Chase Carey: Hulu to Charge in 2010

I can already tell that's gonna be super hlepufl.

People normally pay me for this and you are giivng it away!

I rlealy couldn't ask for more from this article.

My hat is off to your asutte command over this topic-bravo!

I like Hulu but not enough to pay for it. Hulu won't make it with mass exodus of viewers and then will lose their advertisers. Recipe for failure.

When this company originally designed Hulu the idea was to segway mainstream media from Cable and Satellite TV to an internet based viewing system eventually with the idea that web-based media could provide equal if not better quality and reliability as well as offer this free. The design of an ad-payed website was obviously a hit with Hulu now gaining over 11.5 million viewers (unofficially...10M officially) and other popular websites like youtube now implementing commercials to their viewers. This is exactly what was expected of the site and its now a success. Hulu was orginally a few designers and a couple techs running a small website generating low profits and consuming 3x the amount of load it had originally been allotted. Then more companies began to invest in ad space...in turn more videos...in turn more viewers. The Hulu investors as well as customers (Customers = paying advertisment companies) are swimming in profit from either end. Now we are seeing corporate greed at its finest. Last unpublished meeting was all about a dollar. Recent polls show that Hulu could loose an estimate of over 67% of viewers by demanding paid subscriptions. Viewers are already paying their ISP an absurd amount of money a month for internet service but to ask for an additional amount to view media will destroy the entire concept of shifting TV from the typical cable box or receiver to the web. Before Hulu's announcement there were several companies constructing concepts for the "Sleeping TV" video adapter. This card would have been able to access sites while your computer is in sleep mode and allow navigation through these sites via a remote control.... A FREAKIN TV! But since the horrible flop of digital broadcasting on this nation while fading out analog the idea of having to 1. pay your ISP, 2. pay each media site, 3. buy more additional hardware, is unrealistic. So thank you Hulu for destroying a revolution in television and eliminating a few monthly bills for the entire nation. Because of this concept, Hulu will charge to prevent their "partner" company from going under if it were to release. (ive said my peace)

hulu will loose millions of users if they start to make people pay

I use Hulu because it's convenient, free and I don't mind commercials that much (but mix them up. I don't like seeing the same commercial 5 times in a show)
If you charge, I will not pay. I will pirate and you won't even get the ad revenue then.
This is your choice. Everything I want I can find on torrents.
and just like with 'Defying Gravity' which was sold to a canadian broadcaster and dropped from hulu midseason (and not available legally at all in the US), I pirated the rest.
I'm happy to watch what you have on hulu with ads, but I'm equally happy, and often happier, pirating the same materials sans commercials.

Never would I ever give a dime to News Corp.

Commercials on HULU were already getting to be too much and if you think I will pay for this crap then I got a bridge for sale. OK so I won't see television as it exists, so what? The public library doesn't charge for books, which is what us old guys used to do when there was only 3 channels on TV and there wasn't anything on. Now they want me to pay for it? Screw HULU and any other 'service' that wants me to pay to watch commercials AND crappy shows

I discontinued cable because I was paying for crappy reception & hundreds of useless stations. Kept the internet so as to enjoy watching TV & movies that I wanted. If we have to pay for Hulu, I'm gone!

just seems like more greed. it seems as if the ads have already increased dramatically. now a charge? common!

I think that hulu should just load it with adds instead of making it cost us. I mean that's the whole purpose of Hulu. FREE tv!

Free online Watch Indian Tv Channels, Pakistani Channels, Free online Comedy Channels and
Music, Entertainment, Sports and News Channels. Free get Tv Embed code copy and paste your
own site and enjoy it free live tv channels.
Best regards.
www.freetv.pk

Here's the problem for me. I'm old enough to remember free over-the-air TV in trade for watching a few commercials. Then we got commercial free TV for a reasonable monthly subscription fee (HBO) as a choice. Then, greed arrived. A monthly fee AND commercials. Then, higher monthly fees and many more commercials. This has only recently come up against any real checks or balances with folks (like me) putting up antennas to pick up free digital TV and hooking a computer to the HDTV. Not much sacrifice involved with terminating the $100 cable/sat subscriptions after that. 200 channels of commercials, reruns and stupidity at $100 (+/-) a month is no better deal for consumers than the $18 CD with one or maybe two good songs on it. It would seem that somebody would learn from the music industry versus consumers battle here, but it doesn't seem like it. Consumers are at the breaking point economically and culturally with the current subscription TV model.

Before Hulu I was watching just a couple of shows regularly. Most of what I watch on Hulu I consider to be "junk" television that I wouldn't have sought out otherwise, and so they get a few "digital dimes" instead of zero "analog dollars". If Hulu went to an exclusive paid service, I'd probably go back to just watching those few really good shows when a season came out on DVD (hello Netflix!). These corporate monkeys need to realize that I and I'm sure many others just are not interested in the old network television model, especially when the majority of new 'content' is lame reality TV.
Fortunately some folks at NewsCorp seem to realize this:
"News Corp. spokesman Jack Horner said Hulu believes that a free online video site supported by ads is still the model that will "resonate most" with its largest group of users." http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-hulu-fees-102309,0,2211546.story

Why are you going to charge for free shows? I already get them free on network tv. I PAY for the cable channels and shouldn't have to pay double. Granted, I could go directly to the website of the tv channel, but why when I get all my shows on one page? You are wrong for this. You get paid by advertisers and I pay the cable company. We should be square!

Well that ends my relationship with Hulu. I wonder why they just didn't load it up with more ads? I'd rather have double the ads and have it be free just like regular tv.

The whole point of hulu is so that when you miss an episode or have a show that switched timeslots and coincides with the other, like Grey's and Fringe this year, you can watch it for free. FREE! That's the whole appeal of hulu. If they start charging me you bet that im going somewhere else.

Hey Chase:
No.

We are already paying for much to much already like for me I pay for Comcast broadband/Dish Network TV/Netflix/Cellphone/ the occasional ITunes. Enough. We give enough to these greedy tv money bl**d suckers. I know Hulu is probably getting pressured to charge from those tv studio never get enough idi*ts. What get's me is they have been giving it to us free & then we are forced to watch there suckage advertisements & now we need to charge you, yea skype tryed the same thing by giving us free calls to any phone anywhere in the USA for free for one year & then they said now we want money & look at them they are still hanging on with the thanks of Oprah using Skype on her show & other shows, but they tend to use mostly the free versions like computer to computer but for how long? We are already getting ripped off especially us in california, now another bill to pay(yum yum just what we all have been waiting for more money to pay out in a recession time, Real smart Hulu). Good luck after you go out of business. I simply do not care because there are so many other sites that it really makes no difference what these idi*ts want. Netflix is worth the money is Hulu? & I say no, most of the time these idi*ts can't get a single whole season, most of the crap on there site is dog on little clips which I then adjust the filter for just full episodes & whats left only two full episode shows & why because these studio Big Biz tv idi*ts want more & more because they don't have enough planes & boats & 100 room castles, oh no these greedy (you know whats) must have more, look I pay enough for all the crap that I pay for now, well all I can say when Hulu goes to pay I & others will be going away because we have other sites & the best at it (NETFLIX) Yea Baby. These big wigs always destroy everything. Oh well!

I can see paying for premium services (likes 720p streaming) but the current features would have to remain free or I would be back to bittorrent. The only reason I use Hulu is to support my favorite shows - I'm willing to sacrifice the 720p quality of a torrent in order to do so, but only as long it remains free.

"We're trading analog dollars for digital dimes" ... isn't is suddenly a bitch to be a capitalist.

I have heard more recently that Hulu will not be making payment necessary to enjoy services, but they will be providing some sort of premium service. This premium service will probably have certain perks not readily available, but I hope they dont do what some other media sites do, where you can watch 45 minutes at a time and then must wait a time period before resuming. If they allow the current service to continue, but maybe offer more options and no ads to the premium service then they may be in good shape.

Im not sure about paying for hulu my cable bill is already to high and if Comcast is in the picture I just changed providers because of the flux in my cable bill and nobody being able or caring to explain it to me how would this be any different

I think that the networks and HULU and the whole lot of them need to figure out the best approach of off setting cost before they start getting greedy. Personally I never really watch commercials so they have no bearing on my buying so that idea is really archaic. I already pay for TV service with Satellite so i don't even understand why they has commercials and they charge me as well. That's is double sipping the profits.
Personally what does get my attention and respect are when an advertiser pays for mention at the beginning and end of my favorite show about how they what me to see it without interruption. Those are the products I pay attention to when I go shopping and i have to admit I have bought items simply because I see that as that advertiser understanding me so I support them.
Paid service equals at least NO previews, NO ads, NO brand mention, NO network mention, MORE content, and World wide Content choices. And that's just for starters

I definitely agree that it needs to have more options on the website. Overall, you do still get to watch some good shows, but I would like to see them add more episodes for certain shows. Family Guy only has the last 5 episodes up.

I can't say I would pay for it either. I'd just go back to bit torrent, more content there anyhow. I like the way Hulu is set up, if they need more money, go back to more advertising but they better get more programming on it. It's just barely worth free now...

I personally have the cables that allow you to connect your laptop to your TV. This makes it possible for me to stream TV shows on demand from my computer. I have also used sidereel.com. Being a college student I have very low income and cannot afford cable myself. Hulu is a great option for me as it is slightly ad driven and doesn't cost me a dime. Hulu is owned by Newscorp, which also owns Myspace. I realize they have turned that site into an ad driven monster that bombards you constantly with information regarding upcoming movies, television specials, other products, and more, but would putting additional advertisements on the site really be a bad alternative? Hulu has already become a huge competitor as far as online video options, so they could definitely generate more profit in this manner. Charging fee's for the service provided will definitely cripple the site as the main appeal of the site is that it is FREE. Yes, free. Not 1$ or 2$, but free of charge. Like Eluciano pointed out, Hulu does not need to maintain the major hardware or infrastructure that a cable or satellite provider would need, they actually take advantage of a system that is already in place. Honestly, if Hulu were to increase its commercial length to a minute or two each interval from the shorter length it would not change my frequency on the site. What might seem like a lemonade stand to the owners now in terms of revenue could easily become a cash machine if the appropriate plan is put in place.

Nothing on TV is worth whipping out the credit card for...the heck with Hulu AND BitTorrent I'm gonna find a nice cozy corner in Barnes & Noble and catch up on my reading...wait a minute..is Barnes & Noble charging us for cracking a book now??

Fire up the bit torrents. Im going back to downloading.

Since I work at night I'm not able to watch prime time since I'm sleeping. I would be ok with a small yearly fee for the content if they took away commercials, but not a pay-per-view option.

Not only will people not want to pay for television online that they can already get on their actual televisions, someone else will inevitably find a way to fill the free online viewing gap. Aside from the torrents and downloads that already exist, that is, and those will probably be used to distribute the "special" content that Hulu will limit to subscription, too. Don't fix what isn't broken, Hulu. There's surely plenty of money to be made using the current model; don't get greedy and blow it.

I don't own a TV because my husband and I see it as an unnecessary cost (nor do we want our kids growing up on it). I do enjoy watching shows for free online occasionally, but if Hulu starts charging for it's services I wouldn't be able to justify subscribing when I could find the same content in other legal places. Switching to a paid service doesn't make much sense to me. I wouldn't mind more commercials though.

The reason people flocked to Hulu was because us poor people loved the democratization of free streaming media. When I got home from work with the crazy hours that I did work, it was wonderful to know that I could catch up with my favorite shows and not be subject to a fee service like Netflix instant viewing. Come on, Hulu! You couldn't figure out a way for people to watch more commercial or bring in more advertisers in a different way? You had to go and ALIENATE your key demographic in this greedy, corporate way?

that would be wrong because everybody loves Hulu a lot and it's always free and I never pay for anything.

IF Hulu asks for money they are the ones with the brains that have turned to jelly.

Bad time for a free site to go for money. A lot of people do not have anything extra for something like this. Hulu you days are numbered if you start asking for money for a service no one really needs.

Less commericals, More options, and low price before I would PAY!!

The way I see it, charging users for Hulu content is a very bad business decision. Everyone I know who uses Hulu uses it because it is convenient, but mostly because it is free, and most of them do, in fact, already pay for satellite or cable TV. Charging for content would mean losing a very, very large portion of the existing viewers, which would bring the advertisement value of the site way down, and could result in less revenue than the existing revenue taken in soley through advertisers.

I realize the whole argument about whoever and whatnot being paid for their services. If you look at history and the obvious negative response to Hulu charging it is easy to see that subscriptions don't work. Why pay for something that I can more conveniently get for free, or that I'm already paying for. We can argue whether it's moral to torrent shows but as far as I'm concerned I'm already paying up the but for cable. I fail to understand how companies can continue to think the whole subscription shindig works when it continuously fails for the same reason. Hulu lost 20 million last year well then they need to rethink something but I can't see Hulu becoming a successful subscription service when all they have to offer the public is something a majority of the public pays for already; and the population that doesn't pay cable isn't likely going to turn around and pay for Hulu.

viva la torrent! I would never pay for a few channels worth of tv. The whole reason I watch Hulu is because I don't think cable TV is worth the price. They were smart because they got ad revenues from me, and I was happy to watch them. I will never pay for Hulu. I would just watch less TV.

so wait?
hulu's content is of value?
If Hulu's "strategy needs to be more than just fighting piracy" then why are they pratically advocating it by charging for their service.
Why o Why? media conglomerating cash cow hurl

I'd consider paying, maybe $5 a month... but any more and I'll just find an alternative. They'd have to make the picture quality look as good as regular (free) broadcast for me to remotely consider paying more.

I'd pay if they increased content, provided shows from additional networks, and limited commercials. But I wouldn't pay much.

former hulu users to go back to torrents in 2010

I will be willing to pay if hulu also include reg.broadcast tv in adition to de existing media structure library and allow to acces as many stations available in the contry I think it will create an exelent new way of washing tv imagine you will be able to watch ch.2LA, 2NY, 2DETR. and any other town

yea fine let it go paid half the shows i watch now come out faster on BitTorrent sites then show up in hulu.
if hulu went paid i will be hitting the delete button on the desktop app that day! till then im happy watching a few short adds and getting to support my fav shows but if you want to be that greedy then you will get done of my ad $ or otherwise

A premium model wouldn't be a bad thing, provided it's priced reasonably. I like to watch Hulu, because it is on-demand. But so is my DVR. Hulu is fun to use, but if push comes to shove, that's why my DVR has that big hard drive.
To the guy who says it's time to pay for what they produce, I say find a model that people will tolerate, and I imagine they would pay. People still respect a fair transaction. What they don't want is a rip-off. I'm interested in how Conde Nast approaches their smartphone subscription model coming in 2010. Depending on the price, which shouldn't be much more than half the price of a physical magazine subscription, I'm signing up as soon as it's offered.
Commenters have talked about newspapers. Newspapers complain about not making money and blaming it on blogs.
For me, the problem was more in the mountains of debt they piled on via buyouts than it was in increased operating costs. Had they started as web-only operations, the online ad revenue they currently enjoy would have catapulted them into the black long ago.

This is so typical, the good ol' bait and switch. Remember the introduction of the ATM card? It was free and you could get cash anywhere then the banks started the fees. Just like a drug dealer, you are addicted to the simplicity of service then the knife, gotcha! You are MINE says the Sith Lord!
I have satellite, as far as I am concerned, I am paying for TV, why the commercials? After midnight, hundreds of channels of "INFOMERCIALS" or "PAID PROGRAMMING" WTF? Yes, we the people of tired of getting screwed from government all the way down to TV. Perhaps a EMP would be an act of mercy for all of us.

Why not charge for HD and no commercial and leave lower quality with commercials free? It would make sense. Plus those who pay could get the show sooner and the free service would stream content 5-7 days after the show.

I think its a good thing that Hulu wants to provide "Premium" content at a cost. As long as the service still retains its free version as it is. The Premium service would have to provide limited or no Commercials( 1 or 2 commercial in the beginning at the most), Hold entire seasons of TV Episodes and have a charge of no more then $10 a month. If they dropped there Free service I will drop them all together and will not consider using them for content at all.

The solution is so simple, it's ridiculous. Hulu needs to offer a "premium" paid version which is ad-free (and maybe has some extra content), while still offering the free ad-supported version. They'd be crazy stupid to run ads on the paid version. That would just make their customers angry.

If hulu had all first run shows with all the episodes and movies on demand in HD with no commercials I would consider it. If apple did the same thing I'd drop my cable in 10 seconds.

Were they expecting to be able to do this from the beginning of hulu's conception? I don't think they're ever going to be able to charge for it, even for pennies. If they start charging I'm out as well.

I love Hulu the way it is - but as a pay for use site I'd be out. I have Netflix and everything comes out on DVD eventually anyway. I think they have something remarkable in their current model - a captive audience who watch the commericals - you can't click through them, change the channel or get up to get a drink because they are so short - I've always thought it was genius! Silly to walk away from that.

Buh Bye Hulu. I already pay for cable, I'm not paying twice to watch online.

As soon as Hulu starts charging. I’ll stop using it. I stopped paying for cable and then satellite because they charge too much for too many channels that I don’t watch with more and more commercials than actual programming.
They have the perfect blend of profit and service and they want to shoot it in the foot because they want to bleed people for more money.
Don’t ruin this you greedy morons.

Boo on you Chase. I'm not paying for Hulu. Jason Kilar, stand up.

i'd go to joost, crackle or tv.com if hulu makes me pay.

Good by Hulu, I pay for directv which is overpriced satellite service, There are about 10 programs that I watch and I pay to much to see them. I refuse to pay for anymore so called entertainment. Cabletv and cell phones are onveniences, not necessities, we should be paid to use the crap. Hulu you will not get a penny from me.

The only reason I use Hulu is because it is FREE. I can dvr the shows over the air. I have a netflix acocunt and with the new TV's that will allow netflix right into the TV, why HULU. Especially as Windows 7 MC allows cbs broadcasts along with many others, similar to HULU. If HULU charges, I walk. There are plenty of alternatives out there. I really don't need to watch tv and pay for stuff I don't care to see. Free though, that is a different story. I love wasting my life chasing free stuff......just my 2 cents that HULU won't get if they charge.

Lets see here...broadcast has commercials so they can get paid to broadcast. Cable and Satellite have...oh wait. So I pay cable/satellite companies for service, so they can still get paid by commercials?! Um...no.
If you have commercials, I'm NOT paying for service. If I pay, then I want them REMOVED!

I hope that the advertisers realize what they are giving up by doing this. Right now they have many active torrenters, like myself, forgoing the wait time for a download in exchange for watching a few commercials. Like many have already posted, people will simply switch back over to torrents to get their content for free. I never had an issue with doing things that way before; Hulu was simply a convenience. The problem for the advertisers is two fold. First, they will be giving up the opportunity to get eyes on their advertisements. This one seems kind of ridiculous. The advertising industry has spent so much time and effort to keep their outdated “commercials” alive in the internet age. Hulu finally give them the opportunity to utilize the commercial model once more and get it in front of internet users, and now because they want more money, they are throwing this opportunity away. The second problem advertisers will face is the loss of statistical analysis. Having all of the active torrenters use Hulu, means that they are able to track what people would otherwise be pirating. This gives them greater insight as to the popularity of their shows, which can help guide their use of resources in the most effective way. They seem to be shooting themselves in both feet on this one.

Attach comcast's name and I'm out. Everywhere I have lived in the US, the cable bill costs more than electric, gas, water, phone, you name it. And it is the least necessary. I'm never giving Comcast my money again. Customer service is terrible and rates do not reflect the value of goods and services. I'd rather watch mold grow.

So basically, as with cable, HULU wants to be paid by viewers to be sold crap they don't need.
COMCAST, they can take their right wing politics and their rabid abuse of their employees and shove it.
If Comcast does buy NBC as news reported last week, NBC will lose even more viewers than the morons at NBC during autumn programming.

If hulu starts charging, I will stop using the service. I pay in my time watching the same commercial 4 or 5 times. I pay in not having access to the whole season like I had when hulu first launched. I pay in inferior quality transmission. I pay in that the shows are a week behind the broadcast. If they charge, I might as well just wait for the DVD for the season to be released and rent it through Netflix. No need to duplicate services...

It is about time content providers are geeting paid. This all free everything does nto work. I am the CEO of a content producing company for online and SMS distribution. The old model of getting free access to information and entertainment worked in the old days of online marketing when sponsors had only a few serious website they could promote their brands. As the internet and mobile evolved, the market is now too big for only surviving on advertised based model. It is about time that people realize that free does nto work. There is a cost to produce, distribute quality content. After all we always paid for newspapers and magazines and so should we for quality onlien and mobile based content. As the big boys of content are now charging, you will see a gradual change as well across the smaller entities. Greedy? it is not about being greedy, we all run a business for profit and profit are made by charging money for services rendered! You do not expect to eat a free lunch at a restaurant, aren't you? Why would you expect quality information and entertainment to be free? Because of the 90's online business model gone awry. Gangs, I have news for you: free stuff is going away as companies in the content industry cannot generate a profit so get used to it> It is coming to website or mobile phone next to you.
Pvh@silverstreamedia.com

Aggregators like Hulu are vulnerable to such influences. Personally, I would much rather watch The Office on NBC.com than Hulu. If Hulu charges, then guides like Spreety.com become more valuable in routing people to the legal places for free.

ONCE AGAIN THE BONEHEADS FROM THE WALLED GARDEN UNIVERSITY OF ACCESS THINK THAT THEY HAVE AN IDEA (BIG NEWS ) ADVERTISER SUPPORTED PROGRAMS/STREAMS SHOULD NOW BE MONETIZED BY THE END USER???? DUH...YOU WOULD "THINK" THEY WOULD REVEL IN THE TRAFFIC COMING TOWARDS SITES LIKE HULU NOT!!! THEY THINK PEOPLE SHOULD PAY THEM BECAUSE THEY SAY SO...FORGETTING THAT PAYING INVOLVES A FEW THINGS ..QUALITY OF PRODUCT AVAILABILITY OF DESIRED SHOWS STREAMS ...AND MOST OF ALL CHOICE FOR HARD EARNED DOLLARS....MAYBE THEY THINK PEOPLE WANT TO PAY THEM MORE???? ME THINKS THEY FORGET THE CHOICE NATURE OF THE INTERNET IT IS NOT THE WALLED ENTERTAINMENT MOAT THEY CONTROL ....I READ THOSE WHO POSTED THE RHETORIC OF CAPITALISM (THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY!!) I MERELY ARGUE FOR ALL TO KEEP YOUR FREE WILL AND EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE

That pretty much proves it. Hulu is nothing more then some investment firms attempt to make as much money as possible and then get out.
They aren't making enough money fast enough now, so they will charge for it and then make as much money as possible before the company dies.
Awesome.

I don't do cable. I like Hulu, but if they want a subscription, I might pay for it if it adheres to the following:
1) Allow it on Boxee so I can watch on my TV
2) ALL episodes of available shows on demand
3) More shows
4) No commercials
5) Get it on my phone
6) Get rid of the lag
7) Make it HD
Do all of this and I might be convinced to pay $10/month. But miss any of it (especially removing commercials) and I would be hard pressed to pay $5/month. I watch little TV as is, and would be willing to completely switch to podcasts on my apple TV only.

It is bad enough that we are forced to pay Verizon for a land line (which we do not use) in order to pay for DSL service (which is not always the most reliable) just to get an internet connection. And now you want us to pay even more money to view a TV program on your website.
With cable, why should we be forced to buy (and therefore subsidize) garbage TV channels that we do not want (MTV, Home shopping, etc). I can think of only four cable channels that I would want to watch. Will HULU users also be forced to buy "packages" of channels - most of which are garbage.
If I am to pay for content, I want it to be 100% commercial and ad free. I do not want to be forced to choose only American TV channels. I also want to watch any program on any channel in the world. In the internet age, this should be very easy to do.

....And there goes Hulu. Seriously. When has a free service turned to a pay service and succeeded? Isn't the point of Hulu that it's a free alternative? If you have to pay for it, then there's no incentive to continue. I barely use Hulu as it is. They start charging and I'll never use it again.

I should be using netflix more anyway.

Well, that equals me being done with watching Hulu.

If they charge like 5 bucks a month and made it compatible with my Roku Netflix player then sure. Or with me media center. I installed the hulu client for linux, it blows.

Are you guys kidding me? I would LOVE to pay for Hulu! It's the best streaming tv site out there! I would GLADLY pay over $100 a month for the amazing content! You should too!

If Hulu charged, I'd only stick around if they completely dropped commericals AND greatly increased their content (it wouldn't hurt if they dealt with some of the lag, as well). Now, however, too often I go there to find they only offer a few of the most recent episodes of a show I want to see, not the actual episodes I want to watch. No way would I pay for a commercial service with mediocre programming and technology.

Something that I don't understand is how the television industry has become what it is today.
Originally, companies paid and sponsored certain programs. They bought the airtime, and it was a free program for the audience. "Quiz Show, brought to you by Colgate Toothpaste."
Then, a new invention came along: cable tv.
The promise was, with a small monthly charge, you can watch better stations, with better quality, without commercials!
The financial burden switched to the consumer in order to watch their favorite programs.
And little by little, the commercials started to slip back in.
Today, you can't seem to watch anything on cable without the channel itself self-promoting while you're still watching your favorite show. Ads pop up at the bottom, see-through signs remain at the corner of the screen throughout the show. The need to remind the viewer that they're still watching TNT every ten seconds is distracting.
Today, online content has shifted again. Consumers pay for the right to use the internet. They pay for the equipment and the services rendered that allow them to connect to free content.
It seems like the shift is going to happen again. Consumers are once again going to be asked to pay more for what they were once enjoying for free.
I think that ad companies and television stations have lost touch with the consumer. I think they've forgotten that the reason cable caught on like wildfire is the promise of paying a little in order to avoid commercials. We don't want our fun to get interrupted.
I enjoy Hulu more than regular television because of its ease and convenience. However, I make no pretense, when the 30 second commercials interrupt the shows or movies, I walk away. Their ads are wasted on an empty room while I go and enjoy a beverage or a snack. The ad companies are wasting their money and wondering why they aren't seeing a return on their investment.
Given the choice between commercials and content, the consumer will choose content every day of the week, hands down. DVR lets you skip through commercials. Hulu tells you how long you'll be interrupted for with a clock.
This message goes out to ad men everywhere:
"Stop making commercials, and go back to sponsoring one program for that whole time slot...because we'll gladly pay more to not watch your awful and boring commercials."

Ad free or no dice.

It makes sense to start charging. There will be a big difference from the way we pay for cable. With cable you pay a large fee for basic that includes a good deal of programming that you may not want. Then you can add premium on top for a smaller fee. This is like going into Mcdonald's and you are told that if you want a big mac you have to buy the whole menu. Imagine if you could forego basic cable fees and just get HBO? NFL Network or another premium channel that you wanted. What hulu is offering up right now will probably continue to be free or at least very cheap. They will be able to offer things more cheaply and to a broader audience because of the lack of infastructure and hardware. I am looking forward to the change. I just ditched the cable and TV.

The idea that Hulu "needs to turn a profit" seems a little hard to swallow. The fact that there are plenty of ways to watch the same content, for free, with no ads, suggests that maybe Hulu is putting too much money elsewhere.

I'll go to Babelgum.com then the platform is free and they run less ads there. They just released RAGE the movie with Jude Law and acquired the Weezer latest video clip. www.babelgum.com/film; www.babelgum/rage; www.babelgum/weezer...

I switched from torrents to Hulu and did not mind having to watch a few commercials. Now they want me to pay for it as well? Time to switch back to torrents.

I came to Hulu only after happily and permanently dropping my comcast cable service. We never watched much TV in my home anyway. I don't mind the ads and the main draw for Hulu (or any other internet based service) is being able to watch the shows when I want. I'd be fine with more ads (that's when I get up and go to the bathroom or check my email). I'd possibly be okay with paying $5-$10 a month if the service and quality improves greatly and there is a wider and better selection of shows and channels. I don't always care for mainstream and popular crap, how about stuff from the Discovery Channel, Nat Geo and other channels like that too? I'd happily pay for an easy and high quality way to watch cable WITHOUT the insane costs. Otherwise if Comcast takes over Hulu and starts charging...I am DONE. There are better ways for me to spend my limited time and money these days anyway.

Nate, you're overlooking an important point. For many people, delivery of content over the internet or via cable, satellite, etc is not that big of an issue. What Jennifer could be saying is that she'd rather just have cable if she has to pay for Hulu -and- have commercials.
Personally, I think Hulu is going to become a mediocre at best service that relatively few bother with after they start charging. Not that they aren't entitled to, it's simply that consumers decide what flies and what doesn't, not content providers.

As I'm already paying Comcast for my internet service, then having to watch commercials on Hulu, there is no way I'm going to pay to use Hulu. It would be the worst thing for Comcast to take over. The reason I went to Hulu in the first place is because I hate Comcast. They overcharge to cable television and they have the absolute worst customer service.

I pay for Sirius, Netflix, Xbox live, internet, cable tv, and two at&t blackberries...I think I'm going to start weeding out the losers.
Hulu if you start charging...you will be the last one on the list I pay for....THE LAST ONE.

Jennifer says she "would not use the service if (she) had to pay to watch commercials". Hmmmm...then what would you call cable subscribers and satellite TV subscribers? You're already paying to watch commercials. The difference with Hulu is the on-demand and "go anywhere" aspect.
Please, everyone. Get off your high and mighty horse. It costs real money to run something like Hulu. There will still be plenty of free content, but recognize that some things need to be monetized to survive.

I would not use the service if I had to pay to watch commercials. That is why your free service has advertisers. The advertisers pay for your service, not the consumers. If I had to pay to listen to radio, then I am sure my CD collection would grow, and my radio would remain silent. And I appreciate the value of your content every time I use your site. If I have to pay to watch TV episodes, I will begin appreciating my DVR and my local store which sells DVD box sets.

Sorry Chamber, but Kelvin is a capitalist stooge, AND a fool. Not that wanting your enterprise to pay for itself is wrong - but these are the folks who have been gouging us for some time now... and their business model has been rendered irrelevant by technology, and the current state of the economy. If they are unwilling to adapt, they should look for a new line of work, and a new "revenue stream" to pay for their cocaine.

Reading beyond the headline, the third paragraph says, "...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....Mobile Hulu is another potential way of making money."
It sounds like people who want more stuff can pay for it, and people who don't won't have to.
That actually works for me.

Quoted for Emphasis:
"Nate commented:
I quit cable completely. The cost is ridiculous. Hulu and Netflix only for me. Paying $65 a month on decent internet service and $9 for Netflix is plenty. Charge for Hulu and I can just wait to stream it for free on Netflix. There's so much content I can be a few seasons behind on shows. I'm good watching the ads. I'm happy with on demand content and content available long past the air date. I'm not happy paying $1000 or more a year to see ad supported television on top of my internet bill. I'm not happy paying for ad supported on demand content. I'm not happy watching my internet provider Comcast muscle their way into broadcast television and then my internet television provider. On the other side of things, Hulu- do you want to get support of your viewers? Plot an ascent against Comcast taking over your business and you will find many friends."

Hulu's subscription / charging based contents offer can be reaching for overseas countries that are not able to access its contents yet now?

If XM/SIRIUS can't make money selling subscriptions to free broadcast radio, how does HULU propose to profit from free content subscriptions? I suppose NOT paying some talented knob $100 million would be a good start. Seriously, if you're not being paid for eyeballs on the screen, what business model will work?

Does nobody "get it"? Good programs don't get produced unless somebody pays for them. Either you pay by watching a lot of ads, or you pay with a subscription fee to a cable or satellite company. And with the hit advertising is taking in this economy, even watching ads are going to have to be supplemented with subscription fees. Either that, or you steal it, and nobody likes their "stuff" to be stolen.

Either charge for the content or let the advertisers pay for it but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I quit cable completely. The cost is ridiculous. Hulu and Netflix only for me. Paying $65 a month on decent internet service and $9 for Netflix is plenty. Charge for Hulu and I can just wait to stream it for free on Netflix. There's so much content I can be a few seasons behind on shows. I'm good watching the ads. I'm happy with on demand content and content available long past the air date. I'm not happy paying $1000 or more a year to see ad supported television on top of my internet bill. I'm not happy paying for ad supported on demand content. I'm not happy watching my internet provider Comcast muscle their way into broadcast television and then my internet television provider. On the other side of things, Hulu- do you want to get support of your viewers? Plot an ascent against Comcast taking over your business and you will find many friends.

I'd have absolutely no problem paying a small fee each month. I like watching content online, and it's still far cheaper than paying for cable.
I think Netflix would become the biggest competitor for them, if they're able to sign up the other big networks, so their pricing would have to be competitive with theirs - somewhere between $8 and $15 per month.

Whatever, if Hulu starts charging, I'll just go back to pirating TV shows.

I watch Hulu every now and then, but I won't pay for it. I don't mind having advertisements during the show, like someone else said, I've seen those since birth. But I already pay 127$ a month for cable and internet. I'm not paying more. I don't buy TV shows from iTunes or Amazon, and certainly won't for Hulu.

I DEMAND FREE HULU like FREE HEALTH CARE

Pay for the poor quality I download now from Hulu? I think not. Why not try to get a few more ads? Hulu is great for watching the occasional old show, like Barney Miller, Adam-12, Lou Grant etc that are no longer shown or aren't out on DVD when I'm in the mood. I don't watch enough to make a subscription. I don't watch enough to make it worthwhile so I guess that will be that.

This all poses an important question for media companies to answer: Is the biggest draw for sites like Hulu, Fancast, South Park Studios, etc. that they show less commercials per show, or that you can watch your shows whenever, wherever, and however you choose? I submit that Hulu's true value is in the latter, and that online audiences will tolerate more than one or two spots per break, ESPECIALLY if those spots are targeted to those audiences using lifestyle and geographic means. We watch spots that may actually be relevant to us, and in return, we get our content when we want it for free (minus what we pay for Internet access). Broadcast companies need to stop considering the internet an add-on...the first one to do that will be the most successful ten years from now, guaranteed.

All they're going to do is make people finally realize that life does exist outside of TV. I watch hulu.com occasionally, but only because it's free. When I have to start paying to watch, that'll be the end for me. I already killed my cable a year ago...soon, I'll just kill my TV altogether. I know I'm not the only person who feels this way.

For all the piracy advocates, nobody gave you the right to watch a show. If you don't want to pay a show, just move on. I dont want to pay for the millions of stuff in the store and instead of breaking the glass and taking them off, I just move on.
Piracy is stealing and if you really want to steal, steal something worthy. Don't steal garbage.

Stupid move.

News Corp. has no idea what they're doing. Honestly? They don't realize that TV exists ONLY because it was free to watch, and ad-supported? If, back in the 40's when TV was gaining popularity, the TV stations started charging people to watch, TV would have gone the way of the dodo.

This sucks. Good job Hulu, start charging and you will see your traffic die fast. This will make people by more DVR's or turn to torrent sites.

They won't get my money if they start charging unless the quality of their service increases and I don't have to have ads, and even then I still probably won't pay. I think they will for sure "capture the value of their content" when they loose most of their current viewers and realize no one is willing to pay for online content. People watch it now because it is free.

In. Your. Dreams.

Here's a business plan for Hulu (free of charge):
1) Continue to offer a free service like today with time limited shows and ads, however wake up and realize you are now on the Internet and start targeting ad content. It's just silly to keep treating it like broadcast media when you have a back channel and can charge much more for your ad inventory.
2) Offer a tiered pricing scheme where people can get more content and ad-free content.
3) Stop feeding the cable monopoly. They have no interest in making you (or anyone else) successful.

Well, I stomached those advertisements because hulu was an easy go to source... smart move ad companies, now I'll get all my shows ad free via torrents. *applaud* well done. smart move.

I wouldn't be entirely adverse to things if they did a Pandora-like model. You can get a generous number of hours free per month, ad supported. You want to watch more than than that, you either buy a membership or cough up $1-$3 for the rest of the month.
If they just start outright charging to watch, I'll just skip it. I've got better uses for my money.

Chamber, don't kid yourself brother. Business is always done for economics. Unless you want to live in a communist regime where the government tells companies how to function, this is what you get, and you should be thankful for it.

I find the avertisments on Hulu as they are right now to be a pretty good trade off for the quality of the video streamed. A 15 to 30 sec ad is easier and quicker to watch than to fast forward my DVR. In fact, the only ads I see these days are the ones on Hulu (Hulu should charge the advertisers more, it is a captive audience). Now if they increase the amount of ads, or charge a "reasonable" subscription fee to watch shows on Hulu, I will have to look elsewhere. There are pirate sites galore that stream new and older shows that will gladly want my eyes to see their ads. The video quality may not be as great as Hulu, but the price will be just right.

Uh, I'm confused. I watched "My Name is Earl" several times on Hulu, as well as "Lost" and I distinctly remember the shows being 'chopped up' with commercial breaks every 8-10 minutes or so. Let those advertisers continue to pay Hulu and keep the viewing free. No way am I am subscribing to online viewing for a fee.

I would like to remind people that once, not all that long ago, people got into the entertainment business because they liked to entertain and perform, not because they wanted to get rich. This business has inflated its financial needs so much over time. Now that we are at the point (as robert above mentioned) where so much can be accessed by so many people, we don't need to find a way to get every penny out of them. We just need to find a better way for society to function period.

*ring......*ring......"Hey Bittorrent, whats up"..."aww don't be like that"..."hey I still called sometimes but you know I was dating the new girl"..."well I thought she was a respectable girl, you know the kind mom would like but then she kinda burned me, turned out she was cheating on me with the Suits"..."yeah, all of them, probably at the same time, pretty sick if you ask me"..."uh it's embarrassing but nothing a little penicillin wont take care of(I hope)"..."yeah I shoulda known"..."you know, you're the only one who's always there for me" "You want to see me tonight?"..."Club TPB, yeah I got their new address"..."See you soon!"

Its a tough spot. Hulu needs to turn a profit, or break even to stay in business. I just don't think consumers want to be billed by 30 or 40 sites for small amounts. I sure don't. And the value in Hulu is that I can watch something for no additional charge over my internet access fees. If a pay system is implemented, I won't watch anything that charges a fee, regardless of how reasonable they consider it to be. This isn't because I think they are greedy, but the content isn't worth more than the aggragate that I am already paying.

Looks like Comcast is joining a board and trying to sink it from the inside. It wouldn't surprise me if they're not planning this move after all, but Comcast wants viewers to start looking for alternatives and hurt Hulu's advertising stream.

This, to me, seems like bad timing to me.
With the economy the way it is,
People are more likely to put up with the adds as opposed to paying for a service they likely already get on cable or dish.
And as inexpensive as DVRs are,
I'd suspect people would rather just record the shows they want to watch later.
Pherhaps when the economy picks up a bit and people have a little extra spending money,
This might work then.

Hulu to Charge in 2010?! I hate to quote John McEnroe, but with all respect to Hulu (along with co-owners News Corporation, NBC Universal and Disney-ABC Television Group), you cannot be serious! I want Hulu to remain as free as over-the-air TV networks.

They start charging, I go back to the countless free streams and eztv torrents.

If they start charging 1) they better start including all episodes of all seasons and not the half-assed, skipping around model they currently use, 2) there better not be an ad in any of these videos, but 3) I doubt many people are going to be willing to pay for the current set up.

Rupert Murdoch does not mind handing out OTHER PEOPLE'S content for free. His MySpace servers are the biggest source for streaming pirated anime in the US anime market. bit.ly/1KnYMO

Maybe they should try more than one commercial per show. I've watched plenty of HULU shows where I see the same commercial four times in a row in each commercial break slot. Much like HEADONAPPLYDIRECTLYTOTHEFOREHEADx4 it's not effective. Instead of one commercial per break, maybe two. Having had advertisements bombarded at me from every direction since birth, I'd be happy to completely ignore another one if it means keeping HULU free.

The minute they start charging for Hulu is the minute I stop using it. And I suspect I'm not alone. I don't mind the ads at all, but put a paywall in front of me and I will look for other resources. And those other resources will make them NO money. Christ, look at the music and newspaper industry, they have already failed with subscription and paywall strategies. Perhaps some will pay, but the resounding success of hulu is BECAUSE it's free.

I'd be happy to pay for hulu content if they would make it available outside the US.

Most Americans are getting to the point where there are NO MORE MONEY SLICES to yank out of those still employed each month. Rent/House Payment, Car Payment, Health Insurance, Car Insurance, Home Insurance, Taxes, Electricity, Cable, Water, Sewer, Garbage, Internet, cell phone, data plan, United Way, etc.
Plus the fact we have 10% unemployment in a recession that does not appear to be going away soon.....city and state governments cranking up taxes, fees, and fines to try to make budgets.
We have nothing left for this business model.

The whole issue has less to do with Hulu losing money versus the greedy people leeching off the internet. The big problem here is that the Hulu brand was known for free video streaming. By charging, it risks losing the majority of its costumers and hopes to get in new people, though unlikely as its name might be tarnished. If they are going to do something like this, do it right: charge those who WANT these shows that badly for a premium membership that gives them a LOT of good exclusive options while keeping those who want free get minimal or limited services.

All this is going to do is send people back to torrenting shows instead of at least watching a few commercials per show. Eluciano said it the best. Internet distribution is far cheaper but the content providers want to make the same money they did before.
We see this playing out with Apple's ITunes and the record labels wanting more money. Way to kill the golden goose.

All of these video sites will shrink and eventually go away. Look for a push back o "LIVE" tv as viewers will gladly trade "ad time" in exchange of avoiding programming fees.

I could live with paying for Hulu so long as the money doesn't go cable companies. I got rid of cable and went to Hulu to avoid having to deal with cable companies. If Hulu fees wind up going to Comcast, I'll probably just turn to piracy instead.

I used Hulu exclusively for a year before purchasing Comcast cable. If Comcast takes control of Hulu, and makes me pay for it, I'm going to flip my lid. I still watch 5-6 hours of Hulu a week, even though I have a DVR, and I'm sure as hell not going to pay Comcast any more money for what I'm already getting (which happens to be about 20% more $$ than the company they bought out in my area and didn't improve ANYTHING.

there are so many ways to watch free tv, if they charge on hulu they will lose the giant audience they have acquired. so long advertising effectiveness. We already pay for internet why would anyone pay for tv on the internet... sadly enough sheeple will pay and then comcast and disney can just shut down the site when they lose the large numbers of viewers and only a small few use hulu on their laptops while traveling. then they will see how this was a bad Idea... internet cable and utilities along with healthcare and food could and should be afforded to everyone free of charge. We are at a place in history where individual greed and want should shed from our system like molting skin off a snake.

Hulu lost $20 million last year. It still isn't breaking even. How is that greedy? That have to make money somehow or the whole site will go away.

Charging users means fewer users... means fewer people are seeing your commercial. So why charge and drive people away from your site? Advertisers just don't get it.

Hulu owners are too greedy...now they will sink what has become a premier video destination and viable competitor against YouYube...amazing the greed of these people...what these greedy content owners need to understand is that the Internet - is a cheap distribution medium...Broadcast and Cable/Satellite distribution infrastructure and the intermediaries is very expensive...Internet allows for content owners to cut the cost and all the middle men...content owners do not see that...they want to charge same as with other distribution models...especially that greedy murdoch...i hope they fail...

Personally I would not be against paying a subscription fee for an online video service but the commercials would have to go and HD would be nice