Hulu Toys With Subscription Idea

[Attebery]

Personally, I think a move like this would blow up in their faces:

http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...technologyNews

[Onslaught X]

Only way I think this works out is if they offered shows that are on networks that require subscriptions such as shows on HBO and Showtime.

[paaron46]

Eh, it'll just make people turn straight back to torrents. They could try doing something where a subscription service would offer ad free viewing, which would probably work better.

[ericpizzapie]

I use this site reguarly. Would I pay to? No way. If you started out offering it free, you can't switch and expect people to pay, imo.

[tranzparentl]

Dinosaurs will die.

They need to forget about their old business model and how much they "used" to make.

In this age people want their content for free.

Maybe offer a paid service with no commericals and the free service has commercials.

[tranzparentl]

Dinosaurs will die.

They need to forget about their old business model and how much they "used" to make.

In this age people want their content for free.

Maybe offer a paid service with no commercials and the free service has commercials.

[Attebery]

Originally Posted by tranzparentl

Dinosaurs will die.

They need to forget about their old business model and how much they "used" to make.

In this age people want their content for free.

Maybe offer a paid service with no commercials and the free service has commercials.

Here's one question. How do you suppose a creative person (author/writer/editor/filmmaker) should make a living in this sort of market? I've been trying to crack this one.

[gangrel76547]

They're going to end up tanking this site. No one is going to want to pay for this.

[dvddesign]

Originally Posted by Attebery

Here's one question. How do you suppose a creative person (author/writer/editor/filmmaker) should make a living in this sort of market? I've been trying to crack this one.

Same way they still do. Ad revenue from content providers like broadcast, broadcasters website, hulu (which currently has ads...), DVD, Blu Ray, and iTunes sales of seasons of shows, Xbox 360 and PSN downloads, syndication, licensed merchandise rights, novelizations, comic books, personal appearances, autographs, continuing to work after a series ends...

I'm sure from all those earnings they're probably able to scrape two quarters together for a cup of coffee every once in a while. While driving their Maseratis.

[AttyAtLaw]

This is what I've been telling those smug idiots who say "I dumped pay TV because I get what I want off sites like Hulu for free." They just wouldn't listen when I told them that Hulu eventually wouldn't be free because they don't want to you stop watching TV, even if its free OTA TV. They want you to see TV and its commercials that companies pay good money for.

Hulu and other sites (like MTV, southparkstudios.com) already started restricting access by not allowing all eps of a show avail at all times. When I was watching Real World I got behind a few weeks and didn't want to torrent. But only the most recent ep was avail online. The rest would be made avail later (like after the season). These sites don't mind you using online streaming to see an ep you missed (forget to set DVR for, etc) but they don't want you watching an entire current season online. For that matter, they don't want you watching an entire season period, especially if it's on dvd/blu ray.

[Attebery]

dvddesign

I wasn't referring to corporations or execs. I was referring to people who create the actual productions and writing. If ad revenue isn't covering costs, how are those folks ever gonna get decent pay for their work? I just don't see FREE doing more than selling a few copies of a book that itself really wasn't free.

[dvddesign]

Originally Posted by Attebery

dvddesign

I wasn't referring to corporations or execs. I was referring to people who create the actual productions and writing. If ad revenue isn't covering costs, how are those folks ever gonna get decent pay for their work? I just don't see FREE doing more than selling a few copies of a book that itself really wasn't free.

I was too. The stars and production people all make money on all of those residuals I listed.

There's nothing in that article about Hulu losing money or not making any money for content producers.

"Now the trick is ... to turn those digital pennies into digital dollars," Graboff said at the Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica. "Hulu has got to bolster its economics."

Quite the contrary. They're making money off of it and they want more. Now, almost all of the content on Hulu is either basic cable or over the air (OTA) broadcasts. All of it is already making revenue off of OTA broadcasts. Advertisers are STILL spending money on ads on OTA broadcasts and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. You can posit the comment in any number of cute ways, but the Nielsen ratings system is still a valued measure of audience size and it translates to automatic ad dollars. Shows with ratings (whether online or not) command dollars and advertisers LINE UP OUT THE DOOR to get on those shows with high ratings if only out of perceived value to the advertiser.

Hulu's ad model makes Hulu money, they just wanna be greedy bastards and increase revenues for something that's already monetized for them through countless other revenue streams.

Plus the content is OTA. Go call up your local TV station and ask them what rates are for timeslots for your favorite shows. How much is a :30 spot for The Office? Dollhouse? LOST? Super Bowl? Family Guy? Sit there and weigh all those numbers, realize that there's like 280+ TV markets out there already charging these rates (or more if you're in a smaller city, since bigger markets command higher dollars), PLUS you're already missing the national ads being there for even more since an ad for TIDE or Walmart is sold at a national level.

So, networks have all that income in for a show based simply off of the OLD model. Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, DVD sales, all of it is supplementary income for them made available in the last few years, yet these revenue streams are more tightly controlled and monitored and regulated, even though all of them have some sort of advertising built into each source that's making additional money on top of each sale.

Stop me and tell me where I should be sympathetic in all this.

I do my part and go see TV stars when they do conventions or participate in work outside of their own shows. That $20 for an autograph goes straight into their wallet and not some network. Not that they're hurting for that $20, but it's REALLY supporting the actual people that make the shows. Not some slimeball exec in California who thinks that monetizing a website will increase their incoming revenue streams.

[dvddesign]

Let me add one other quick little note.

I have a friend who's a pretty high up show production producer for Dancing with the Stars. It's a show that gets exposure on Hulu, ABC.com, and OTA broadcasts.

She's not talent, she's not the executive producer, just someone who works on the show.

SHE makes residual income, ie bonuses, (ontop of her 3 season contracted base salary) on the following: Nielsen ratings for DVR performance, Nielsen ratings for sweeps, ad sales for sweeps, profit sharing with ABC (she's been on the production staff payroll since the second series), and money off of merchandise sales.

None of it is really huge amounts and she makes far less than Tom Bergeron does, but she's not hurting. She makes enough off of it to where she doesn't have to work for 4 months a year, even though she totally could for any other number of shows or films.

All the while she's still drawing a weekly paycheck, one that since she's on a contract right now, increases from year to year at a fixed rate.

If the show's still doing well when her contract is up, she will probably get more money by signing a new contract. Or if she wants to move to a new show by then, she's got opportunities to make even more money off of the people she works with.

[damonous]

Originally Posted by dvddesign

...There's nothing in that article about Hulu losing money or not making any money for content producers.

"Now the trick is ... to turn those digital pennies into digital dollars," Graboff said at the Digital Hollywood conference in Santa Monica. "Hulu has got to bolster its economics."
...
Stop me and tell me where I should be sympathetic in all this. ...

Well, you've certainly presented some interesting points about residuals, and some nice illustrations in your 2nd post regarding your friend.

But, I think you're overlooking that all of those "big residual dollars" are coming off of the fact that they CAN charge so much for the TV advertising. --So, what happens if more and more and more people drop cable and other paid services .... and just watch for free on the Internet (ie: Hulu)? Are they going to be able to charge as much for TV advertising as before?

Also, you say that there's nothing in the article that explicitly says that they're losing money on Hulu. Yet, you quote the very part of the article where they indicate that they are 'only making pennies'; and further that they have 'got to bolster their economics'.

--Y'know, that's not such a strong statement of financial health.

I get sick of hearing from so many people on this site that "everything should be free", and this general presumption that it's possible for everything to be free, and yet everyone to have a job. ???? (It's either something like this, talk of free or near-free digital downloads, and/or childish suggestions of ridiculously low subscriptions for media rentals, or all the way back to the HD/BD war, and how "if only" Toshiba could have made a $50 player things would have been great, or how all BD's today should cost no more than a Hamilton. --It's just ridiculous. Childish thinking, even.)