Herein, A Rare Instance
Read on, where I shall risk risk immanent immolation by disagreeing with the internet at large. It doesn't happen often, so listen up.
Via Twitter (@FeliciaDay to be specific), I read this article which, with no real commentary or analysis whatsoever, suggests that Hulu could become a pay service as soon as 2010. According to the commenters on the article, as well as the internet in general, this marks the absolute end of Hulu. As soon as this happens, Hulu will drop off the face of the earth because no one will use it because it will suck and be awful and terrible and lame and no amount of run on sentences could ever possibly explain the extreme amount of fail that would coincide with this decision.
My response to that is, "What are you, stupid or something?"
Look, I know the internet in general is averse to paying for things, because I myself used to be a part of that clamoring mob. But unlike most everyone else, I'm not willing to condemn this move until I see the pricing scheme. Because if I'm paying $60 a month for a whole metric eff-tonne of cable channels, and then another $15 for PVR to time shift them to when it's convenient for me to watch them, well then I'm sure going to listen to an option that costs less than $75 per month. I'm not saying I'll like it or agree with it, but I'll listen.
Look, I know the reason Hulu is popular now is that it's free. And frankly, I don't fault those media conglomerates for wanting to make money off of those shows. I like free, but I understand that those shows don't get made for free. Hulu scores big because anyone with an internet connection can watch shows (unless they are CBS shows, because CBS doesn't use Hulu, apparently because they are afraid that people, might, you know, actually watch their shows), with minimal commercial interruption. A handful of 30-second commercials is always better than a handful of 3 minute commercials breaks. So if Hulu charged a nominal fee and collected demographic information to target those few commercials specifically to me... I'll sign up to pay on Day One.
If they screw up by charging too much, or by showing too many commercials per show, or perhaps by continuing their silly restriction of only the five most recent episodes (or CBS's case, of not showing their content at all), then they will fail, and deservedly so. But right now, the networks have a huge opportunity here, to distribute TV whenever and wherever the consumer wants it, with precisely targeted ads to boot. If they don't get greedy (a big if), then I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to pay for that.
This is all, of course, assuming Congress finds the testicular fortitude to pass some net neutrality laws and someone buys CBS a clue and they learn to put entire shows online instead of lame little clips. But hey, if all that happens, my wallet is open.
Via Twitter (@FeliciaDay to be specific), I read this article which, with no real commentary or analysis whatsoever, suggests that Hulu could become a pay service as soon as 2010. According to the commenters on the article, as well as the internet in general, this marks the absolute end of Hulu. As soon as this happens, Hulu will drop off the face of the earth because no one will use it because it will suck and be awful and terrible and lame and no amount of run on sentences could ever possibly explain the extreme amount of fail that would coincide with this decision.
My response to that is, "What are you, stupid or something?"
Look, I know the internet in general is averse to paying for things, because I myself used to be a part of that clamoring mob. But unlike most everyone else, I'm not willing to condemn this move until I see the pricing scheme. Because if I'm paying $60 a month for a whole metric eff-tonne of cable channels, and then another $15 for PVR to time shift them to when it's convenient for me to watch them, well then I'm sure going to listen to an option that costs less than $75 per month. I'm not saying I'll like it or agree with it, but I'll listen.
Look, I know the reason Hulu is popular now is that it's free. And frankly, I don't fault those media conglomerates for wanting to make money off of those shows. I like free, but I understand that those shows don't get made for free. Hulu scores big because anyone with an internet connection can watch shows (unless they are CBS shows, because CBS doesn't use Hulu, apparently because they are afraid that people, might, you know, actually watch their shows), with minimal commercial interruption. A handful of 30-second commercials is always better than a handful of 3 minute commercials breaks. So if Hulu charged a nominal fee and collected demographic information to target those few commercials specifically to me... I'll sign up to pay on Day One.
If they screw up by charging too much, or by showing too many commercials per show, or perhaps by continuing their silly restriction of only the five most recent episodes (or CBS's case, of not showing their content at all), then they will fail, and deservedly so. But right now, the networks have a huge opportunity here, to distribute TV whenever and wherever the consumer wants it, with precisely targeted ads to boot. If they don't get greedy (a big if), then I don't see why anyone wouldn't want to pay for that.
This is all, of course, assuming Congress finds the testicular fortitude to pass some net neutrality laws and someone buys CBS a clue and they learn to put entire shows online instead of lame little clips. But hey, if all that happens, my wallet is open.
posted by Yax at 7:45 PM
1 Comments:
Hey, pal! Generally agree with your last post... though I love getting TV completely free, since I don't get digital cable, I don't mind paying a small amount to watch only the shows I want on my own personal time. (See Mad Men.)
And I like that you used "testicular fortitude" in your post.
I think I'm back to blogging now, at pseudoliterati.blogspot.com. No comments yet (trying to avoid an old lurker), but I'd love it if you'd come read...
Post a Comment
<< Home