Hulu to Charge Viewers for Broadcast Content in 2010?

[chainfire]

An article here claims Hulu will start charging for content next year. As a viewer of Hulu, I can't say I'll pay for anything on it - I'd rather watch the ads or just use Netflix and get the series as rentals.

Claiming they'll probably use iTunes as a model, I have to wonder then why wouldn't I just go to iTunes?

The article goes on to say "...the more money Hulu makes, the better its catalog will become. And people will want to pay for that." I guess as someone who no longer has cable or watches regular TV, I can't see what that "better catalog" is...unless they start offering HBO/Showtime like series like Curb Your Enthusiasm and Dexter or newly released dvd movie streams, I'm not seeing what there is on network/cable worth paying for.

Are there any shows out there that are so 'must see' you'd pay $2-4 an episode for a download rather than just getting it on DVD/Blu-Ray?

 

[mmack66]

Nope.

 

[Spivey]

Nope.

+1

Patience is a virtue. Also, it can be more fun just to watch a season in a week or so. Bad move, Hulu.

 

[MoJoe]

Funny, the platform is monitized already through ads. I guess that's not enough for Hulu's investors - NBC, Fox & ABC. Too bad for them that they're competing with my DVR for free repeats. Once they charge guess what's going to win?

 

[Phog Allen]

Nope.

Succinct and accurate.


I rarely watch series tv and even more rare, follow one regularly. Battlestar Galactica, Warehouse 13, The X-files, and just one or two more these last fifteen years. Most cops shows/investigative/drama shows are too full of politics and pc crap. I just can't follow them. Sorry for the rant. Back to the OP, don't do it.

Regards, Todd

 

[WhosYerBob]

Nope.

+1 Not here either.

 

[FreezerBurns]

$2 - $4 per episode??? That's a tad outrageous.

 

[chainfire]

$2 - $4 per episode??? That's a tad outrageous.

Just a guess...based on the idea they're going to be 'following iTunes model'. It seems that they're going to do a per episode price than monthly fee. Either way, nothing I'll be doing, but it goes to show how greedy companies ruin a good thing.

 

[SmoovD]

I have no problem with a company trying to make a buck as long as the same company doesn't mind me not giving it to them.

 

[cricky101]

I have no problem with a company trying to make a buck as long as the same company doesn't mind me not giving it to them.

+1 It's their service so they can charge what they want. And I can choose to pay for it, or look elsewhere.

 

[stobes21]

iTunes charges for episodes and gets plenty of people to pay for them. Hulu is an attractive option because it's free and high quality. They are going to have to offer something iTunes doesn't to compete with them. I certainly wouldn't pay for what hulu offers now, even without ads.

 

[GMen]

I think that once they start charging, it will be the beginning of the end for Hulu...

 

[mr_economy]

I don't know who they picked as their focus group for testing this idea, but I don't know a single person willing to pay for Hulu. It exists because it's free. If/when Hulu starts charging, two things will happen: Hulu will go belly up, and TV show piracy rates will skyrocket.

 

[chris456]

I usually use netflix, especially "watch instantly". Thats probably the only service I will pay for. For new seasons or during the season, each network (except CBS) has every show and episode for the present season for free, and sometimes the previous season as well.

I actually don't even use Hulu that much come to think of it.

 

[mmack66]

For new seasons or during the season, each network (except CBS) has every show and episode for the present season for free, and sometimes the previous season as well.

Well, that will more than likely come to an end.

 

[mr_economy]

Well, that will more than likely come to an end.

It's like networks have no memory. They started putting shows online as a reaction to massive amounts of piracy, figuring that if people were watching for free online anyway, at least they'd make some cash on ad revenue. If they start charging for online viewing, their revenue will drop to approximately $0 and piracy rates will shoot through the roof again. If these rumors are true, network executives will make Detroit auto execs look brilliant by comparison.

 

[Phog Allen]

It's like networks have no memory. They started putting shows online as a reaction to massive amounts of piracy, figuring that if people were watching for free online anyway, at least they'd make some cash on ad revenue. If they start charging for online viewing, their revenue will drop to approximately $0 and piracy rates will shoot through the roof again. If these rumors are true, network executives will make Detroit auto execs look brilliant by comparison.

What he said.

Regards, Todd