I guess even Hulu has to pay the bills.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33438370/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets

If they charge, someone else will provide the service and reap the benefits when the advertiser model becomes profitable. Murdoch has long wanted to charge.

There are others invested in Hulu who realize that destroying their user base at a time where advertising dollars are off across all sectors would be a very bad long term decision.

No more free lunch. I believe this will destroy the service and people will go elsewhere.

If they charge, someone else will provide the service and reap the benefits when the advertiser model becomes profitable. Murdoch has long wanted to charge.

There are others invested in Hulu who realize that destroying their user base at a time where advertising dollars are off across all sectors would be a very bad long term decision.
The reason they will charge is because the ad model does not generate the profit needed to sustain the business.
Advertising $$$ will never return to previous levels...TV, Internet, or Print. Those days are well behind us.
What this results in is free services starting, failing to monetize the service, shutting down, a new service starting, failing to monetize the service...

I'd have no problem paying HULU if they would make their service available on the Roku box; that would be worth paying for! :)

LeeB

If they start charging and keep the commercials they are in some pretty serious trouble. And I would be willing to pay a subscription fee (like netflix) if you could access programs w/o commercials on my TV (again like netflix)

If they charge, someone else will provide the service and reap the benefits when the advertiser model becomes profitable. Murdoch has long wanted to charge.


Not true because Hulu has the rights to deliver content from the networks. Someone else can't just come in and pick up the shows unless they work it out with the networks. Most of the networks are currently invested into Hulu so they're not just going to give someone else content to stream free. Hulu gave up equity to acquire content because there's no way they could pay for it. If someone else wants to try the ad model, they'd have to pay dearly.

I was thinking about cancelling DirecTV and just using OTA/Netflix/Hulu. HD alone isn't worth over $100 a month when I get the same content (in sd) for free.

So if they do start charging, I'll have to see what the cost is, keeping in mind that not everything is available on Hulu and there are some drawbacks (besides HD).

Just will have to do another cost/benefit analysis.

The reason they will charge is because the ad model does not generate the profit needed to sustain the business.
Advertising $$$ will never return to previous levels...TV, Internet, or Print. Those days are well behind us.
What this results in is free services starting, failing to monetize the service, shutting down, a new service starting, failing to monetize the service...

The ad dollars are going to be there, just not split the same way. In the UK, internet advertising has already surpassed TV advertising (with online video being a major growth area).

The industry is finally catching up to the reality that if they want to generate ad revenue for online content, they need consistent usage measurement tools. It was a long time coming because Nielsen was sitting on their hands for too long. A little competition (I believe from Warner) has finally got Nielsen serious about delivering those measurement tools to their customers.

The ad model will succeed online, particularly with television content. The question is who is going to be the main portal for that content. If Hulu decides to charge for what is free now, it will be somebody else who reaps the benefits.

But to be quite frank, I don't think the other partners involved in Hulu are dumb enough to charge for the current service. They probably will go the "Freemium" route where what is up there now is free, and they add subscription services for new content (stuff like Mad Men, Dexter, etc).

Not true because Hulu has the rights to deliver content from the networks. Someone else can't just come in and pick up the shows unless they work it out with the networks. Most of the networks are currently invested into Hulu so they're not just going to give someone else content to stream free. Hulu gave up equity to acquire content because there's no way they could pay for it. If someone else wants to try the ad model, they'd have to pay dearly.
Please, let's not let logical thought interfere with the desire to have free content.
Either the ads support the service...and they don't... or subscribers pick up the shortfall...and it appears they will...by next year.

The ad dollars are going to be there, just not split the same way. In the UK, internet advertising has already surpassed TV advertising (with online video being a major growth area).

The industry is finally catching up to the reality that if they want to generate ad revenue for online content, they need consistent usage measurement tools. It was a long time coming because Nielsen was sitting on their hands for too long. A little competition (I believe from Warner) has finally got Nielsen serious about delivering those measurement tools to their customers.

The ad model will succeed online, particularly with television content. The question is who is going to be the main portal for that content. If Hulu decides to charge for what is free now, it will be somebody else who reaps the benefits.

But to be quite frank, I don't think the other partners involved in Hulu are dumb enough to charge for the current service. They probably will go the "Freemium" route where what is up there now is free, and they add subscription services for new content (stuff like Mad Men, Dexter, etc).
200 million in ad revenue split 4 ways allows you to create some compelling content. 200 million split 300 ways...lots of Jay Leno.

Please, let's not let logical thought interfere with the desire to have free content.
Either the ads support the service...and they don't... or subscribers pick up the shortfall...and it appears they will...by next year.

Except that I can currently access network programming from multiple sites. The combination of increasing ad dollars and fear of privacy will keep the ad model in place for most content (including broadcast network content). If Hulu wants to dump their user base, that is fine. Someone else will gladly become synonymous with being the portal for broadcast television access online.

A tiered "Freemium" offering may happen, but the bulk of the major content will be supported by advertising.