HULU might start charging for content.
HULU, the online ad-supported content provider that provides streaming content from FOX, NBC and Disney for free, may start charging for content as early as next year.
Chase Carey, deputy chairman of HULU’s parent company News Corp., discussed the future of the company’s model at the B&C OnScreen Summit recently, saying “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online”.
I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.
Carey goes on to say that not all content will be on a paid subscriber basis, but certain programming like specially-created content and TV previews could be billable.
The reason HULU remains free is that it follows the same model as regular broadcast TV: it is advertiser-supported. Assuming you have a cable TV subscription and an internet connection at home and want to catch the episode of 30 Rock you missed on HULU, you will effectively be paying 3 times to see it if HULU starts charging for content.
This all remains speculation; as AdWeek points out:
This is not the first time one of Hulu’s media owners has spoken, apparently erroneously, of the company’s plans. At the All Things D Conference in May, NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker said Hulu might “become an ad agency, and that’s something we’ve talked about.”
A Hulu rep subsequently said it had no plans to get into the agency business.
Speculative or otherwise, fans (or rather, ex-fans) of the wildly successful and popular site are wearing their blogs on the outside about the whole idea, and rightly so. If HULU wants to charge for content, that’s their prerogative, but considering they already have a solid income stream in place, it’s a bit of a “screw you, taxpayer” move to the viewers.
CNN’s SciTechBlogger puts it succinctly:
The move to a fee-based business model is a decision that will still have to be approved by the Hulu board, and I hope someone has the sense to blackball this idea. But common sense doesn’t always prevail in the entertainment industry – if it did, we might still have “Arrested Development.”
Ba-zinnng.
I’ll leave you with a few choice comments from some other articles, including B&C’s original post.
B&C – October 26, 2009
In response to: Chase Carey: Hulu to Charge in 2010
John commented:
IF Hulu asks for money they are the ones with the brains that have turned to jelly.
B&C – October 22, 2009
In response to: Chase Carey: Hulu to Charge in 2010
Tom Chapin commented:
The solution is so simple, it’s ridiculous. Hulu needs to offer a “premium” paid version which is ad-free (and maybe has some extra content), while still offering the free ad-supported version. They’d be crazy stupid to run ads on the paid version. That would just make their customers angry.
October 22, 2009
In response to: Chase Carey: Hulu to Charge in 2010
pfffft commented:
Well, I stomached those advertisements because hulu was an easy go to source… smart move ad companies, now I’ll get all my shows ad free via torrents. *applaud* well done. smart move.
EW.com – Joey | Thu 10/22/09 4:43 PM
I dont see how torrents for tvrips of shows that air on the local networks is illegal. they are free to watch on tv, so why should the be illegal online? its a bigger crime to charge for those same shows when they arent the dvd version. now, downloading dvd rips of tv shows, or shows from showtime, hbo, etc, yeah, thats illegal since you have to pay for those in the first place. but network tv shows? i see nothing wrong getting those.
CNN – gracie – October 23rd, 2009 4:03 pm ET
I’m waving goodbye to Hulu when they say they should charge money for their services. Greed is not cool.
.
I find it kind of interesting that they’re considering a subscription model, yet on some shows (like The Simpsons and CSI) they charge a higher advertising rate than on TV itself.
Hulu should be charging more ‘per eyeball’ than on TV across the board, because people are seeking this content out, and with the limited advertising time, MUCH more likely to pay attention as opposed to walk away.
If Hulu had a login mechanism, and had each user fill out a simple demographic survery when they signed up, then these eyeballs would be even MORE valuable to the advertisers – probably by an order of magnitude compared to TV, which is based on a limited number of Nielson ratings.
Charging more for Simpsons advertising because more people watch it is stupid.
Think of it this way. What’s more valuable to an advertiser?
Knowing that 100,000 random people saw an ad?
Or having (on a per person basis), the demographic information for those 100,00 people?
It’s obviously the latter, but how MUCH more valuable is it? 50% more? Double? An order of magnitude?
Like every single website that has ever attempted to put a paywall around the thing that they attracted their following by giving away for free — Hulu will soon be dead or will simply fall into a audience/media black hole and never be discussed again anywhere that matters. I find the pattern recognition abilities of the people in charge of these things to be piss-poor.