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

[princessproton]

My initial reaction was to buck against this, but on second thought (and depending on how it's implemented) maybe it wouldn't be that bad. The thing I hate about cable is that there is no "a la carte" option where I can selectively pay for the channels I actually want and not have to pay for the other 90% of the programming that comes in the packages. Depending on how they swing this, if they offer cable-based content as individual subscriptions at prices that are cumulatively less than my current cable bill, it may actually be a better option for me and allow me to cancel cable altogether.

Worst Source Ever

[eldavojohn]

It came from words spoken at Hollywood Reporter's Internet Week (which seems to be the origin of this report). And from Jeff Bercovici at Daily Finance who reoprts that Jonathan Miller, Chief Digital Officer of News Corp said:

I think what works for consumers most likely -- and this has to be tested, frankly -- is bundles. 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.

For what it's worth, he also made this statement:

I went from paying $14 to The Wall Street Journal to paying $10 to Amazon. Now the splits there, and I think this is relatively well known, are very, very much in favor of Amazon. So I became very much less valuable to The Wall Street Journal. That's part one. Part two is they don't know I exist. I went from being someone who's their subscriber to being someone who is an Amazon subscriber, which The Wall Street Journal has no visibility back to and cannot manage that customer relationship. . . . So they've lost both the customer management and, trust me, the lion's share of the economics.

You know I hate to be voice of calm reason, folks but this is all the original source reported:

Asked specifically about the future of online video joint venture Hulu, which is currently advertising-supported, he said it "is an environment for premium content." Pointing to the popularity of iPhone applications, he added: "We're seeing the beginning of a very strong app economy."

From there, you can trace a very hilarious wave of the telephone game from blog to blog of people slowly blowing it out of proportion as it's put together that this guy is talking about paid subscriptions and he's in charge of Hulu therefore Hulu must be becoming a paid subscription service.

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?

real headline should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

real headline should be "Hulu expects viewership to drop off significantly."

Re:Surprised?

[nine-times]

Well I think ultimately the issue is this: Everyone sees the writing on the wall. TV shows and movies are going to have to be offered available online, or else people will get it through pirate channels. So the movie studios and everyone are starting to reluctantly jump on board, but they don't have the business model all worked out.

So can they make enough money from advertisements? Can they make enough money from subscriptions, or a la carte sales? Can they work out some kind of combination, or will consumers balk at the idea of paying for a subscription and still watching ads? People already do that with cable (pay for it and still watch tons of ads), so it's not unthinkable.

iTunes is doing the a la carte sales, Hulu is doing ads. If someone else isn't doing subscriptions, someone will probably try it soon.

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:Why not?

[SwordsmanLuke]

Tell that to the cable company.

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.