Hulu Plus subscription service rumored: $9.95 a month for access to older shows
By Darren Murph 
posted April 22nd 2010 4:22AM
posted April 22nd 2010 4:22AM
We had a sinking feeling from day one that this so-called "evil plot to destroy the world" was really just an evil plot to eventually invade our wallets, and unfortunately for the freeloaders in attendance, it's looking all the more likely that at least some portion of Hulu won't be free for much longer. We heard back in January that bigwigs surrounding the streaming service were tossing around various pay-for-access schemes, and now the LA Times has it that a bona fide subscription service could go into effect as early as May 24th. Under the terms, which were disclosed by those oh-so-knowledgeable "people familiar with the matter," viewers would be asked to pay $9.95 per month for access to episodes that weren't brand new. We're told that Hulu would continue to provide the five most recent episodes of hit shows for free, but a Hulu Plus pass would be required to view shows older than that. Not surprisingly, Hulu failed to comment on the allegations, but it's safe to say we'll know exactly how legitimate the claims are in just over a month.
$10/month is too much for the service especially considering that's more than Netflix charges for their DVD/Streaming service. ($9) which has more/better content and better quality.
@KenEsq
Actually, they don't, because Netflix has to wait for TV Show DVDs to be released before they get the content.
@Bender Bending Rodriguez
KEYWORD IN THE ARTICLE BEING OLDER
Older likely means... already out on DVD.
@Anticrawl
You've missed the clearly worded part of the article stating older than the last five episodes.
@Bender Bending Rodriguez
Not always. Netflix was getting episodes of Heroes the day after they were broadcast (ie, same time as Hulu but without the ads), but that is pretty much an exception.
@KenEsq
This is fine. If this can ensure me that I'll have access to say -- the entire back catalog of The OC -- then I'm fine with it. Beats the DVD price, or waiting 54 minutes on MegaVideo vs. roughly 2 minutes of commercials during each episode.
If this is just paying for other random things and not entire libraries of the shows on Hulu, count me out.
@KenEsq I completely agree, pricing is too much. I personally will start to shy away from Hulu should it ever cost money.
@KenEsq : ...and I am already paying $50 a month for the internet, which has an all you can download option. thanks. :)
@surfernerd6987 how much do you pay for cable TV? $50/month? How much do you pay for internet access? $30/month? How about cell phone with data plan $80/month? WTF you cannot pay $10/month for this?
I really hope comcast and DirectTV burn in hell very very soon and we can all channels we want (not channels they think we want) plus hulu style on demand for decent price.
@KenEsq
Does the $10 a month get rid of the advertising? If not, it is still too much. In my opinion, any pay service should be advertisement free.
@KenEsq
I completely agree. I'd be willing to MAYBE fork out $5/month for access to older Hulu shows - but $10/month... for network TV on-demand? Fuck that.
If they want my money they need to be reasonable. Otherwise I'll simply stick with Netflix and, when needed, "other" sources. $10/month my ass.
@Jimbojones
I think your question kind of answers itself. How many recurring monthly charges do you want to have? $10/month does not seem like a lot, unless you start adding up all those numbers that you mentioned. So, no, I do not want to pay another $10 per month. For me, I would ask myself if the new service is a better value than something that it would replace. In this case, Netflix, and I'd probably conclude that it is not. Personally, I think I'd continue to be happy with the ad supported Hulu for recent episodes, and Netflix if I want to catch up on old seasons. Now, if Hulu added all the movies that Netflix has and became a 100% replacement, then I would seriously consider it, because Hulu does have one thing Netflix does not have - native Linux compatibility.
@Jimbojones
Whatever man, I hope the Cable Companies burn in hell. I have Directv and its been okay since 1992. High Speed Internet in America is OVERPRICED, 3G/4G Cellular Service IS OVERPRICED and in this economy $10 can be BETTER SPENT ON THE OPTIONS available too you unless you feel guilty about *something.
A better subscription strategy: $4.95/mo for HD quality video
@Sad Sack Need more than twice as many subscribers to break-even (because of bandwidth issues getting exactly 2x would lead to lower profits). So, while I'd be inclined to agree with you from a subscription and consumer point of view, I don't know their revenue structure and how much they make off of each customer they might "lose" who goes from watching on their TV to on Hulu under your ideal.
I think a better strategy is to open up to international viewers while keeping their $10 price. I don't know the specifics, but I assume the reason why it was US only was because of : ad-relevance, bandwidth cost, demand, roll-out/testing process, etc. All of which should be overcome under a paid scenario, so I think they should go international more than try to tailor their service to a bunch of people who have many alternatives within the US while outside the borders its essentially - iTunes, pirate or wait/hope it is an eventually syndicated in your country.
@juanvaldez I also had in my head "rights to broadcast" but the extra revenues would overcome that; after all, the parents definitely have the rights it's just that they don't see it as a good business decision without the $.
@juanvaldez
doesn't work like that. Opening up US content to international viewers diminishes the value of broadcast rights paid for by international broadcasters.
Programming broadcast rights are bought in packaged form and if Sky pays 10 million for exclusivity to the latest season of Lost in the UK, then giving everyone the choice to watch it somewhere else makes that acquisition ( and any others included in the deal) worth far less - as both a subscriber hook and an advertising seller. That makes the channel both less valuable programming-wise and less profitable.
@arkweld I'm a little late to disagree with you, but here it goes:
$10 (I know, just a hypothetical figure, though maybe in the right range). Let's see, that's 1 million customers, but actually if you get these customers going for a year you need less than 100,000 customers to break even in that scenario (and that's assuming that you actually don't still sell the show with some TV exclusive deal). Also, you can, block access to certain shows and/or most profitable markets. In place of blocking, many cable companies that pay for these exclusive deals also have them delayed, you could have a standard package and an international premium package where there wouldn't be any blocking and you'd be getting faster access than your TV watching neighbors would get.
The point is, that where the cable companies don't have a direct majority-owned interest in the market they are trying to enter this would almost surely be more profitable than syndicating the show. Plus, they can still do both, or bits and pieces of both. The internet has the potential to be the cheapest, most efficient way to deliver content internationally (all while also being more profitable, or just as profitable), the fact that the major networks are so slow to embrace is a sign of their typical hesitance to maintain old revenue streams more than anything.
I cant see any reason to pay Hulu $10 a month when I can have a much bigger selection of Instant Plan and DVD's sent to me in the mail with Netflix for just $8 a month...
I can't imagine paying anything if Hulu is blocking access from non web-browser device.
@lettcco
Agreed, I would gladly fork over a few bucks a month if I could have an app on my TV or a box that could legitimately access Hulu and play all of its content without having to bring a PC into the mix.
@lettcco
I second this. There needs to be an official Media Center plugin, Roku support, Blu Ray players, whatever. If I'm going to pay for this then it's got to be more than just older episodes. If they did offer this then I wouldn't mind paying for it. Although $10 seems too high. I think $5 to $7 would be good considering Netflix is only $9.
And so it begins...
@n0ne Indeed - what will happen of course is that there will be all kinds of "Hulu Archive" pages popping up which will (illegally) offer the content previously free on Hulu.
To charge for HD seems to be a more rational way of getting to the money...
So the current flavor of Hulu will remain free? OK, that sounds good. If I need older shows, then I'll pay up. If not, then the free version will be fine.
Hulu is not free, and has never been free.
I am already watching an assload of commercials.
I have never understood this. Why is it that I have to watch commercials AND pay for the service. It should be one or the other.
@Ducman69
Greed.
@Ducman69
Um... have you ever watched cable tv?
@ctmike78 cable TV you pay for access, we have the equivalent in the internet age, it's called your ISP. cable=access, ISP=access, Hulu=provider. That's a fair analogy given his point, it'd be like having to watch commercials on HBO (they essentially only self-promote and never during a show, only in between shows)
@juanvaldez You mean it'd be like having commercials on XM radio? Oh, right they have those...
Also of course there are tiers of channels on cable. You pay more for expanded basic for example, and part of the money you pay goes to ESPN for example to compensate them. I'm not sure your cable=ISP analogy is quite right. Maybe cable basic=ISP?
@juanvaldez Uh. So you are against net neutrality? I mean that's what it sounds like if you are against having to pay twice for content on the internet.
@PhaseDMA I was responding to a response, so you read too much into the analogy of my comment when I wasn't actually (at least not attempting to) show any opinion on the matter. I prefer net-neutrality, but part of that is because I think the ISPs would use active measures (bandwidth limiting) in order to keep their costs down and profits up and/or charge more for premium access (where then, we still might have to pay for the premium content we are viewing because the demand would be lower which would result in lowered profitability to the suppliers).
I like options, so I do prefer the ISPs having tiers and having an ability to charge premiums to people who want the most throughput and the most monthly data usage, but in areas where they have government sponsored monopolies I become less in favor of any pricing scheme they set up and I believe there should be measured to curb their pricing and profitability from said monopoly (the definition of monopoly would be a little difficult to perfectly apply here since sometimes there is a DSL as "competition" to cable, though, I personally, wouldn't really judge that as true competition).
Hulu does have one advantage, you get to watch shows quicker. But then again their library isn't as large as that of Netflix. I am NOT bashing them, but as a casual consumer (not a techie) I would go with Netflix (I use it on my xbox, laptop, friends xbox etc.) over hulu... I mean seriously and to top it off netflix does NOT include advertisements.
Hulu please don't screw up :( I love watching family guy on your website!!!
What'd you expect from a bunch of white-haired men in boardrooms? Stream enhanced definition (480p) content, call it "high res" and charge for it.
Just look at what Hulu is:
ABC - Disney is moving sports content away from OTA broadcast to their ESPN channels; surely you didn't expect them to let people get away with watching anything for free.
NBC Universal - soon to be a part of Comcast; what else do you need to say? Comcast is a cable beast whose prices rise faster than the cost of living. They're going to get you to pay for content whether it's through their OnDemand services or internet access, while capping your downloads.
Fox / News Corp - Come on, Rupert is not going to let anyone get away with watching or reading its content for free. You know this, so stop lying to yourself.
It's not like Hulu was your friend; have any of you forgotten the fight between Hulu and Boxee?
@gerrrg
+1, I agree. I kind of don't like watching ABC like before. And I hate NBC programming. I have been turned off by their crap. ESPN is now the LeRoid James channel... How can people not marvel at the wonder/physical specimen that I am?
@gerrrg And that is why I torrent 99% of the TV I watch.
@arkweld
You crack me up. Well, seeing as you need foul language to communicate, and it's kosher by Engadget standards:
If Hulu's going to start charging for archived content that I can just as easily get from my Netflix, FUCK HULU. Why the fuck would I pay Hulu for content I can get from Netflix?
Shit man, Hulu doesn't even have South Park, The Daily Show nor The Colbert Report, which is free online elsewhere.
In the words of George Carlin: FUUUUCK!
Apologies to anyone else not used to foul language.
My dawgs (hood talk for friends) will not be pleased by this! Damn hulu you scewing up! Homies dont wanna pay for this yo!
Will this mean they will offer the service outside the US?
Hulu is crap.
why pay for something you can get for free ?
There is a thing called p2p...
^_^
@Avaron
+1 but I do like the consistency I find on Netflix, Hulu etc... You know how we do in the hood yo!
@Mike Vick
Consistency and reliability is good... but high prices for low quality is not...
^_^
@Avaron
Yea, but one feel more human when register and p2p @ the same time. Not everything is on p2p. Not to mention the vulnerable download risk of being hack with p2p.
@cdf74dc9
And that whole being illegal thing.
A bit too late. I mean really, by now most people already subscribed to Netflix. I have never watched Hulu ever since they pulled out from boxee.
I watch Hulu often on the TV show I've missed but Netflick also have most of those TV show too and is cheaper and it let you rend movie at the same time not just watch online. I dunno, I'll subscribe if Hulu let you watch new movies online :)
We all knew it would happen. I mean everything else you pay to watch or listen to was supposed to be commercial free while the free to air was for the commercials. You can't do something like this in the United States for very long before you get the slow business type's greedy attention.
That's the only reason I go on Hulu is to watch the most recent episodes.
Looks like nothing will change for me.
Hmmm, so for $10 are they going to strip out the commercials? If not then i'd rather put that money towards a usenet service (yay Newsguy!) where the shows are capped ad-free and in glorious 720p mostly, and with 365 day retention.
Hey, good luck with all that.