WSJ: Rumor that Hulu is working on an ad-free premium subscription tier

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by oneMadRssn, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #1
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/hulu-explores-adding-ad-free-option-to-its-service-1437103682

    "Hulu’s code name for the project is “NOAH,” which stands for “No Ads Hulu,” the people familiar with the matter said. One of the people said the ad-free option could launch as early as this fall and be priced at around $12 to $14 a month."

    I would subscribe if this turns out to be true. I hate the ads, and would certainly pay $5 or $10 more per month on top of the regular subscription to nix all ads.
     
  2. arbogast777 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    #2
    Meh... I'd be tempted maybe at $9.99 but the cost of all these services add up and any way to keep the total down is welcome
     
  3. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #3
    I couldn't care less for geoblocking Hulu. It's really annoying when third parties use this service to publish their videos.
     
  4. HobeSoundDarryl, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #4
    I'll be pretty surprised if Hulu could go ad-free with a retail price of $12-$14. That seems low based on what I know of industry revenue models. Ads certainly flow a LOT of cash- other people's cash- into the pot. These major networks that make so much original, NEW programming need as much as they can get from both sources of money. I'd be surprised if they try to make a go of it at those prices. In fact, I suspect some other kind of catch here... maybe it's a "starting at..." price range with tiers for more popular programming at higher prices or something like that? I just don't see the math working if the major networks go ad-free in exchange for only $12-$14/month. It will be interesting to see if that plays out.
     
  5. campyguy macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Location:
    Portland / Seattle
    #5
    With Comcast as one of the "partners", I see "NOAH" spelled out as being "money whores". Yep, that's it - forcing a square peg down the consumer's throats...

    Hulu let the world know that they wanted to try this 5 years ago then brought on Comcrap, and here we are - being fed ads and wanting to be paid for the privilege of watching reruns. Same old crap, different year.
     
  6. Mrs.G macrumors newbie

    Mrs.G

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Location:
    NM
    #6
    One of the main reasons why I became a cable cutter was to save money and see less ads. The commercials on Hulu, right now, aren't that long or very many compared to what I see on my local TV providers.

    Until the ads become bad like local TV, I'll stay at my subscription rate.
     
  7. d21mike macrumors 68040

    d21mike

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    #7
    I think it really depends on number of subscribers they get. Compare their small number of subscribers to the 65 million Netflix subscribers. Hulu at one point said that they get about the same in ad revenue as subscription revenue. That would put this at $16 per month to break even at the same subscriber level at that time. They have had subscriber growth since then but I do not have those numbers. Anyway, I think that if they could double (or triple?) the subscribers maybe they could do this for $10. However, to make this move will take some risk like Netflix did when they made the move to original programming with House of Cards. But bottom line is that if they do nothing others like Netfix will continue to offer new and maybe better original programming. And my guess it that the people that make the best content may start to look to Netflix and others for more money since that is where all of the subscribers will be going too. With Netflix, HBO, Showtime, Amazon (and others) creating original content without commercials, I strongly feel it is just a matter of time before the networks will be relying on soaps and reality shows to stay relevant. I currently have DVR's for the shows I watch on the Networks and ALWAYS FF Commercials. I can not be the only one. Maybe they will see the light at some point but who knows.
     
  8. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #8
    Sorry, I meant relative to the "cord cutter" vs. "as is" model. If we look at it only relative to what Netflix charges or what Hulu charges now, all kinds of favorable views can be drawn at anywhere below $10-$20. My post was relative to the concept of the masses moving from the "as is" model to maybe Hulu for those channels in a masses "cord cutter" migration. In other words, if the masses moved, I speculate there isn't enough money in those kinds of prices to make up for the revenues lost in the switch from "as is" to "cord cutter" model. If true, that's upwards of a big haircut for the "big 4" that bring most of the most popular brand new programming to us consumers. And if that's true, that would point to reducing new programming... or the quality of new programming to better fit the reduced revenue flows.

    Hulu (and Netflix) work now because the masses still cling to the "as is" model (or the "as is" model too). Content producers and middlemen don't "feel" the cord cutter revenue (losses) enough yet. But if the masses moved on cord cutting, I don't see how Netflix or Hulu can cling to this kind of pricing without cuts to the volume of new programming and/or quality of that new programming. In short, when the masses move, I expect Hulu pricing to adapt to at least maintain the revenue flows of the "as is" model for those channels and for Netflix to be forced into tiering their offerings so they too can grow average monthly revenue-per-subscriber to make even (mostly) in-th-can programming generate enough revenues to at least maintain "as is" revenue numbers for the owners of such content.
     
  9. d21mike macrumors 68040

    d21mike

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    #9
    HobeSoundDarryl - I agree. Everyone I know that is on Netflix and maybe Hulu also pay for CABLE TV too because there is "just not enough" content without CABLE TV for people where TV is a very important part of their entertainment. I changed to the FIOS Custom because my wife and I do not not watch sports. But I had to add the Kids bundle at $10 per month because my wife wanted the TV Land Channel. So I expect people for some time to come to have to support channels the never watch just so they can get channels they do watch even with the new model. But I do see that changing. I have never had a problem paying for content. But I really prefer having an option to pay for no commercials and to use my own hardware. The only option should not be to buy a DVR and FF thru commercials. Would it not be better to charge those people a little more? My hardware cost is $67 per month. I think there is room in my budget to pay for Hulu without commercials even if double. But of course that does not include CBS. With CBS coming to Apple TV and Hulu and the other Netflix, HBO and Showtime maybe I will be able to get my wife to drop TV Land since it appears there is not option to get it without a large CABLE TV Bill. She also like's Hallmark which I tried to subscribe to Feeln (no commercials) but it does not have everything. Of course the CABLE TV industry could get smart and beat Netflix and the others at there own game. Dish is the company that owns Sling TV. TWC has an App where most all the content can be streamed on Roku. If Hulu can offer a tier for no commercials what would stop the CABLE TV Industry from doing the same. Simply because they want to make money on DVR's and STB's? They are in the bundle game. Just create the proper bundles people are willing to pay for. If they don't then I really see a mass exit to the other streaming options. And it could happen quickly if the right options are available.
     
  10. d21mike macrumors 68040

    d21mike

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    #10
    Let me clarify "quickly". As I said everyone I know has the CABLE TV Package (or Sat or FIOS) with Netflix and some have Hulu etc. And every one of them would drop CABLE TV in an INSTANT when these new options are available. I say that with a lot of confidence because I follow this stuff more then anyone I know and they always ask me when we get together if there is "anything" new. I think a lot of people are like my group of friends and family that want something "better".
     
  11. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #11
    Am I the only person who doesn't mind the ads? Most of them aren't too bad, and they do seem to be pretty well targeted. I do at times like some info about products, and I believe I found out about Wink through a Hulu ad. As you mentioned there aren't near as many as on regular TV.

    I'd prefer a subscription option that allows on demand viewing as soon as the program is over at its normal time, or even concurrent viewing like HBO does. I think it's just the big networks and providers holding onto an old model that is cracking quickly. Once you've seen VOD done well like HBO does it, you don't want to go back.
     
  12. oneMadRssn thread starter macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    I don't think "cord cutting" should equal "saving money." My goal isn't to pay less, it's to pay about the same to get (1) the ability to watch the shows I like when I want, (2) without commercials, and (3) without subsidizing shows I do not like.

    I do not know how Hulu pays for the content. Is it like Spotify / Apple Music, where the content owners get paid per view? Or is it a flat fee to have all content available to all subscribers? Either way, I'm sure Hulu monitors what is or isn't being watched, and analyses that data when picking content to make available. One huge benefit to online programming, in this regard, is it's a more democratic feedback system than Cable. On cable, I think a lot of terrible shows that no one likes get played a lot because the advertisers want that show played a lot. This obviously wouldn't work with an on-demand only system.
     
  13. tonyr6 macrumors 6502a

    tonyr6

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #13
    What about those who have free trials from using Bing. I have Hulu free until April 2006 I hope I can still get the ad free version for whatever prorated price I have to pay. Right now the the only I am watching on Hulu is Ben 10 which is ad free. I refuse to start watching Seinfeld since there are annoying ads.
     

Share This Page