For a while now the networks have been complaining about the explosion of people viewing shows on the internet (whether by legal or illegal methods). Like the newspaper business, the guys running the show are usually the last ones to the table.
So the networks started coming up with ways to legalize and monetize online viewing of TV shows and movies. Some networks are working with YouTube to put advertiser-paid content on that site, while NBC, ABC, Fox and others banded together to create Hulu.
Multiple networks and production companies post their content on Hulu. As of right now, only users in the United States are enjoying this content. Because of copyright issues, the rest of the world (myself included up here in Canada), are told we cannot view the content. Frankly, the ridiculous frustration of that issue is the topic of another article. Right now Hulu makes money from ads, like most other online viewing sites.
That, however, is about to change. News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey has annouced that Hulu will start charging for its content. According to Broadcast and Cable, Carey recently said:
‘It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online,’he said.
‘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,’Carey said. ‘Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.’
AdVerse had a quick chat with Carey too and posed the question, when exactly does Hulu start charging then? Carey, who says he’s only been to one Hulu board meeting since arriving at News Corp., suggests there is still no timeline but supposes it’s at least in 2010. Carey says that while throwing up a pay-wall around all content is not the answer, it doesn’t mean there wont be fees for some specially-created content and TV previews.
No real word yet on whether charging will mean monthly subscriptions, pay-per-view or even whether some content will still remain free.
I don’t necessarily agree that this is the way to go. There must be another way to monetize sites like these. This is essentially the same problem that the newspaper industry is facing. If the New York Times started charging for website views would people still be willing to pay when they can still get their news from a plethora of other free sources?
The Internet has changed the game for a lot of industries, but people view it as a free service and I don’t know whether charging is the way for networks to recoup lost costs. The real question is how many of you will drop Hulu once they start charging?
Sound off below in the comments and let me know if you have any bright ideas for networks to make money off sites like Hulu without charging for content.
Email me at clarissa @ tvovermind.com
Follow me at twitter.com/clarissa373
1. Hulu isn't a free model, it's ad supported. If Hulu isn't getting the revenue it needs from ads, then revenue needs to come from somewhere.
2. Hulu is run by a board, and the comments of one (NEW only been to one board meeting) board member does not make policy.
3. People are used to paying for Television content, unless you're using a television antenna, a free HD converter box and a 1978 Television.
4. Internet isn't free either, unless you're scampering off to the Library to catch the latest episode of The Office on Hulu.
5. Netflix charges for streaming (a small fee, and goodish content)
6. I can see a model, where they'll provide current episodes for free (expanded time shifting) but access to archives (old canceled series) viewers will have to pony up some cash. The content providers want people to buy DVDs, I can see using Hulu as viable teaser to push DVD rentals. Though a subscription model (similar to Netflix), or a bookshelf model (similar to Amazon/Barnes&Nobel) might work as well.
7. There is always the torrents, or whatever comes next. ;)
LOL Jon. I posted my comments at the same time as you, and we were both pretty close on what we said. Scary.
You're absolutely right, Jon, that Hulu is currently ad-supported. But it's essentially free (beyond what we pay for our monthly/yearly internet providers) to viewers right now.
What is interesting is that yes, people are used to paying for television content, but will they also be willing to pay for that content – again – on their computers? It's almost like being charged twice, so to speak, to watch the same show (your cable provider and Hulu).
Obviously people are OK with paying for content on the internet – I think that the success of shows and movies on iTunes attests to that. The real question is are people willing to pay for content that is currently free when there are other options (free or fee-based) elsewhere. I guess we will have to see what kind of charges Hulu will put in place, as well as price, which could very well be a determining factor.
Well, also, when people pay for movies and tv shows on iTunes, its more like buying a DVD, as in they get to take it with them. They download a file and it becomes theirs. I just don't see Hulu making this work to something more successful than their ad supported model. The only people that are really going to bite on this are the ones who aren't paying for cable and are watching ALL of their content on the internet.
1. Hulu isn’t a free model, it’s ad supported. If Hulu isn’t getting the revenue it needs from ads, then revenue needs to come from somewhere.
2. Hulu is run by a board, and the comments of one (NEW only been to one board meeting) board member does not make policy.
3. People are used to paying for Television content, unless you’re using a television antenna, a free HD converter box and a 1978 Television.
4. Internet isn’t free either, unless you’re scampering off to the Library to catch the latest episode of The Office on Hulu.
5. Netflix charges for streaming (a small fee, and goodish content)
6. I can see a model, where they’ll provide current episodes for free (expanded time shifting) but access to archives (old canceled series) viewers will have to pony up some cash. The content providers want people to buy DVDs, I can see using Hulu as viable teaser to push DVD rentals. Though a subscription model (similar to Netflix), or a bookshelf model (similar to Amazon/Barnes&Nobel) might work as well.
7. There is always the torrents, or whatever comes next. ;)
LOL Jon. I posted my comments at the same time as you, and we were both pretty close on what we said. Scary.
You’re absolutely right, Jon, that Hulu is currently ad-supported. But it’s essentially free (beyond what we pay for our monthly/yearly internet providers) to viewers right now.
What is interesting is that yes, people are used to paying for television content, but will they also be willing to pay for that content – again – on their computers? It’s almost like being charged twice, so to speak, to watch the same show (your cable provider and Hulu).
Obviously people are OK with paying for content on the internet – I think that the success of shows and movies on iTunes attests to that. The real question is are people willing to pay for content that is currently free when there are other options (free or fee-based) elsewhere. I guess we will have to see what kind of charges Hulu will put in place, as well as price, which could very well be a determining factor.
Well, also, when people pay for movies and tv shows on iTunes, its more like buying a DVD, as in they get to take it with them. They download a file and it becomes theirs. I just don’t see Hulu making this work to something more successful than their ad supported model. The only people that are really going to bite on this are the ones who aren’t paying for cable and are watching ALL of their content on the internet.
Well, if they did have a subscription only, or pay-per-view model, then no, I would no longer utilize Hulu, or at the very least the pay functions. While I can see how some of their content, specifically their movie libraries and such, could fall into a pay-per-view model, it certainly makes no sense whatsoever for their current television content. Tons of people, myself included, run to hulu any time we miss an episode of something or our DVR craps out on us. We go to hulu because 1. they're free and 2. they have the best video player out there, hands down. But if they started to charge for that content, I'd simply go directly to the network websites and view their shows there. So it wouldn't make sense for hulu to do this across the board.
I predict that they'll start either a pay-per-view or subscription model for their movies, and possibly some of their older television content, such as popular series that are no longer on television. Even at that, I think Hulu will lose in this deal in the long run, and their massive expenses into advertising this past year will be for nothing, because they're going to get TORE UP for this in the blogosphere.
Well, if they did have a subscription only, or pay-per-view model, then no, I would no longer utilize Hulu, or at the very least the pay functions. While I can see how some of their content, specifically their movie libraries and such, could fall into a pay-per-view model, it certainly makes no sense whatsoever for their current television content. Tons of people, myself included, run to hulu any time we miss an episode of something or our DVR craps out on us. We go to hulu because 1. they’re free and 2. they have the best video player out there, hands down. But if they started to charge for that content, I’d simply go directly to the network websites and view their shows there. So it wouldn’t make sense for hulu to do this across the board.
I predict that they’ll start either a pay-per-view or subscription model for their movies, and possibly some of their older television content, such as popular series that are no longer on television. Even at that, I think Hulu will lose in this deal in the long run, and their massive expenses into advertising this past year will be for nothing, because they’re going to get TORE UP for this in the blogosphere.
Hulu doesn't stream in Canada, so it's CTV, Global or SPACE streaming for me, or (am I allowed to say this?) torrents.
**a free HD converter box and a 1978 Television.**
HEY! No slamming my TV! ;)
As a fellow Canadian I'm right there with you. What's weird is that I would LOVE to use Hulu and if it was available I would probably visit it more than Global, CTV or Space. To be honest with you, I'm not sure I have ever watched an episode on any of those sites online. I'm a terrible Canadian, aren't I?
I have a slow-ass computer so it takes FOREVER to watch something on our stations- I rarely have the patience. I wonder about the current war between cable and local stations- will part of the fallout there be allowing US shows to stream up here, either by the networks or Hulu?
Hulu doesn’t stream in Canada, so it’s CTV, Global or SPACE streaming for me, or (am I allowed to say this?) torrents.
**a free HD converter box and a 1978 Television.**
HEY! No slamming my TV! ;)
As a fellow Canadian I’m right there with you. What’s weird is that I would LOVE to use Hulu and if it was available I would probably visit it more than Global, CTV or Space. To be honest with you, I’m not sure I have ever watched an episode on any of those sites online. I’m a terrible Canadian, aren’t I?
I have a slow-ass computer so it takes FOREVER to watch something on our stations- I rarely have the patience. I wonder about the current war between cable and local stations- will part of the fallout there be allowing US shows to stream up here, either by the networks or Hulu?
Can't we just watch longer commercials on hulu?
My hulu plan – Use IP tracking to find out where people are located and play full commercials and give some cut of that money to the local affiliates.
Can’t we just watch longer commercials on hulu?
My hulu plan – Use IP tracking to find out where people are located and play full commercials and give some cut of that money to the local affiliates.
This is an atrocity. Like Bryan said, paying for a show on iTunes and watching it on Hulu or a network website are two different things and I only purchase something off iTunes if 1) It's worth it and 2) if it's the absolute last resort. If someone is offering the same thing free (and legally), then I will most definitely go with the better deal. When Chase Carey said "It's time to start getting paid…" I immediately felt my skin start to boil… Great point out, Jon, that the guy was obviously new at his job.
This is an atrocity. Like Bryan said, paying for a show on iTunes and watching it on Hulu or a network website are two different things and I only purchase something off iTunes if 1) It’s worth it and 2) if it’s the absolute last resort. If someone is offering the same thing free (and legally), then I will most definitely go with the better deal. When Chase Carey said “It’s time to start getting paid…” I immediately felt my skin start to boil… Great point out, Jon, that the guy was obviously new at his job.
To Hulu:
Love you. But this kind of love is conditional, especially when I know you're there not to love me, but to utilize me to monetize your wares. Right now, I can handle the ads.
But love is conditional. Change on us, and this relationship's over. break-up. Onto the next better thing.
Just try it.
To Carey: Great telegraphing, dude! Great way to sound like a corporate tool!
To Hulu:
Love you. But this kind of love is conditional, especially when I know you’re there not to love me, but to utilize me to monetize your wares. Right now, I can handle the ads.
But love is conditional. Change on us, and this relationship’s over. break-up. Onto the next better thing.
Just try it.
To Carey: Great telegraphing, dude! Great way to sound like a corporate tool!
Hulu, as it is right now has a great networking model. They work with the networks, and in turn they get a huge boost. Where else can you watch tv online (legally) for free in the U.S.? You can't
Bring that to "pay", and I think you'll see a LOT of problems come in. People won't pay to watch free tv, it's that simple, ESPECIALLY when that "free tv" is incredibly limited by the networks (for example Fox has huge regulations on how long they can play, what they can play, that kind of thing).
OTOH, if they brought some use to the model (ie: charging only for HBO/SHO shows), then I can see this being a bit beneficial.
Either way they go, they have to remove ads from the "paid" material.
Hulu, as it is right now has a great networking model. They work with the networks, and in turn they get a huge boost. Where else can you watch tv online (legally) for free in the U.S.? You can’t
Bring that to “pay”, and I think you’ll see a LOT of problems come in. People won’t pay to watch free tv, it’s that simple, ESPECIALLY when that “free tv” is incredibly limited by the networks (for example Fox has huge regulations on how long they can play, what they can play, that kind of thing).
OTOH, if they brought some use to the model (ie: charging only for HBO/SHO shows), then I can see this being a bit beneficial.
Either way they go, they have to remove ads from the “paid” material.
I think this is a very bad idea, and they should come up with a way to keep it free and increase revenue. More advertising or another method.
I think this is a very bad idea, and they should come up with a way to keep it free and increase revenue. More advertising or another method.
I skimmed to see if anyone mentioned it already.