, because cable gets charged for them. One reason for high cable bills.
I would think if not for strong profit desires these cable channels should be happy that the cable companies are transmitting their channel for free so they can reach everyone with their commercials. Like the model that used to be for OTA.
This comes into play because it appears to be what will happen with HULU. I think we are getting double charged for something in the old days of OTA we did not. We should not have to pay for things that have commercials in them.
]]>I agree. They can get people to pay if they offer something different than they offer now. I love hulu and use it frequently, but if they start charging, there is Fancast, for example, or individual network's sites, and I will go there instead.
I don't mind if they have to show more commercials. They are providing me a free service.
]]>Translation: "Our research has shown that bundling allows us to raise prices more while spending less to add value. I don't know how this will go over with consumers, bu I'll just make an unqualified statement about what they want and hope this sticks."
I can understand charging for the service - Denis Leary and Alec Baldwin don't do commercials for free - but bundling is the most aggravating thing about cable and satellite TV. Nothing stings like paying for a channel you never watch. Or twenty of them.
]]>@frank64: I can't speak to MTV & CC since I don't watch them, but try watching the Discovery, NatGeo, & History channels and you'll see breaks sometimes every 5 minutes followed by a 3- or 4-minute commercials. And Hulu doesn't even carry those 3 channels, unless they just started to. As much as I like Time-Warp, Mythbusters, World's Biggest Fixes, Ice Road Truckers, & Modern Marvels (there are others but their names escape me right now), there's no way I can sit through them during their regular broadcast schedule. VCR FTW.
And while I am ranting, how all networks/channels get rid of the on-screen text that's blocking the view of whatever you're showing. Ok, your logo gets to stay (but make it smaller & not so bright), but we don't need the info about a new show premiering tonight or that Axe Men is starting is 10,9,8.. minutes from now. And these are the snipes / pop-ups we've all seen. No, this is permanent text on the screen during the entire episode. Discovery has put "new episode" above their "D". Big whoop! I just record the repeat a few hours later. BBCA, TNT, TBS, FX, TVLAND, E!, IFC, TLC, and USA all put extra text on their screens; therefore, I don't watch any of their stuff no matter how good a show might be.
The final item is length of shows. Make 'em either 30 or 60 minutes. None of this 61 or 62 minutes just to keep us glued to the channel. If you're not good enough to get it done in the regular boundaries, then don't put it on the air.
/end of rants. Thanks for listening.
And if the network sites start charging? TV is just a perk for me, I would just go without.
But really... just offer ad-free Hulu for a charge, or normal, with ads Hulu for free. People hate ads for some reason, and would probably be willing to pay.
]]>I love the logic here. "Hey guys, people love this service just the way it is, so let's start changing it!"
]]>Bundles---yeah--that's working really well for the cable companies. Consumers just LOVE paying for crap they don't want or need. Obviously this dude doesn't read Consumerist.
]]>And, it's not just MTV and CC that have tons of commercials, NBC/CBS/ABC have just as many, AND charge more for advertisers.
]]>Honestly, if they start charging, you can still get your TV shows streaming online (without commercials) for free, if you know where to look. Hell, you can even do that now.
Cue flames about piracy and yadda yadda.
]]>@Taylor: You mean like when cable television replaced over the air TV? (just kidding, I know there is a difference, but it was a comparison that was made when cable TV was first being rolled out).
Not only will you need to pay for the shows, but pay for the bandwidth if ISPs keep dialing back download caps.
]]>@Daniels: I am not willing to sit through a 4- or 5-minute commercial break online anymore than I am if I watching a taped show on my vcr (yeah, old-school). If a 60-minute show didn't have 20 minutes of commercials and promos (not counting the crawls & snipes & pop-ups) I would happily sit through a commercial or two and watch a show (except reality & talent, they are not appealing to me) 'live.'
]]>Just like cable used to be just a antenna like service. Why do TV stations like MTV and Comedy Central charge cable companies (and thus us) to carry the stations. There are more commercials on those stations than any OTA. They are double billing us!
]]>Am I one of the few people not impressed by Hulu? A number of the shows that I really enjoy, they only have clips/excerpts of. Their movie section is also kinda thin spread.
Also why would I want to pay something that is already ad based. I thought the purpose of showing those ads was to make it free...