Execs starting to think of new ways to “capture the value” of their online content.
Video-streaming site Hulu was founded by NBC Universal, News Corp., The Walt Disney Company, and others back in 2007 as legal alternative to illegal streaming sites like TVLinks or QuickSilverScreen.
“Hulu’s mission is to help people find and enjoy the world’s premium video content when, where and how they want it,” reads the site. “As we pursue this mission, we aspire to create a service that users, advertisers, and content owners unabashedly love.”
In keeping with that intent to make at least content owners have an “unabashed love” with the site it’s apparently going to begin charging users sometime next year.
At the recent B&C OnScreen summit News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said that “it’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online.”
“I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content,” he added. “I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”
I think it was only a matter of time before sites like Hulu began charging viewers, but it ignores why they were created in the first place, which was to provide an alternative to illegal streaming and download sites.
Why would you pay to view content online when you most likely already have a cable TV package with DVR and BitTorrent client at the ready just in case?
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
[Via B&C]
.
NOTE: Check out our list of TV Links sites here at Zeropaid.
Related Posts
- Hulu Partners with Music Label EMI
- Hulu, Great New Place to Watch TV Shows and Movies for FREE
- Nullsoft may start charging for Winamp
- ESPN charging ISPs to carry ESPN360
- STUDY: US Online Video Streaming Up 64% Since Last Year
Loading ...
Local tv stations survive off add revnue and generate hundreds of millions of dollars. So either advertisers are not convinced by the service, or they are just incompetent. Anyway, as along as they keep some free content I’m sure they will survive. My guess is it will be a two tiered system with subscription needed for premium content.
Hulu has been a great service so far. In fact the only problem I found with it was that it didn’t have enough content.
However if they go to a full pay model its going to sink faster than concrete covered lead.
If they go to a 2 tier model people will still watch the free shows and just go back to downloading the pay shows.
However if their pay model confers other benefits (i.e. no commercials, ability to download shows, exclusive bonus content [behind the scenes, out takes, etc.]) instead of access to shows then I think they could make it work.
It depends on how much it costs. But they have to do it, not even Google makes it on ad revenue (their profit is in the web services). If there is some value added, maybe it will work.
I don’t see how this move is suppose to convince people to switch from free high quality sources to Hulu.
My DVR is free, and the quality is much better than Hulu, pluss I can easily fast forward through the ads, and I have no buffering issues. Just what are they trying to play at?
But your cable or satellite subscription probably isn’t, unless you are viewing illicit satellite, or free to air.