Daily Dose of Rage

[Emmons]

Hulu plans to start charging for content in 2010 (http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/10/22/hulu-to-start-charging-in-2010/)

Bonus points for News Corp Deputy Chairman Chase Carey's comment, “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."

[Anthek]

What the fuck? I guess it's back to torrents.

[Gorvena]

The death of Hulu IMO.

[Grayslin]

You would think someone there would have pointed out to them that their service is a success precisely because it's free. That's the draw.

They'll probably get enough people paying to stay in business, but I doubt they're going to see any type of spectacular profit from it.

[Akuje]

Im done with hulu now.

[Sabachthan]

Seriously? Doubling the number of commercial breaks in a program hour and instituting minute-long commercials wasn't sufficient? *facepalm*

“I think a subscription model is a very difficult way to capture consumers for your content. I think what you need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will not be encouraged to go elsewhere." Like cable.

[Skallagar]

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h143/sithcountess/Misc%20Stuff/VaderNOOOOO.gif

[Akuje]

Actually I think they need to do something like Pandora. 40 hours free, then 99 cents for the rest of the month, or $36 a year with no commercials.

[Vyn]

Pandora's deal would be EXCELLENT.

[Karkarov]

You guys do realize the way they were doing it was killing them right? They got craptons more traffic than advertisements could hope to cover the cost of. Be realistic. If you want online streamed shows to be up 24/7 whenever you want them you better either expect lots of commercials or to pay some type of fee. The people losing money to torrents and pirate sites aren't stupid and they won't let it keep going on forever. Take a look at some of the new internet laws the US government was considering for example.

[Malorii]

I liked hulu, I didn't mind watching the commercials because it was free. I'd watch Dollhouse and Sanctuary and American Dad re runs, it was like netflix but with tell shows and I wasn't so upset if I'd miss a show because I could use Hulu.

It would be nice to give consumers the OPTION of paying, like two options the freebie which is shows with commercial interruptions, and the paid subscription no commercial interruptions, the ability to view special content not normally available to those with the free account.

If you're going to charge me for your service, offer me something that proves your product is worth my money.

This is a stupid business movie, there are other sites out there that will let me watch the same shows for free, most of them are on the owning network site with more commercials and they don't charge.

[Rand_Shea]

I don't understand what makes people think they're owed anything for free.

Artists, actors, singers, songwriters, musicians, and other 'creative' based job holders don't do what they do out of the sheer love of what they do... If they're going to dedicate their days, nights, blood, sweat, and tears to a calling, they have to make money off of it, and that requires being paid. Being paid requires that the people enjoying what they make PAY for it somehow. Paying for it involves forking over cash.

You're surprised that internet TV hosts need to make money off of what they provide... why? Do the people who made the content not deserve to be paid? If so... why? Why are they obligated to provide something for free that they spend their time, energy, patience, and determination making?

And if they're obligated, then why is anyone who has a job deserving to get a paycheck?

[Malorii]

I feel its kind of like the radio; the DVD box sets, the broadcaster, the viewers and the networks pay for the actors to do their job as well as the advertisers. We listen to the radio for free and radio broadcast such as Pandora.com and any other online music radio for free, I pay for netflix and my dvd box sets if i feel they're worth it as well as other merchandise the same with my music, I buy CDs dvds and their merchandise as well so I really doubt that programs like Hulu are going to put our dear actors out on the street.

It's a nice way of people who can't watch the shows, or don't want to watch a lot of tv to see what the fuss is about on the telly. I never would have bought Season One of Dollhouse if it wasn't for hulu. I don't have time to sit on my butt for a few hours on friday nights so therefore I can't catch the show as often as I like, my first viewing of the show was on hulu.

Don't own a DVR so it's either torrenting or setting up the vcr to record for the nights I can't view it. The advertisements pay for the space on the webasodes, so either by the web or by the telly they're still getting paid. Same thing for the artists who play their songs on the radio or programs like pandora.

[Szordrin]

Comcast and some other news group were looking into buying 30% of the corporation's shares. So... Pretty sure that might be where this came from. Dunno if they did it but I know that is what the plan was to do.

[Rand_Shea]

Even if content is paid for by advertisements, the reason why companies advertise is because they want people to spend money on their service or product.

If they don't get any money, they don't advertise, and leave a stigma that other companies see that the content or service is not profitable, who are more likely to not pay for ad time or space.

That leads to loss of money for companies that offer hosting services. If they can't make money or at least break even, they stop operating either to save what they have left, or because of bankruptcy.

So, if you want content or a service for 'free', you're either paying for it indirectly through giving money to an advertised company, or someone else is. Unfortunately there aren't an infinite number of "someone elses" to finance everything.

It's either paying for content or suffering loss of quality and reliability of service if, somehow, a company can manage to keep their business despite having no profits. You can't have both free and high quality when it comes to hosting services and content.

[Karkarov]

Even if content is paid for by advertisements, the reason why companies advertise is because they want people to spend money on their service or product.

If they don't get any money, they don't advertise, and leave a stigma that other companies see that the content or service is not profitable, who are more likely to not pay for ad time or space.

That leads to loss of money for companies that offer hosting services. If they can't make money or at least break even, they stop operating either to save what they have left, or because of bankruptcy.

So, if you want content or a service for 'free', you're either paying for it indirectly through giving money to an advertised company, or someone else is. Unfortunately there aren't an infinite number of "someone elses" to finance everything.

It's either paying for content or suffering loss of quality and reliability of service if, somehow, a company can manage to keep their business despite having no profits. You can't have both free and high quality when it comes to hosting services and content.

Well said. I could link you to an anime site that actually follows this method. Free with adverts or paid with bonus access to more content and no adverts.

[Boudika]

Actors, writers, and set folks...make ZERO money from shows put on the internet, unless the producers are cool and incorporate it into new contracts or make it pro-active for old shows.

Hulu is making money hand over fist as it is.

Have a lot more say on this, but my brain hurts from a long day.

[Szordrin]

Well said. I could link you to an anime site that actually follows this method. Free with adverts or paid with bonus access to more content and no adverts.

Crunchyroll?

[Swerto]

I LOVE PANDORA, I would be perfectly FINE paying for Hulu in a similar way. I just don' t want it to be rhapsody with commercials.



Also, Hulu is making money now. They are BARELY making money, but they are making money. All the people who put their shows up on their make the most profit from it.

What Hulu needs to do is A: increase the places the adverts are shown (banners on top and bottom for instance) find people willing to advertise, and find ways to increase their traffic so more companies will be willing to advertise on their site. What they could also do is limit the amount of viewing on free accounts (like pandora, 40 hours free a month). Then offer a payed account that offers special videos, earlier update times, and unlimited viewing.

I wouldn't mind forking over $40 for a Pandora style TV station on the internet, Hulu has been doing a great job and if they just simply offer a payed method I can see them staying in business, and even earning money from my pocket.

I don't mind paying for things, I just don't like being offered something for free for a year then being told I have to pay to keep experiencing it, that's bull shit.

[Boudika]

Also, Hulu is making money now. They are BARELY making money,..

Wrong. Hulu is really the only one making money from this. They may toss a bone or two to NBC/CBS/ABC..blah blah blah...but alot of tv/film contracts do not, or did not include distribution fees on the internet. This I KNOW FOR FACT. Major films that fall under a differnt...scale, sure they make a buck or two, but low budget, ultra low budget...those are mostly vanity productions anyway. They want it distributed however they can. The internet provides that. It provides "chatter".



All the people who put their shows up on their make the most profit from it

Wrong. Due to the legalities and SAG contracts, (again unless otherwise stated in first or re-negotiated contracts) some people get nada...zip. That is why there was such a hubub...bub a year or so ago about an actors strike. Some of the older shows are considered public domain, and can be distributed however. Even some of the newer ones as well, depending on what kind of contracts were/are drawn up. Why would these networks pay to have the same shows that they have on their own website?


I don't mind paying for things, I just don't like being offered something for free for a year then being told I have to pay to keep experiencing it, that's bull shit.

Thats what I told my pot dealer...he just called it business. ;)

[Thalevia]

Meh. Not overly bothered by this. Likely due to the fact Hulu doesn't let anyone outside the US make use of their website.

So meh I say. Take away one form of free entertainment, people will flock to another.

[Emmons]

Back to the torrent mines I say!

[Sörröw]

Meh. Not overly bothered by this. Likely due to the fact Hulu doesn't let anyone outside the US make use of their website.

So meh I say. Take away one form of free entertainment, people will flock to another.

Precisely my thoughts.. You guys in this thread alone mentioned 2-3 other alternatives and Hulu wasn't exactly the first to do this.

Once hulu dies.. another hulu will rise. Wasn't Stage6 almost exactly what Hulu was? Then it got shut down.. then Hulu got mad popular.. now Hulu (instead of shutting down by doing it the wrong way) wants to profit by doing it the right way.. and I do feel it will be it's demise unless it does something awesome with the pay scale.

[Swerto]

Hulu is owned by comcast.

[Vyn]

You know what would be awesome and totally worth it? Something liiiiike, the first episode of a show is free, then, if you like it, you can purchase a subscription to THAT SHOW for 50 cents a season.

They make money, and it's cheap.

Probably too cheap.

[Emmons]

Precisely my thoughts.. You guys in this thread alone mentioned 2-3 other alternatives and Hulu wasn't exactly the first to do this.

Once hulu dies.. another hulu will rise. Wasn't Stage6 almost exactly what Hulu was? Then it got shut down.. then Hulu got mad popular.. now Hulu (instead of shutting down by doing it the wrong way) wants to profit by doing it the right way.. and I do feel it will be it's demise unless it does something awesome with the pay scale.

The problem with the alternatives is quality and convenience.

With Hulu, you get better quality and you know it's gonna work. All the other streaming sites I use often have dead links, moonspeak subtitles, desynced audio, etc. etc.

[Swerto]

You know what would be awesome and totally worth it? Something liiiiike, the first episode of a show is free, then, if you like it, you can purchase a subscription to THAT SHOW for 50 cents a season.

They make money, and it's cheap.

Probably too cheap.
No, that's retarted and we might as well buy the seasons. I don't want to buy individual episodes or seasons, if I were going to do that I'd buy the seasons.

The reason the pandora model works is because it offers a free option with adds that gives them money, followed by a subscription plan that gives them more money, but at the same time gives the customer the convenience that they demand.

Hell, I PAYED for Pandora and I own most of the music already illegally, why? Because it's convenient, it introduces me to new music, and it works better than random.

[Abric]

I don't understand what makes people think they're owed anything for free.

Artists, actors, singers, songwriters, musicians, and other 'creative' based job holders don't do what they do out of the sheer love of what they do... If they're going to dedicate their days, nights, blood, sweat, and tears to a calling, they have to make money off of it, and that requires being paid. Being paid requires that the people enjoying what they make PAY for it somehow. Paying for it involves forking over cash.

You're surprised that internet TV hosts need to make money off of what they provide... why? Do the people who made the content not deserve to be paid? If so... why? Why are they obligated to provide something for free that they spend their time, energy, patience, and determination making?

And if they're obligated, then why is anyone who has a job deserving to get a paycheck?

I agree with the heart of this statement, but I don't think people who dance and sing in front of me should be getting paid millions of dollars, to which they ask for more millions and my ticket prices go up to enjoy that entertainment.

I'm not very knowledgeable in the economics or details of many things the entertainment industry does... but I do know that the world is changing - and many people are not wanting it to change; specifically those who are getting paid A LOT of money. Not just a lot of money, but an ungodly fucking amount of money - the sort that makes MTV Cribs exists amount of money. Record companies, cable companies, radio companies, movie companies... they all really have to decide if they want to go with the technology or if they want to keep in the past - but force people to pay ungodly amounts of cash to satisfy their cravings.

Then again, what do I know? I'd probably do the same thing - I love money, and if people would throw it at me for stupid shit, I would probably lose my morals and start filling up my money pool!

[Boudika]

You see..im torn on the whole..."how much is entertainment worth?" concept. You see...its my livelihood. When those actors, singers, dancers make money...I eat. Admittedly movies stars and many TV folks get paid an ASSTON of money...its quite disgusting actually, but your average daily, U5, ens., or featured artist don't really make that much.

Its the producers who bring in the "names" to do bit parts in TV and stage...taking away affordable and just as talented, if not more talented (i.e Julia Roberts on stage in 3 days of rain) artists. The names get top billing, top salary, and often a percentage of gross. That in turn is reflected in ticket prices and distribution, as well as affecting the salary of the above types of performers.

I'm not anti-movie star, as much as I am anti-producers and those agents and managers who dance on the thin line of ethics. Those are the ones who have given these "stars" the impression that they are worth more than the gross national product of a small country, and we as consumers, do nothing to let them know that its not okay.

[Sabachthan]

Relevant link (http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/0s-1s-and-s/2009/10/26/filling-hulu-s-tip-jar?page=0,0).

[Vilmah]

Looks like Hulu might not be charging after all!

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2009/10/ok_hulu_isnt_actually_charging.php

[Karkarov]

Looks like Hulu might not be charging after all!

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2009/10/ok_hulu_isnt_actually_charging.php

All that article really says is we are going to charge a subscription fee and you will get added service out of it. Like maybe you won't have to watch commercials anymore. Thats a bonus alot of these type sites that have pay options do.