Hulu May Begin Charging For Video Content

An anonymous reader writes "According to Jonathan Miller, News Corp's CDO, Hulu may soon begin charging subscription fees for some of their online content. News Corp is the parent company of Fox, which owns a huge portion of Hulu. When Miller of Newscorp was asked if Hulu would begin charging for online content during an Interview with Daily Finance, he said that 'the answer could be yes.' He went on to say that he doesn't 'see why over time that shouldn't happen.'"

Comments

Still not available

[Jeruvy]

Since we still can't watch Hulu in Canada, I won't be paying anything. It's probably cheaper than cable anyways.

Re:Still not available

[maxume]

You really think you are paying for the shopping channels? Really?

Really?!

Re:Still not available

[LandDolphin]

2 possible ways I could see ala-cart going:

1)They charge for for the popular channels - So, the big channels still sub. the little ones and your bill remains the same or more.

2)They charge more for the un-popular channels to maek them worth offering. You find out that some of the channels that you like (like discovery, sci-fi, and others) are not as pupular as Lifetime and you end up paying more to get those channels and you bill remains the same or more.

Re:Still not available

[mrdoogee]

IF
they provide the entire current season.

IF
they stop showing comercials.

IF
they make every show on the network available, regardless of ratings

Then I may be interested in paying for Hulu. If not, then back to torrents for me. I already pay for cable, and I have a open source DVR that can record OTA network TV fine.

Re:Still not available

[PaulMacGuysScott]

The issue with an a la carte system is the providers will always look for a way to squeeze more money out of us. Since most people are not making more money today than they were a few years ago that is a loosing proposition of the consumer. I like my Satellite TV and I pay for all the content but I can't always be in there to use it. Sometimes it is more convenient to get it on my laptop or my mobile device but I have already paid DirecTV to access the content. Who really wants to pay for it more than once? Hulu is growing at a phenomenal rate. If they are looking to loose eyeballs then charging the user is the way to do it. They already have advertisers paying for the content through ads like the TV model they have been using for years. They should capitalize on the fact it is a closer screen someone isn't going to start a video and walk away from the computer and the user can't fast forward through the commercials. Plus Hulu can give a more accurate count of viewership than TV can. Hulu can use that to charge a premium to the advertisers and since Hulu knows who we are they can further add value by inserting ads that a specific to the viewers interest and give them a link to drive right to the site. I just don't see them making money on charging us per view or per month unless it is commerical free, cheap, and there isn't a delay for the content. Currently I have to wait a week to watch In Plain Sight on Hulu and they only put some shows up for a limited time. I missed the whole first season and would like to watch it but it isn't there.

Re:Still not available

[stfvon007]

The only time i watched the shopping channel was when they were selling star trek merchandise with John de Lancie on the show. He was making fun of all the products. Unfortunately i don't think they ever had him back again. With Ala Carte would we be paid for having the shopping channel? Can we have a plan with only shopping channels and get a check in the mail each month? :D

Re:Still not available

[tabdelgawad]

I think this is the wrong way to think about cable service pricing. The marginal cost of providing you with an additional channel of cable is essentially zero. The pricing here is completely demand-driven and is about segmenting the market (price discrimination). In this, cable service tier pricing is closer to pricing different versions of Windows (Home, Business, Premium, etc, which all have the same marginal cost) than it is to bundling discrete goods.

Once you see it that way, you'll see that what you're asking for is like asking for a cheaper version of Windows without wordpad or paint because you don't use those programs and you shouldn't subsidize all those wordpad and paint users. In fact, cable companies would love to do that since it allows them to price discriminate more finely, but they won't do it because people will complain about complexity the same way they complain about multiple versions of Windows. Tier-pricing is a happy medium.

Re:Still not available

[jocknerd]

Except don't expect Hulu to give you alacarte either. They will bundle just like cable. Get you to pay $20 a month or something. I knew this was coming from Hulu.

Re:Still not available

[ceoyoyo]

"Whay do I have to subsidize golfers and parents of little kids and housewives? "

I hate to break it to you, but I very much doubt you're subsidizing little kids and housewives with your television watching. More the other way around, I expect.

Alt title: How to kill an extraordinary service

[ecolossal]

Do they feel the need to add a subscription fee when they already show commercials....? Isn't that what drives dissatisfaction with cable?

Re:Alt title: How to kill an extraordinary service

[FlyingBishop]

No, I think what drives dissatisfaction with cable is that you can only watch what is currently on.

Oh, and you're forced to watch ads.

I'd gladly pay $10/month for on-demand commercial-free access (under Linux) to any episode of every show currently offered in Hulu's library.

Throw in Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Top Gear, and I'd pay $20/month.

I also might be persuaded to watch commercials if you did it on something that wasn't as dog-slow as flash (video tag anyone?) Hell, throw in Linux codec licensing as part of the deal and it would be great. Though this doesn't mean I want some half-assed proprietary video player. PowerDVD, Windows Media Player, just about every proprietary player, Windows or Linux, has been completely inadequate without accelerated graphics. VLC is great, Mplayer is better performance-wise. Simply put, license me the codec, and I'll watch it, but I want my own implementation, yours sucks (and that's a platform-agnostic assertion.)

Not Smart

[shma]

If they charge for on demand content, then people will just go back to downloading it for free.

Re:Not Smart

[Mike Buddha]

Exactamundo. I download a lot of TV shows, and recently, I'd taken to watching available programming on Hulu. No skin off my back to go back to Bittorrent.

Just like a drug dealer

[MikeV]

Get them hooked with freebies - then hit them in the wallet.

Why not?

[Nerdposeur]

He went on to say that he doesn't 'see why over time that shouldn't happen.'"

Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.

Re:Why not?

[SwordsmanLuke]

Tell that to the cable company.

Re:Why not?

[Red Flayer]

Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.

Why not? Why shouldn't ads subsidize some of the content so that subscription fees are manageable?

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

Why not offer ad-free content to "gold" subscribers, limited ads to "silver" subscribers, and normal ad levels to "brown" (free) subscribers.

Then everybody wins, since it's the choice of the subscriber.

I know that the magazine-subscription model is very different, largely due to the cost of producing and distributing a magazine, and the difficulty of publishing different versions... but at a broader scale, this is what we have. Ad-heavy magazines with low subscription prices, ad-light magazines with high subscription prices. And, of course, the expensive mags with lots of advertising, where the advertising is considered part of the content (fashion mags especially).

Re:Surprised?

[Enuratique]

The first hit's always free...

Re:Surprised?

[v1]

The first hit's always free...

it's a great business model if you can afford front the startup costs without any initial customers. Attracts a lot more initial customers because you get a lot of people that normally would not pay for your service, but once they've had a sample of it they change their mind. Of course you'll lose a bunch of people when you switch to pay, but the only hit you'll take on that is what you've already fronted them with so it doesn't come as a surprise or a bad hit you didn't see coming or couldn't calculate/prepare for.

Re:Surprised?

[sunderland56]

Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever?

What, you mean like broadcast television?

Re:Bye Hulu!

[harryandthehenderson]

Except this just an article about a rumor of them charging subscriptions. Nowhere are there actual plans for Hulu to charge anything now or any time in the future. It's amazing how easily people fall for these FUD spreading articles based entirely on second-hand rumors.

OK, now people, DO NOT PAY and it will pass...

[rAiNsT0rm]

Seriously I try to get this through people's heads all the time... for geeks we sure can be dumb. It is and has been free. If everyone ignores the service if/when it goes pay or even if only parts go pay only IGNORE them, also make it known you are NOT going to pay for the content... ads are enough to deal with for the content. Then Hulu (which is already successful) will find alternate avenues for revenue. If everyone just jumps in right off the bat you have instantly ensured all future video services like this will be pay-only. Wake up! Please.

Cable?

[somethinghollow]

I have one of these already. It's called "cable." You pay a monthly fee and you get to watch a bunch of different channels with lots of different content. The only difference I can tell between a paid Hulu and cable is that Hulu is only "on demand," has less content, and wants to be PC-only. So, basically, Hulu will be the crappy version of cable.

Re:Surprised?

[Patch86]

AFAIK, all of the content on Hulu was made for original broadcast on TV. Of all the things on the torrent circuit, too, most of it was probably on TV the first time around. If you watch any professionally made video, odds are it was originally either a TV or cinema show the first time around.

TV over the airwaves/cable is 70 year old technology, and hasn't changed fundamentally at all in that time (just got higher quality and more plentiful). Its big draw back is the scheduling, being forced to wait until a given time to watch what you want, and not being able to pick what is shown. But the vast VAST majority of content available on any medium today will have passed through TV at some point.

Honourable exception is YouTube and similar made-by-anyone sites. Perfectly valid video content, but sometimes you just plain need programming by professional, funded film makers.