Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hulu May Begin Charging For Content Next Year

Posted by Soulskill on from the we-hardly-knew-ye dept.

DJLuc1d tips news that Chase Carey, president and COO of News Corp., has said that Hulu may begin charging for its streamed video content as early as next year. He said at a recent conference that the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term. The Atlantic takes a look at several business models Hulu could employ and wonders how their current advertising system would be involved.

5 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. time to update headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.

    1. Re:time to update headline by LihTox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I counter your anecdote with mine: we gave up cable a year ago, but I would certainly consider paying for Hulu, so long as the price was reasonable (i.e., much less than cable or iTunes would cost for a month of television). In fact, if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $5/month, I might consider that as well.

      And broadcast TV is useless for me anymore: I've gotten too used to watching shows when *I* have the time, not when they're scheduled to be on; and I like being able to watch from any room in the house, not just on the television. I could get TIVO, but now we're not talking "free on broadcast TV" anymore.

  2. Depends on what they mean by charging... by rm999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to this media journalist (http://gizmodo.com/5388745/how-a-paid-hulu-would-work):

    "Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, doesn't plan on charging people to watch the stuff it's currently airing on the site-a mix of first-run shows from broadcast TV, a limited number of cable TV shows and a smattering of movies. But Hulu is trying to figure out how to create some kind of premium offering where you'll pay for stuff that isn't on the site right now."

    If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for. Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.

    1. Re:Depends on what they mean by charging... by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for. Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.

      Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads? When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place? I do.

      And somehow, 20 years later, cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads. Literally, ads on top of ads. (you know, when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad, and it happens while other ads are playing?)

      Now Hulu comes along. it's got decent shows, a decent experience, and doesn't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads, and it's FREE. Any surprise it's popular?

      Give it a few years. Then you'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads, if history is any lesson.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  3. Fast-forward to 2011 by whterbt · · Score: 5, Funny
    A preview of what hulu.com will look like in 2011:

    hulu.com

    This domain is for sale! Click here to register!

    --
    Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.