I hate it when they try to blow smoke up our asses:
It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. 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.
Bullshit. Consumers like it just fine. Don't pretend you are charging us for our own enjoyment.
And, fuckers, if shows start costing money up front... there better not be any damned commercials anymore.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:And, fuckers, if shows start costing money up front... there better not be any damned commercials anymore.
Fuckin' A, Dude.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Funny thing is, HULU was a direct response to free file downloads. They figured they could recoup some money if they offered an easy download for free, and made a little cash from the advertising. Someone must have forgotten that it is still possible to get these shows for free.
I'm guessing the accountants got put in charge. That always ruins a product.
edit - And another thought, I wonder how much of this has to do with the writer's strike, and their wanting more cash for internet broadcasts.
Edited By GORDON on 1256311331
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Hulu's a piss-poor business model compared to broadcast TV. The problem, as you stated, is piracy. I mean, why would they continue doing something dumb and that's unprofitable? That's not "the accountants in charge" that's common sense.
SO, you're saying that HULU is not making any money with their current business model? But you're suggesting that I may not have common sense, so use small words.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:SO, you're saying that HULU is not making any money with their current business model? But you're suggesting that I may not have common sense, so use small words.
No, please, extrapolate. Your entire argument seems to be that I am too stupid to know that it doesn't make sense to keep losing money on a business. It was never my impression that they were losing money, nor do I think it was mentioned that in the article I linked. I skimmed, admittedly, so I concede it could actually be stated there. I'm sure it will take you no more than 30 seconds to find out if HULU is losing money with their current business plan. The only thing my lack of common sense seems to tell me is that the networks are definitely losing money from the existence of bit torrent where they don't get to sell commercials, which prompted the creation of HULU in the first place.
I could do this research myself, of course, but at this point I am having more fun busting your balls over your "common sense" barb.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON wrote:No, please, extrapolate. Your entire argument seems to be that I am too stupid to know that it doesn't make sense to keep losing money on a business. It was never my impression that they were losing money, nor do I think it was mentioned that in the article I linked. I skimmed, admittedly, so I concede it could actually be stated there. I'm sure it will take you no more than 30 seconds to find out if HULU is losing money with their current business plan. The only thing my lack of common sense seems to tell me is that the networks are definitely losing money from the existence of bit torrent where they don't get to sell commercials, which prompted the creation of HULU in the first place.
I could do this research myself, of course, but at this point I am having more fun busting your balls over your "common sense" barb.
Ah.
Your statement was that products are fine until the accountants step in. I was saying that while Hulu is mildly cash flow positive (as of this past summer), it is not profitable.
It is orders of magnitude more expensive for them to show content this way. The bandwidth costs are far in excess of the transmission costs via traditional television. Showing 2 commercials per show doesn't make up the difference.
The product sucks for its owners in comparison to traditional means of TV viewing. Yes, it's better for consumers, but only cuz they're (practically) giving it away.
I was just saying it's common sense, given those business realities, that it can't go on like it is. I was not assaulting your common sense. But, I'm sure I will another day.
So they must think they will improve from being mildly cash flow positive by switching to a pay ala carte/subscription process, even though 80% (my prediction) of their users will abandon them, and their ad revenue, and go back to free downloading. I predict this new model will fail, and it was an accounting decision that ultimately will hurt the service. I have nothing to base my prediction on.
The one time I didn't want to wait for HULU's week-delayed show was for an episode of BSG, and then I just went and paid two bucks for it on amazon.com.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I guess there's no difference. Instead of trying to take the artistic route and make better shows to get more eyeballs, they will just make the existing shit more expensive, their new business model will fail, they will have more ammo to go after THOSE DARN PIRATES, and somehow it will be bad for me.
Edited By GORDON on 1256337486
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
The cost of fighting piracy is going to have to involve giving the shows away for free after a certain period of time; otherwise, the pirates will always have demand on their side.
What's more expensive : the digital security race or ponying up for the proper bandwidth?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
