ReadWriteWeb

What are Hulu's Mysterious Plans?

Written by Sarah Perez / October 26, 2009 8:03 AM / 11 Comments

Everyone is looking to Hulu as the future of Internet TV. The joint venture between several major networks, Hulu delivers free, ad-supported programming via online streams - an untested model for long-term profitability, at least when it comes to television.

While consumers have been enjoying the service since its launch in 2007, happily watching free TV shows and movies over their PCs and even their TV sets thanks to Media Center plugins and other unofficial hacks, the company itself is still trying to navigate this new online landscape and effectively monetize their content. Now recent statements by a News Corp exec have people wondering: can Hulu make the ad-supported model work? Or does the company have other plans?

Is Hulu Working?

One of the primary objectives behind Hulu was to put free programming on the Internet to combat the rampant pirating of TV content that took place on sites like the popular file-sharing destination, The Pirate Bay. As iTunes did with music, the idea is to make using Hulu's service easier than having to go out and seek the illegal downloads.

Although iTunes charges for music on a per-file basis, Hulu, too has a business model that makes you pay - except in their case, you're paying with your eyeballs, not your credit card. Using video ads, Hulu has been attempting to monetize its service, but those efforts have been difficult at times. This spring, for instance, Screen Digest analyst Arash Amel claimed that Hulu had only sold about 60% of its ad inventory. "What we've seen is rapid growth in consumption, but the advertising isn't keeping up," he said.

While these figures, if accurate, could be reason for concern, many feel that the profitability of an online video venture of this nature takes time to develop. Eventually, the ad-supported model would work for Hulu as it has worked for numerous other websites and services, supporters claim.

Besides, more recent deals seem to bode well for the site. Case in point, this month the Publicis Groupe announced a mulit-million dollar ad deal that involved targeted advertising to particular Hulu demographics. The deal is said to represent a "significant increase" in spending on Hulu.

Hulu to Charge?

Despite the promises ad deals like this hold, there is still debate as to whether or not Hulu is going to stick to the ad-supported model or try something new. At a conference last week, News Corp. deputy chairman Chase Carey made a pronouncement regarding this point that raised more than a few eyebrows:

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," Carey was quoted as saying by Broadcasting & Cable. "Hulu...needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

This seems to jibe with earlier reports where News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch also hinted at the site's plans to add premium services by saying, "Are we looking at it with a view toward adding subscription services and pay per view? Yes we are."

But "looking at" and "doing" are two very different things - where does Hulu stand now? Has their core philosophy - that is, their belief in the ad-supported model - changed?

According to AdWeek, it has not. In the article, the company claims their ad-supported free service is still the one that "resonates with the largest group of users" and that any additional models would just serve to complement that.

However, when we reached out to Hulu to ask about their plans regarding charging for content, the company wouldn't go on record with any such statement.

Why So Cagey?

Hulu's current decision to clam up could be taken in a few different ways. Perhaps they simply haven't decided what they're going to do about adding new premium services to Hulu and therefore don't want to discuss it at all.

Yet the quote they provided to AdWeek seems innocuous enough - so why not just stick with it? Why now choose to say nothing at all? Maybe they're hoping that with no quote, there is no story, and that will allow them to quell the impending panic among some users who are worried about Hulu's plans to make customers pay. Because some people are so opposed to paying for online content, just hearing reports that Hulu might change to a pay-to-stream model could dissuade them from continuing to use the service.

Then again, it could be that the opposite is true. Hulu wants to keep everyone wondering about what's coming next, generating excitement without providing any details. This means people can speculate wildly and give their opinions, allowing Hulu to tap into that online conversation about what people want before making any official decisions or announcements.

What We Think: Hulu Will Launch Value-Added Services

Despite any official confirmations from the company, we think it's pretty clear that Hulu has intentions to launch value-added services on top of its free, ad-supported model in the coming months. These may include pay-per-view options and some sort of subscription model. However, that subscription model would be there to provide users with value-added services that you couldn't get from the free model alone. Perhaps behind the scenes interviews? Sneak peeks? Actor interviews? Who knows...but the possibilities are endless.

As to why we think that, it comes down to simple math. We've now seen three different statements about these premium services: Carey's recent remarks, Murdoch's quote from earlier this year, and anonymous sources quoted by Dan Rayburn who hinted that Hulu's iPhone app won't launch until "Hulu rolls out a subscription based service."

...And They'll be Tied to the iPhone

The iPhone app, in fact, may be the real secret the company is trying to hide. Imagine if the much-rumored and highly anticipated application was linked to a subscription-based model. That could downright revolutionize the way people watch TV. Providing streaming content over the popular Apple smartphone would easily bring in additional revenue and that new source could quickly outperform the profits made by the ad-supported model.

Yet launching a Hulu iPhone app would be a challenge, as the company is undoubtedly aware. And, of course, Hulu wouldn't want to say anything about it, especially considering how difficult Apple is when it comes to applications that compete with their core services. Apple may not even approve such an application, claiming (rightly so) that it competes with iTunes.

However, Apple may be loosening up on that front, with no small thanks going to the FCC who recently questioned the company's rejection of the Google Voice application - a VoIP dialer that Apple rejected because it competed with what the iPhone does natively. (Apple claims they're "still reviewing" it, but no one really buys that.) Since the FCC's involvement, however, Apple has gone on to approve a streaming music app called Spotify, an application that many had feared would be rejected because it, even more so than Google Voice, competed with iTunes. That leaves us hopeful that a similar application launched by Hulu could also make it through the approval process.

Still, we wouldn't blame Hulu if they wanted to keep that extremely quiet. And that would certainly explain why Hulu won't comment on their plans.

Of course, this is all just speculation at this point, but we hope it turns out to be true.

Comments

Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts

  1. They should think of opening their service overseas.

    The rest of the world still waits for it.

    Posted by: bleno | October 26, 2009 10:39 AM



  2. If they start charging, I'm gone! That was the point of getting rid of cable for me.

    Posted by: Amber Jonson | October 26, 2009 11:25 AM



  3. Unfortunately, Hulu is already starting to lose momentum with early adopters. From people who've just started to use the system, I hear nothing but how great it is; but from people who have been on the service for a year or longer I pretty much just hear grumblings:

    (1) The lack of consistency—some shows are released the next day, some 5-8 days after the fact;
    (2) The lack of continuity—some episodes of shows are removed after 5 weeks, defeating the ability to catch-up with a show mid-way through;
    (3) More commercials— Hulu went from 4-5 commercials per show to up to eight;
    (4) Random Removals— Taking away entire series or seasons of series for no apparent reason; and
    (5) Promos— Really! They've even put expiration dates on promos. Promos, their ads for your damn show, and you're saying I can only watch it for 5 days after the last show. You don't want me to know what the next show is about? WTF?

    I think the more the networks interfere with the people running the service, the less of an alternative Hulu will be for people who love TV and loved Hulu's convenience. It's no longer convenient to come in 6 weeks into a show and watch all the past episodes. Looking for clips, highlight, and promos have changed dramatically as well.

    Last year, even though I purchased Season Passes in iTunes, and had cable, I watched Hulu for most of my shows. This year, I don't have cable, and yet Hulu's managed to piss me off so much that its no longer my go to source. I have BitTorrent and iTunes passes. Hulu's where I get the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and not much else. Oh yeah, some times I check out a few of the episodes that are there to see if I want to buy or download a show.

    Posted by: allgood2 | October 26, 2009 1:13 PM



  4. The word is "jibe" not "jive."

     Posted by: Christian Ziebarth Author Profile Page | October 26, 2009 1:43 PM



  5. Television, like all passive media, feels doomed. Less than a generation from now people will think of TV the way our grandparents think of radio. It will be a bit player in the larger world dominated by interactive media.

    Posted by: Michael Critz | October 26, 2009 1:46 PM



  6. Second on allgood2's enumerated gripes.

    I haven't spent a lot of time on Hulu, so my anger at the wide disparity between what was promised or what could have been to what they actually deliver is low. However, at this point, I'm so uncertain whether what I want to watch will be on Hulu that they've become a last choice in looking for content. They poisoned what could have been a large base of loyal viewers with their capriciousness.

    That being said, the same goes for Netflix streaming, so I think both situations reveal the painful legalities that must go on behind the scenes. Movies appear and disappear on Netflix with no apparent pattern. A viewer should expect to search across multiple sites if they hope to find the (legal) content they want. I don't blame either site, but I expect very little from them in their current forms.

    Posted by: sstrader.myopenid.com Author Profile Page | October 26, 2009 2:04 PM



  7. As a Canadian, I can confirm that Hulu is the Devil.

    Posted by: Saskboy | October 26, 2009 6:13 PM



  8. The only thing Hulu could successfully charge for is the ability to watch shows at any time on the day they are to be broadcast. Or for live shows, provide access to the East Coast feed in real time. Granted, the local affiliate stations would not be pleased by this, but these stations should have been gone a long time ago. With cable and the internet, there's no reason content should be withheld simply so a local affiliate can get an audience for their crappy local news broadcasts.

    Posted by: Dan | October 26, 2009 9:06 PM



  9. How about taking a Spotify approach and provide:
    - a free ad-populated service (like now)
    - a subscription-based ad-free service

    As a UK citizen I can't use Hulu at all - how about opening it up internationally and charging these customers say $10 a month for access. Surely a lot of people would be keen to pay a small fee to access shows that they otherwise would not be able to see. But I guess this falls down to rights...

    Posted by: Claire | October 27, 2009 5:58 AM



  10. Hulu is out of their FREAKEN mind if they think charging for their service will work. With all of the free options for viewing media this would be there downfall.

    Posted by: Sampson | October 27, 2009 7:44 AM



  11. Hulu's future will depend on how much control Murdoch has over it. If he prevails then it will become a fee-for-content site like the WSJ. If not, it may retain a split personality, presumably with premium pay provisions (current seasons, for example).

    If I had to guess I would say Rupert will get the upper hand and then kill it, either accidentally (ala myspace) or on purpose so it doesn't compete with his other offerings.

    Posted by: sparky | October 27, 2009 9:35 AM



Leave a comment

Optional: Sign in with Connect Facebook   Sign in with Twitter Twitter   Sign in with OpenID OpenID  |  other services
The ReadWrite Real-Time Web Summit
RWW SPONSORS


FOLLOW @RWW ON TWITTER

ReadWriteWeb on Facebook



TEXT LINK ADS