Hulu may start charging for content next year

[Ombligo]

AdVerse had a quick chat with News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase 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.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/blog/AD...n_2010.php

[clay]

hulu is too good of a service to continue being free in its current form forever. they either need more ads, or to start charging for content. I'd be happy to pay $10/month for unlimited access. Between my wife and I, we probably keep up with 15-20 different shows at any one time. We'd have to pay probably $30-$50 on cable for that type of content.

It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[M A V I C]

They need more shows and better searching/sorting capabilities before I'd pay.

[deckeda]

Unless they can offer same-day streaming and downloads as normal TV and DVRs can, I ain't payin'.

Hulu and every other online content provider would much prefer to get it through advertising but that model is broken. Online ad rates are a fraction of what TV ad rates are, and for good reasons: TVs are more convenient to use than computers for watching shows. Fewer eyeballs online.

[M A V I C]

deckeda wrote:
Online ad rates are a fraction of what TV ad rates are, and for good reasons: TVs are more convenient to use than computers for watching shows. Fewer eyeballs online.

Eh, that's not the reason. TV ads are expensive because there's no solid way to quantify their return for most advertisers. With online ads, it's much easier to track and there's much more competition. Advertisers aren't going to pay more than what it would cost them to advertise elsewhere.

[Doc]

deckeda wrote: Online ad rates are a fraction of what TV ad rates are, and for good reasons: TVs are more convenient to use than computers for watching shows. Fewer eyeballs online.

Fewer eyeballs, but more dedicated. Ad revenues are greater for online content than for tv per thousand viewers and online viewership is going up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=atKGiQOMco.Y

I think they'd be fools to charge for all content. They might charge for premium stuff like sports packages with live-feed options.

[jdc]

more good reads about hulu --

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/140

[silvarios]

Hulu isn't worth a dime as long as they use broken Flash for streaming. HTML5 please save us from Flash!!! I also like how Hulu calls 480p "HD". 480p is not considered HD in this country. Since Hulu is only available in the USA, not sure why they think they can get around with calling 480p "HD".


Nathan

[vision63]

I watch a hell of lot of Hulu. Mostly reruns of old shows like Dragnet. I'd never pay for it though. They should negotiate of piece of the fortune I pay Comcast every month. It's still just TV. They can run more commercials for all I care. I actually wish they'd show vintage commercials that ran with the shows.

[Tommie Milwaukee]

The few shows that watch are all available on Hulu the day or two after they air. I could cancel my cable subscription & save a helluva lot of money. Sure, I'd pay a fee ($10-$15) for Hulu.