What? Nooooooooo!

[moshquerade]

Soon, you'll have to pay for Hulu
Jeff Bercovici
Jun 3rd 2009 at 10:30AM

Don't get too attached to all that free, high-quality video on Hulu. It just might disappear behind a pay wall before too long.

Speaking last night at an Internet Week event sponsored by The Hollywood Reporter, Jonathan Miller, News Corp.'s newly-installed chief digital officer, said he envisions a future where at least some of the TV shows and movies on Hulu, the premium video site co-owned by News Corp. (NWS), NBC Universal and Disney (DIS), are available only to subscribers.

Miller, whose last job was running AOL (parent of Daily Finance), prefaced his remark by noting that he won't attend his first Hulu board meeting until Monday, so the scenario he foresees is merely his own speculation. But, he continued, "in my opinion the answer could be yes. I don't see why over time that shouldn't happen. I don't think it's on the agenda for Monday [but] it seems to me that over time that could be a logical thing."

And considering that Miller is in charge of coordinating News Corp.'s efforts to find new ways to get consumers to pay for digital content generated by News Corp.'s properties -- which include Fox Television, Fox News, 20th Century Fox films, The Wall Street Journal and much more -- his definition of what's logical is likely to carry a lot of weight.

Miller also talked about what he thinks newspapers will have to do to convince readers to pay for articles that they're used to getting free on the web.

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.

Such a bundle, he added, might include not just content but also a device to read it on, such as a Kindle or an iPhone.

Miller illustrated the problems papers -- even those rare ones that, like The Wall Street Journal, have had some success getting consumers to pay up -- now face with a story from his own experience. After buying his first Kindle three months ago, he said, he canceled his $14-a-month subscription to The Wall Street Journal Online in favor of a cheaper subscription through Kindle.

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.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/20...-have-to-pay-for-hulu/

 

[halik]

Wow that guy is pretty clueless... not that surprising considering how well AOL has done over the past decade.

The only reason why hulu took over is because it's free; people will switch back to getting their shows from torrent as soon as they start charging money. I'm already paying for cable, no way im gonna pay to another service that provides the same content.


ARTICLE BELOW:

 

[olds]

Not me

 

[PepePeru]

figures...

 

[KeithTalent]

Didn't read the article, but I have to go with a giant "duh" on this one.

KT

 

[Chryso]

Clearly, anyone who ran AOL knows how good business should be handled.

 

[lokiju]

If they make it a solid replacement to the cable box with as much up time and ease of use but for a fraction of the cost then I'd be OK with paying a small fee.

But if it's the PITA it is now to get to a TV then I'll kindly ask them to esad.

 

[jpeyton]

HDTV.XviD-LOL

 

[darkxshade]

It better be damn well ad free if they're going to charge a subscription. Then it's pretty much on par to cable subscriptions to premium channels which I wouldn't entirely be opposed to. Of course it'll all go downhill once ISPs all start to charge for metered internet usage.

 

[Peelback79]

Ugh. I just started the 2nd season of Ice Road Truckers and am still playing catch up with my Airwolf and A-Team and Battlestar Galactica......*sobs*

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

No. Free works for me. Especially as the economy continues plummet, I think most consumers are attracted to free.

 

[Fritzo]

My brain was turned to mush and eaten by Alec Baldwin, so I will pay for it.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Chryso
Clearly, anyone who ran AOL knows how good business should be handled.

Bwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahhaahahahaha!

 

[TwiceOver]

I would be OK with this if they had complete seasons of stuff (like they did in the beginning), there were no commercials, and it cost less than $5/mo.

 

[meltdown75]

but you know what will still be free?

this:

 

[rsd]

As someone said, not surprising this is the same guy that ran AOL <sarcasm> so successfully.

There has yet to be a successful business model for consumers paying for television and movie content that is otherwise free on regular television (I don't count Netflix because their Watch Now offers inferior playback quality but is nice if you consider it free with the DVD rental feature).

The whole point of HULU was to provide FREE content subsidized by specifically marketed commercials with a generally higher pay per view/click cost. Additionally the quality (480p with some "HD-lite" type content) is still not there enough to be charging a premium.

Heck, look at newspapers, people will not pay for their content when numerous FREE resources are available via legal and illegal means.

 

[Crusty]

Wait.. so the new guy hasn't even set foot in a board meeting and he's already predicting what will happen?

He sounds real smart...

 

[ViviTheMage]

but, but we watch ads

 

[Gooberlx2]

If I were to pay for it, I'd have to drop my cable TV. In that sense they better add a bunch more content from other networks and give me a proper 10-foot interface (and support each of HTPC, Roku, Xbox360, PS3, Wii, Popcorn Hour, Plex/Boxee, etc, etc ).

 

[Miramonti]

I already pay for it by having to watch their commercials, and that's all I'll ever be willing to pay them.

 

[Beev]

Having to pay for "some" shows/movies makes sense.

I see smaller clips like SNL Digital Shorts, etc staying free.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
If I were to pay for it, I'd have to drop my cable TV. In that sense they better add a bunch more content from other networks and give me a proper 10-foot interface (and support each of HTPC, Roku, Xbox360, PS3, Wii, Popcorn Hour, Plex/Boxee, etc, etc ).

Hulu desktop is out. Dunno how good it is, but it claims that sort of interface.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: halik
The only reason why hulu took over is because it's free; people will switch back to getting their shows from torrent as soon as they start charging money. I'm already paying for cable, no way im gonna pay to another service that provides the same content.

this.

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I already pay for it by having to watch their commercials, and that's all I'll ever be willing to pay them.

This.

 

[Saga]

I've said all along I would absolutely be willing to subscribe monthly to get rid of adds altogether. I assume this is no different, unless you're paying AND getting ads.. in which case, no thank you.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'd be okay with it if they expanded all or most of the shows they carry to the point where they include every episode or nearly every episode. Then it basically becomes a competitor to Netflix Instant Watch, except primarily focused on TV rather than movies.

I just remember watching It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia on Hulu a while ago and it was fun, but a couple months back they changed it so now you can only see a few episodes, not the entire show. I'd be okay with paying if they were to put the entire collection of episodes back online (along with all their other shows that only have a few eps up at any given time).

I guess it's either that or get rid of the ads. I'd rather have a bigger selection than no ads, but obviously both would be best.