How Hulu Plans to Wreck Itself

Recs

10

Disney Buys Marvel!

David Gardner called it. He’s up 1,334%! See what David’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

Stock Advisor

If you missed House last week (postseason baseball games shouldn't be allowed to go to extra innings!), you can go get your sarcastic fix on Hulu.com today. The site offers up entire episodes of your  favorite TV shows as ad-supported online streams, and you don't even have to remember whether House runs on Fox, CBS (NYSE: CBS), or NBC. (It's on Fox, for the record.)

The end is nigh
Enjoy it while you can, Fool. Hulu may soon be a pay-for-play site. Today's convenient, all-you-can-eat destination for on-demand streams for free would then become a thing of the past. In fact, Hulu itself would ride into the sunset to sit down with Pocahontas and Marlon Brando and discuss how one of the Web's busiest sites suddenly hit a wall and became a footnote in media history.

Hulu is owned by a media consortium that includes News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS), and General Electric (NYSE: GE) joint venture NBC Universal. News Corp. COO Chase Carey says that Hulu's paid model might show up as early as next year. Judging by these comments, it looks like Hulu's advertising ain't paying the bills here. We've heard that song before in relation to Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and YouTube -- though I'm pretty sure that YouTube is a secret money maker. Google can play a mean game of lowball, too.

The stakes
Consumers clearly crave easy access to their favorite TV shows, or Hulu wouldn’t get any traffic. Hulu attracts more visitors than any of the networks' sites and runs neck-and-neck with Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX), according to Amazon.com's (Nasdaq: AMZN) Alexa traffic yardstick.

On-demand television services are the future, if you ask me. Each of the Big Four networks except Fox has decent on-demand offerings through my cable box, and Hulu would lose a lot of its sex appeal if consumers only knew about this resource. Hulu is merely a stopgap solution that serves as a centralized media destination until the one in our cable boxes becomes truly usable. Today's on-demand menus are often confusing, they react slowly to the commands from your remote, and some of the content I want isn't on there at all. (Hey, Fox, I'm talking to you!)

Many fanatical TV fans still don't know what content on demand is, how to use it, or how it would make their lives easier. Until Big Media starts pushing their on-demand offerings for real, and I mean both by improving the service and by telling everyone that it exists, we still need something like Hulu. And it needs to be free.

Don't do it, Captain!
If Hulu goes through with this harebrained plan, it will become a niche player at best. That's if the site provides fancy new features to paying customers like no ads, premium shows you can't get on Hulu today, or backrubs from the stars of The Girls Next Door. Even then, Hulu will not be the fairly mainstream power player it is today. To stay relevant to the mass market, Hulu needs to stay free.

"Free!" is a powerful marketing tool, and I'm not sure Hulu would be this popular if we had to pay for the pleasure. As it stands, Hulu deflects plenty of would-be pirates from total freeloading to giving the studios at least some chance to grab a few advertising dollars. Pulling down the iron curtain of paid content would likely drive many Hulu users back into piracy. All these users want is a no-brainer way to watch the shows they missed or can't otherwise get. I guess we'll see next year, as TV show piracy spikes and Hulu drops off the map.

Do you think Hulu would survive as a pay service? Throw your $0.02 in the comments box below, will ya?

Like this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Weekly by entering your email below.

Fool contributor Anders Bylund owns shares in Google, Disney, and Netflix, but he holds no other position in any of the companies discussed here. What, three holdings isn't enough for one article? Gimme a break! Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation. Amazon.com, Walt Disney, and Netflix are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. Walt Disney is a Motley Fool Inside Value pick. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. You can check out Anders' holdings and a concise bio if you like, and you'll find an on-demand Easter egg in there too. The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Retired31B5M wrote:

    I can see the networks taking over Hulu's niche by offering commercial-supported access to their TV shows off their own web sites. Hulu has demonstrated that this business model is feasible.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 1:08 PM, dargus wrote:

    I agree with your comments about how a pay-to-play model will destroy Hulu. I certainly would not be interested in plunking down cash to watch shows. Further, with the free model it benefits the networks. I find myself browsing around and discovering new shows I never knew existed.

    One interesting thing I have noticed is how slow Hulu is versus Netflix on a Friday or Saturday night. I see one of two reasons for this, one being that Netflix is able to maintain a better infrastructure because it is a pay service, or the fact that Netflix is a pay service keeps out the riffraff and taxes their servers less. Making Hulu a pay service would probably change this, as it should address both problems.

    One thing I disagree about is OnDemand. Can someone please explain to me why we still have cable companies delivering TV as a bunch of channel bundles, which can only be viewed on my TV with a digital box (mostly)? Why isn't all programming available on demand a la carte over the internet? Why do I have to pay for a bunch of content I'll never watch to get the content I desire? I assume the reason is traditional content delivery companies (cable and dish) have a lot of market power and prevent this.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 3:33 PM, formosa1 wrote:

    Amen, what dargus says!!!!!!! Services a la carte! I have been waiting a long long time, and I have given up hope because I am sure cable and dish, and whichever interested parties with lots of cash and power, would prevent consumers access to what they want, when they want it... A LA CARTE!

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 3:42 PM, snwbrdjunky266 wrote:

    There's no way Hulu would remain at all popular if it began to charge for its services. Even if it was cheap there will always be other ways to find what your looking for, other ways that ARE free. These big corporate heads will be surprised to see the extent that today's youths will go in order to save a little money.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 5:55 PM, SAustinTX wrote:

    I agree 100% with the article's central thesis, but I'm surprised no mention was made of the proliferation of DVRs. I don't have any numbers in front of me but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people that are on Time Warner and Comcast - not to mention satellite - have digital video recorders built into their cable boxes, so losing free access to Hulu would at most just force those users to have to learn to program their DVRs. There may be a pay-to-stream market for premium channels like HBO and Showtime, but asking someone to pay $1.99 or whatever to watch "The Office" every week is downright absurd. You might as well ask the following: if users had to pay to view content on Youtube would anyone have ever heard of the keyboard cats or drunkest guy on earth?

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 6:02 PM, SAustinTX wrote:

    I think the reason the networks are resistant to across-the-board content on demand probably has a lot to do with the way they historically break new shows... by scheduling them right after existing, highly popular shows. There is a huge chunk of crunching the Nielsen numbers that concerns itself with determining how many people switched channels between shows and how many remained on board for the next one.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Melaschasm wrote:

    For the past year I have been telling all of my friends and family about the great www.hulu.com

    Most of my friends fast forward through all the network commercials, but when they watch a video on hulu, they watch the advertisement (as do I).

    I am such a fan of Hulu that I refuse to watch any network TV unless it is on Hulu, with the exception of two sports teams I follow.

    If Hulu starts to charge money, I will stop watching TV again. I went a couple years without regular TV, prior to Hulu becoming available.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1020589, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/22/2009 8:17:21 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

The Must-Read Story on Fool.com
An Open Letter to the Federal Reserve

Related Tickers

11/20/2009 4:01 PM
CBS $12.84 Down -0.47 -3.53%
CBS Corp CAPS Rating: **
DIS $30.01 Down -0.20 -0.66%
The Walt Disney Co… CAPS Rating: ****
GE $15.59 Down -0.17 -1.08%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****
AMZN $129.66 Up +0.67 +0.52%
Amazon.com, Inc. CAPS Rating: **
GOOG $569.96 Down -3.03 -0.53%
Google, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***
NFLX $59.97 Down -0.29 -0.48%
Netflix, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Uncertainty: Uncertainty is an inability to ascertain the true current state or to determine or predict future outcomes.

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!