| By Dawn C. Chmielewski and Meg James | Hulu, the popular online site for watching television shows, plans to begin testing a subscription service as soon as May 24, according to people with knowledge of the plans.
Under the proposal, Hulu would continue to provide for free the five most recent episodes of shows like Fox’s “Glee,” “ABC’s “Lost” or NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” But viewers who want to see additional episodes would pay $9.95 a month to access a more comprehensive selection, called Hulu Plus, these people said. Get the full story: L.A. Times’ Company Town blog |
See also • How the online sites compare • Gov. Quinn backs off download tax
|
Hulu to test $9.95 subscription fee
Posted April 22, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
FU Hulu, I already pay for a Netflix subscription.
If I can connect Hulu to my TV (Coax, HDMI, rope or whatever) , and I do not have to watch commercials, I could go for this as long as I got the content I wanted. Actually sensible, you could do a Hulu+NetFlix (presuming u want Hulu content) and that might work out. I think that Hulu should get episodes of the “Six Million Dollar Man” and other stuff from the seventies…
This type of set-up may work, but $10? Maybe $4 a month would work. A cost like that would bring in far more subscribers, and actually be worth it. D*mn lawyers and bean counters.
Never will I pay for service on the internet like that.
i’m with never, i absolutely REFUSE to pay for anything online when I already pay for internet usage every month.
This is the sort of idiocy that has landed this country in dire straits. Hey JS, when you take a flight somewhere, do you expect everything to be free at your destination just because you paid for a plane ticket to get there? Why should Hulu not be able to make a profit just because you pay a completely different company to get online? If Hulu keeps adding shows, there won’t be a need for a cable bill anymore… $9.95 seems pretty reasonable to me. I’ve already cut the cable TV and have been using Hulu for some time. If they’re gonna charge a nominal fee for access to more & better content, I may just bite.
I don’t have cable TV and have not yet been able to get the digital converter box to actually see that channels exist (I live next to a set of railroad tracks that allegedly are interfering with reception). So my TV viewing is entirely through Hulu, Netflix, or by watching at a family member’s home (generally limited to live sports). I don’t object to the limited commercials I get watching recent TV shows on Hulu. And I don’t mind the fact that they only have 5 episodes of current shows available. I generally get enough feedback from friend within 2-3 episodes to decide if I want to follow it. And if I can’t manage to get online within 5 weeks to watch an episode, then I obviously have too much else going on anyway, and since it seems like all TV is ending up on DVD anyway, I’m probably better off waiting for it to show up on Netflix in that case. So I would not be willing to pay for Hulu’s premium service’ But I wish them well in the attempt, as the overall experience should improve with an increase in revenue.
If they did this via PS3, XBox and the Wii like netflix does, I would totally do this.
Yes…. I seems perfectly reasonable to expect Hulu to provide everyone with a free service and not make any $$ off it. Perfectly reasonable….
They’ve lost my ‘business’. I don’t need to watch that much TV anyway.
I’ve “heard” Facebook is going to start charging for access later this summer.I got my Cable bill this AM and its going up $2 more dollars starting this month.
I think not…..this plan will fizzle when Hulu sees no one wants to pay to watch TV (we already are)…..and who really thinks SNL is worth a crap anyway? It hasn’t been watchable since Chase Belushi and Akyroid left the show…..30 some years ago….and does anyone really watch Survivor? God what the hell happened to real entertainment?
One interesting point. Hulu has made a profit in the last two quarters. The free model works, but the broadcast industry doesn’t want the free model to profit, or for the public to be aware of the fact that the current model can work. They can add a commercial or two to shows, increase their profit, and it will still be shorter than the original broadcast. Do not encourage this! Anyone who does, is a disingenuous stock holder, or simply greedy.
So I don’t have to pay a dime to watch these programs from an antenna when they first run but for repeats I have to pay $9.95? What the bleep? Hulu already has advertising just like broadcast TV that you have to watch.
Are they planning to charge nothing during the summer as without new broadcast programs, what is the point of the service? Hey, I can watch reruns of clips from Saturday Night Live again and again?
“This is the sort of idiocy that has landed this country in dire straits.”
Aaiiiieeeeee… the world is ending.
Give us all a break with your “this is the flaw that has brought us to Armageddon” talk, chuckles.
The reason “this country” expects free, advertising-supported content is not because because we’re stupid, but because that is what “this country” has been trained to expect over the last 60 years of broadcast TV.
It’s understandable that internet content providers are looking for additional revenue streams, but subscriptions have been proven time and again to be an abject failure. What does work is micropayments, and hulu would be better advised to go that route.
I’m pretty sure that Hulu is part of the deal that has Comcast taking ownership of a chunk of NBC/Universal. So…if you are a Comcast subscriber, you ARE paying for Hulu already.
“I think not…..this plan will fizzle when Hulu sees no one wants to pay to watch TV (we already are)”
I don’t pay to watch tv as it is. I long ago ruled out the crappy options I had. What I am surprised is that all you suckers who pay $60 and on up for crappy tv the old fashioned way…yet are freaking out about Hulu.
If Hulu gets rid of ads for paying customers I would consider adding it to my Netflix service. Hulu+Netflix = No Comcast/Dish/Sat/Crap etc. Looks like a good deal to me. But then again I am under thirty, never had a landline, and never paid for cable. It makes sense to me, but probably not to old people.
BAD idea, Hulu.
Shows are already being produced for television, so any internet viewing (and advertising) is already a bonus. Doubt anyone would want to pay for cable and pay for Hulu.
The public library system stocks most of the TV shows that have come out on VHS and DVD. For a buck I can watch several episodes – sometimes even a full season – of a show.
Hulu will lose subscribers when they charge for viewing, but the new revenue will make up for the loss and the media industry will declare the new business model a ’success.’
Its a trial people! Don’t pay for it, and maybe they’ll do away with it. Bottom line, if its not important to you, don’t pay for it, and you’ll still have the 5 most recent episodes. Really, all this crying is a bunch of baby stuff. A business trying to charge me, oh my!
The video quality on Hulu has been so bad every time I’ve used it. Don’t think I’ll pay for it. Sorry, Comcast.
Attention Freeloaders… Hulu is an excellent service and paying for content is nothing new. $9.95 to watch television on your computer is not expensive.
I dont mind, but theres a huge problem; Hulu wont let you view anything outside a PC. Boxee (and the Boxee Device) device is blocked by Hulu, so you cannot watch on a TV. Then there’s the itunes monopoly that you cannot utilize the Apple TV to view any content outside itunes, especially Hulu. Viewing episodes on my iMac is okay, but not the same if I cannot enjoy it on my telelvision. So whats the maketing pitch; watch on your computer!!! for $9.95. I dont expect anything free, but give me some flexibility.
Um Comcast now owns Hulu after the NBC buyout. Did people honestly think they were going to continue to have everything free so people can avoid getting a cable subscription and only need internet?
Your going to pay for premium TV shows one way or another.
Lol…dream on, Hulu. Sorry, Comcast!
I’ll happily stick with my AT&T U-Verse.
Let’s see if I have this straight…HuCast wants to charge 9.95/ month to watch older network shows that you can already watch/record on free OTA? Somebody already mentioned that you can get most of these at your public library for a 1.00(still free @ my library). I’ll pass.
So, who do you work for? The only people who think this is a good idea are plants who will profit from this. Besides, sitting through commercials that can’t be fast forwarded or skipped, IS paying for the product. If this weren’t true, then how did television survive it’s first 40 years?
$9.95 per month doesn’t seem like a lot – but the problem is that’s what everybody wants to charge you for everything nowadays. People’s credit card balances are gong through the roof with all these automatic $10 – $15 per month charges.
Adios Hulu! I already pay for cable and have no interest in paying to watch t.v. on my computer.
No HUlU, why would i want to pay you to watch shows on my computer when i can get them on my TV and pay for cable. leave it alone you already make money from Adds why the user.
i like hulu alot but the content must get better before i wll jump at 10 a month.i liked my sirrus when i got my new car but at the price they wanted a month i had to say no.
Lots of people have commented here they would never pay for access to Hulu or other on-line content. Free content will eventually dry up or be of low quality because *someone* has to pay for it! If no one will pay, free content will slowly disappear, or will consist mainly of bootleg DVD rips, neither of which is good for anyone. No free lunch, so find a good reasonable cost service to pay for, and more and better content will be close behind.
I can see why people who already pay for cable would be annoyed by this, but as someone who doesn’t have a TV, and uses Hulu to watch enjoyable programming, this seems totally reasonable. I would be happy to pay $10 to be able to watch the three or four shows I do watch. Between that and netflix, I have my television and movie needs totally covered for $20 per month. Joke’s on all y’all that still have cable.
I thought it was 9.95 per year at first which would have been fine,but per month for replays that the networks also deliver, I don’t think so.
$120/year is pretty steep, even without commericals.
LOL…good luck with that
Bound to fail!
Free TV IS free TV. Just because the viewer isn’t paying for it, doesn’t mean that the TV station, or HULU isn’t getting paid for it. HULU and other online services that provide TV show viewing ALL have commercials. Obviously, commercials pay for the cost of TV production and showing.
The “commercial” TV model is what has supported Over The Air TV shows for more than sixty years. When cable first came out it was commercial free. Cable talked up thier viewing experience as superior ’cause there were no commercials. Nowadays even cable TV has commercials. Why anyone would pay to watch commercials is beyond me.
I’ll stick with OTA TV, Netflix, and free online TV shows. I’ll take the money I save, as compared to cable/dish/pay-per-view, and us it on my vacations to Florida beaches.
This seems like a terrible idea. Why pay $10 to Hulu when you can pay about that to NetFlix and get alot more content?
This seems like a terrible idea. Why pay $10 to Hulu when you can pay about that to NetFlix and get alot more content?
How about $9.95 a YEAR? Coudn’t Hulu generate more income by charging a lot less for the product and signing up more subscribers?