Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

HULU +

Jun 29, 2010 7:30AM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
HULU +
Jun 29, 2010 7:34AM PDT

Yep it should be free of ads that is why to pay

- Collapse -
Eh?
Jun 29, 2010 7:43AM PDT

Why does it need to be paid for at all. Hello the internet is about an advertisement model. You know... the same model TV has been using since it was first out!

- Collapse -
No. Cable and satellite aren't ad free either and you pay
Jun 29, 2010 8:40AM PDT

for them (and pay quite a bit). The economics of broadcasting aren't that simple. If you still get commercials with 80 dollar a month cable then its unrealistic to think you are going to ever get it for 10.

But with paid services you should get a lot more than you get with over the air or free online video. Access from a variety of wireless and cellular devices is a nice first step as is HD. A thorough back catalog also sweetens the deal.

Not to mention that people will pay for a better experience and more flexibility. In my opinion, native apps specifically built for individual platforms are usually cleaner and more polished than one size fits all web apps or cross platform runtime apps. Somebody needs to point out to Pandora that the iPad and iPhone apps clobber their standard web app and their crappy Adobe Air app that you get with a "premium" subscription).

The Hulu Plus iPad app is indeed quite slick. However, the content I really want is still not there (AMC for Mad Men and HBO for their own shows). But I have to admit I'm interested in trying it out. Between this and a Netflix subscription there is very little I'd fell like I was missing out on.

- Collapse -
Well
Jun 29, 2010 10:23AM PDT

Only around half of people are on cable. (well at least here).
But in any event it's well established advertising supports a lot of commercial TV. So it should be a workable model on the Internet. Just a matter of time for them to attract a large audience.
I agree that native apps are almost always better and there's nothing wrong with charging for them, but we're talking about a subscription.
It seems to me that they are sabotarging growth now to make a quick buck today. When their goal at this stage should be to get a strong footing in an emerging market.

- Collapse -
Only 5 or 6 of the hundreds of channels on cable
Jun 29, 2010 11:06PM PDT

are also broadcast for free, over the air. I'd say the odds are stacked in the favor of a future where we will pay AND there will be some commercials. Plus internet adds are mere pennies on the dollars these guys get from traditional ads. Its going to require multiple revenue streams and ads are just one part of that puzzle. And as long as they give us a better value at a reasonable price I think they will succeed despite a free option. Free always will come with limitations.
.

- Collapse -
I disagree....
Jun 30, 2010 7:13AM PDT

Using the internet to distribute content allows you all kinds of revenue models. Fo example, what's wrong with free, but with ads, individual eps paid but with a say ... a single ad, and season subscriptions with no ads? I mean, isn't that what the net is all about? Choice? Why go with one model, when you can offer multiple models? I don't think it has to be so cut and dry. Offer the content in various ways, but ALWAYS have at least an option for no ads. Maybe be a bit pricier, but at least it's available. Isn't iTunes like this? Paid (and pricey), but no ads?

- Collapse -
Ads may be able to pay for some Revision 3 shows
Jun 30, 2010 9:50AM PDT

but its not going to cut it for premium HBO produces series. All content is not created equal.

There seems to be a strange (and I would argue naive) assumption by many younger people on the web that anything their heart desires can (and should) be available for free. It takes more than a couple of YouTube pre-rolls to pay for the production costs of a show like the Sopranos. If I was producing a show that was in such high demand I certainly wouldn't release it on the web for peanuts and risk cannibalizing much more profitable channels. A network like HBO knows their shows are in high demand and they will never make them available for free.

The ad supported model is not one size fits all.

- Collapse -
If it works for CBS and NBC
Jun 30, 2010 11:54AM PDT

It'll work on the Internet. It's just a matter of time to bring in a large enough audience. May take yearsor decades. But for now they should be preparing the stage for that inevitability, not sabotarging the long term with access fees today.

- Collapse -
If it takes years then how is charging in the meantime
Jul 1, 2010 11:22AM PDT

"sabotaging their future"? Its not like people will say "well you charged people for content for years and now that you are making it ad supported so we are going to ignore you to teach you a lesson". If nobody subscribes then Hulu will adjust their plans accordingly. My hunch tells me that even if Hulu Plus is a disaster we won;t be getting the really good content (first run movies, premium channel content, etc for free (or even 10 bucks a month) anytime soon. That's just a wet dream for geeks who have no clue how the TV and film industries work and think they are entitled to everything in the world for free or virtually nothing.

I do get tired of spoiled rotten trolls bitching and moaning about how "outrageous" it is that companies actually, you know, want to charge for their products. I'm not talking about anybody on this board mind you (we keep it fairly civil here I think), but good grief Engadget and Gizmodo's comments on the Hulu plus story are almost unbearable. Where did these people come from and have they ever been told "no" in their lives? It makes me understand why some site have given up on comments.

- Collapse -
I'm not saying it's outrageous
Jul 1, 2010 11:54AM PDT

Just that it's an awful business plan. They should be thinking of the Internet as a tiny emerging market to conquer today to make the billions when it comes to dominate television in the distant future. It's just silly to make a money grab at it today.

- Collapse -
A good business plan maximizes profit.
Jul 1, 2010 2:30PM PDT

The pennies on the dollar you can get from advertising on the web these days will not come anywhere near the costs of making premium content.. Devaluing your product by practically giving it away while you wait for a profitable future that may or may not happen is not a good business plan. Its a reckless bet no sane CEO can afford to make. Its so easy for technology pundits to sit around and pontificate about what "old media" needs to do. What do they have to lose? Nothing.

- Collapse -
The advertising money will get there
Jul 1, 2010 4:32PM PDT

The goal now should be to stop torrent gaining more popularity. The shows are online free whatever they do.
And another thing, I really don't think these old media companies have the same culture as silicon valley companies, they don't know how vital it is to bet on future technologies and go after them with will force so you aren't obsoleted.

- Collapse -
Torrents are highly overrated and anything but mainstream.
Jul 4, 2010 12:53AM PDT

Nobody torrents except geeks who are in the know. It seems mainstream because we are in th tech bubble but it's really not. Its a big pain in the *** really something mainstream consumers don't want to be bothered with. And its arguable that people who use torrents wouldn't buy the stuff they download in the first place. They are just digital pack rats, collecting anything and everything they can.

And if the money is not there the money is not there. Which means you are still going to have to pay in the meantime. Nobody is going to take a loss over the next 10 years in hopes that the following ten will be profitable.

- Collapse -
Agree with everything you've said...
Jul 4, 2010 9:01PM PDT

+1 on all your replies. I do think that they could and should advertise using the internet model....quick/unobtrusive ads instead of 30 second spots.