There are several "free" newspapers in our area, but they have very limited distribution. The "subcriber based" newspapers have a much larger distribution.
The subscription fee partially covers the cost of printing and paper, but very little of the reporting and other fees. That comes from advertising.
There is something about paying for a subscription that makes a person value it more. Give it away for free and no one wants it.
Mike
· 1 month ago
If you don't like paying a subscription plus watching ads then don't subscribe - the choice is yours.
Keep in mind that they aren't going to provide the product without a proper rate of return on their investment. If they don't have ads then the subscription rate will be that much more. It doesn't have to be one or the other just because you would prefer it that way.
I pay $50/month for my cable tv plus I get to enjoy the commercials as well. Do I like that? No, I do not. But I watch anyway - thanks to my tivo I don't have to watch the commercials.
Smithee
· 1 month ago
If removing the ads means a higher subscription fee, I am totally fine with that.
Mike
· 1 month ago
Fair enough - you should let them know your opinion.
Problem is that not everyone will agree with you. I too would rather pay a higher fee with no ads but lots of people would rather do the opposite.
Amber
· 1 month ago
Exactly. This is how capitalism works. If a company can make more money both charging subscriptions and reeling in dollars from advertising, it is going to. We vote with our wallets and (many) Americans have been voting with their wallets for cable TV +advertising for years. If you don't like advertising on cable TV, don't subscribe.
The same thing is going to play out on the internet where companies will need to make a choice between reaching a greater number of users (free model) or possibly making a larger profit (paid model). Hulu is big enough where a significant number of people have cut cable TV in favor of internet TV. If I were NewsCorp, I'd be milking that for all it's worth.
Related to this conversation, I'd like to reference the book Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson. It specifically addresses television shows streamed over the internet.
Apex
· 1 month ago
To Smithee's point,
While I agree with the concept that capitalism works out the model that the customers will support. The issue with a number of these things he mentions (like cable TV, mobile phones, etc.) is allogopolies. These markets have either almost no competition on a local level or are national markets with only 3 or 4 viable players and their is no diversity of choice in the market place as to the kind of services you want or what payment model you want.
If you look at Sprint, Verizion, AT&T and their payment plans, its almost like reading the same book three times. It's amazing the level to which the choices are exactly the same. Why doesn't one of them offer radically different choices than the other? Allogopolies don't bring out the best in capitalism.
Cable companies are even worse. There is often only one choice in any local market. Now we have satellite companies but there is a hassle factor that makes the cable company an easier choice and even with the satellite companies, the prices and channels may be a little different but the model and the packages are not much different. None of them give you individual channel level selection for example. I like a joke I heard a comedian tell about the cable company. He says he calls them up to subscribe and the person on the phone asked him how he heard about them (as if they needed to market themselves against their non existent competition). He says, oh, kind of like I heard about the IRS.
Long distance companies used to have an allogopolistic racket going until the 10-10 numbers came in and showed what true competition can do to companies running a cash cow.
I think mobile phone companies and cable companies need some 10-10 like competition. When 10-10 came into the long distance business, rates dropped from 15-25 cents per minute down to 3-5 cents per minute. I don't see why 10-10 level competition wouldn't have very strong price pressure effects on the mobile phone and TV markets as well.
BobBobBob
· 1 month ago
You actually can block the ads. Blocking the ads though replaces every commercial with a 30 second black screen that says "Hulu cannot display commercials, please check your adblock. We are supported by commercials" (paraphrased, and poorly)". Since some commercials are only 15 seconds, it leads to longer viewing times and nothing to watch for 30 seconds! On the upside, you don't have to watch the moist-lubricant commercial some shave cream was promoting.
To block the ads (if you were so inclined) you would watch the websites being accessed (you can see the domain names flashing in the browser status bar when commercials load). Add those domain names to your hosts file and point them at the 127.0.0.1 IP address. Now none of the commercials can load.
Once they added the option to thumbs-down advertisements, I stopped blocking the commercials.
Mike
· 1 month ago
In this particular case why can't they make everyone happy? (or everyone equally unhappy as the case might be).
Hula should offer different types of subscriptions along the lines of (all numbers made up):
Free - but you get 8 minutes of commercials per hour. $1/hour with 3 minutes of commercials $1.50/hour with no commercials.
They could also do monthly fees ie free for 8 minutes of commercials/hour, $10/month for 3 minutes of commercials and $18/month for no commercials.
Craig
· 1 month ago
Business needs to make money, can't give everything out for free. This is no surprise and I think they will still have some sort of freemium model. I have to believe its more than just commercials, I wouldn't pay just to forgo a minute or two of commercials. Maybe certain shows will be free, and the best shows you have to pay for.
Erica Douglass
· 1 month ago
Read between the lines. Hulu isn't making money with those commercials. It's possible that they are doing this because advertisers aren't getting the expected ROI from Hulu commercials.
If you don't like it, may I suggest a Tivo?
-Erica
Tom Sawyer
· 1 month ago
Screw that. I say go ahead hulu, and see what happens. NOBODY will pay for their services when they can get the same on their DVR or NBC/ABC/CBS.com for free. I love hulu because it is extraordinarily stable in comparison to the networks websites and I dont have a DVR, but there is no way I would ever pay for it. If they need more money then they can start to advertise MORE. Im ok with that because most of the time I can bundle all of the commercials together and check my email while their playing.
But that is just my personal feelings and economic opinion.
AJ
· 1 month ago
I agree with most of your points save the one discussing newspapers and magazines. And though what I'm about to write probably can be applied to most if not all of your points, I think it's most applicable to newspapers and news magazines (I'm not going to get into fashion or style or pop magazines because I don't read them and don't have the background to comment one way or the other - also I don't care for them that much).
Newspapers, and news magazines use ads to subsidize the cost for the consumer. One could argue, the high cost of keeping a newspaper running reputably - by which I mean not only with strong local coverage, but also national correspondents, and international bureaus, with strong investigative reporters, would cause the price of a newspaper sans advertisements to be too high for people to purchase it on a daily (or even possibly weekly) basis. Taking away the cost to the consumer and relying completely on advertisments could not only affect the journalistic integrity (over relience on an advertiser to finance their paper could affect how they report stories as to not offend said advertiser), but also create such an overabundance of ads that they resemble less a paper, and more a glossy magazine.
Newspapers need the right balance of both to stay profitable, maintain their journalist integrity, and stay affordable for the comman man (i.e people like me). And even so, the cost of papers are rising, since less people are buying them, and as such can't charge the same premiums for ads - and are losing ads in general. It's a downward cycle that I think will affect (actually, already has affected) the quality of newsreporting in this country. Especially as we have been so accustomed to getting our news for free online. And I think the quality, and to a certain extent trustworthiness, will only go down if we rely only on free online newsreporting.
(and no, neither am I a reporter, editor, or have anything to do with the newspaper industry at all. I just value them as a resource, and institution for getting out the news in a reliable and overall trustworthy way)
As for hulu, I never use it - I watch all the shows of which I'm interested using the DVR, on tv as they air, or from the specific channel's website (ie. watching House on Fox.com, or Flashforward on ABC.com), and I don't really know much about how profitable Hulu needs to be (or even if it needs to be profitable other than just being prefferable to be profitable for Fox and its Hulu network partners) to keep the shows or networks afloat - specifically in regards to how much satellite or cable bills, extra subscription fees, DVD sales, and TV ads pay for the shows I watch.
All Comments
The subscription fee partially covers the cost of printing and paper, but very little of the reporting and other fees. That comes from advertising.
There is something about paying for a subscription that makes a person value it more. Give it away for free and no one wants it.
Keep in mind that they aren't going to provide the product without a proper rate of return on their investment. If they don't have ads then the subscription rate will be that much more. It doesn't have to be one or the other just because you would prefer it that way.
I pay $50/month for my cable tv plus I get to enjoy the commercials as well. Do I like that? No, I do not. But I watch anyway - thanks to my tivo I don't have to watch the commercials.
Problem is that not everyone will agree with you. I too would rather pay a higher fee with no ads but lots of people would rather do the opposite.
The same thing is going to play out on the internet where companies will need to make a choice between reaching a greater number of users (free model) or possibly making a larger profit (paid model). Hulu is big enough where a significant number of people have cut cable TV in favor of internet TV. If I were NewsCorp, I'd be milking that for all it's worth.
Related to this conversation, I'd like to reference the book Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson. It specifically addresses television shows streamed over the internet.
While I agree with the concept that capitalism works out the model that the customers will support. The issue with a number of these things he mentions (like cable TV, mobile phones, etc.) is allogopolies. These markets have either almost no competition on a local level or are national markets with only 3 or 4 viable players and their is no diversity of choice in the market place as to the kind of services you want or what payment model you want.
If you look at Sprint, Verizion, AT&T and their payment plans, its almost like reading the same book three times. It's amazing the level to which the choices are exactly the same. Why doesn't one of them offer radically different choices than the other? Allogopolies don't bring out the best in capitalism.
Cable companies are even worse. There is often only one choice in any local market. Now we have satellite companies but there is a hassle factor that makes the cable company an easier choice and even with the satellite companies, the prices and channels may be a little different but the model and the packages are not much different. None of them give you individual channel level selection for example. I like a joke I heard a comedian tell about the cable company. He says he calls them up to subscribe and the person on the phone asked him how he heard about them (as if they needed to market themselves against their non existent competition). He says, oh, kind of like I heard about the IRS.
Long distance companies used to have an allogopolistic racket going until the 10-10 numbers came in and showed what true competition can do to companies running a cash cow.
I think mobile phone companies and cable companies need some 10-10 like competition. When 10-10 came into the long distance business, rates dropped from 15-25 cents per minute down to 3-5 cents per minute. I don't see why 10-10 level competition wouldn't have very strong price pressure effects on the mobile phone and TV markets as well.
To block the ads (if you were so inclined) you would watch the websites being accessed (you can see the domain names flashing in the browser status bar when commercials load). Add those domain names to your hosts file and point them at the 127.0.0.1 IP address. Now none of the commercials can load.
Once they added the option to thumbs-down advertisements, I stopped blocking the commercials.
Hula should offer different types of subscriptions along the lines of (all numbers made up):
Free - but you get 8 minutes of commercials per hour.
$1/hour with 3 minutes of commercials
$1.50/hour with no commercials.
They could also do monthly fees ie free for 8 minutes of commercials/hour, $10/month for 3 minutes of commercials and $18/month for no commercials.
If you don't like it, may I suggest a Tivo?
-Erica
But that is just my personal feelings and economic opinion.
Newspapers, and news magazines use ads to subsidize the cost for the consumer. One could argue, the high cost of keeping a newspaper running reputably - by which I mean not only with strong local coverage, but also national correspondents, and international bureaus, with strong investigative reporters, would cause the price of a newspaper sans advertisements to be too high for people to purchase it on a daily (or even possibly weekly) basis. Taking away the cost to the consumer and relying completely on advertisments could not only affect the journalistic integrity (over relience on an advertiser to finance their paper could affect how they report stories as to not offend said advertiser), but also create such an overabundance of ads that they resemble less a paper, and more a glossy magazine.
Newspapers need the right balance of both to stay profitable, maintain their journalist integrity, and stay affordable for the comman man (i.e people like me). And even so, the cost of papers are rising, since less people are buying them, and as such can't charge the same premiums for ads - and are losing ads in general. It's a downward cycle that I think will affect (actually, already has affected) the quality of newsreporting in this country. Especially as we have been so accustomed to getting our news for free online. And I think the quality, and to a certain extent trustworthiness, will only go down if we rely only on free online newsreporting.
(and no, neither am I a reporter, editor, or have anything to do with the newspaper industry at all. I just value them as a resource, and institution for getting out the news in a reliable and overall trustworthy way)
As for hulu, I never use it - I watch all the shows of which I'm interested using the DVR, on tv as they air, or from the specific channel's website (ie. watching House on Fox.com, or Flashforward on ABC.com), and I don't really know much about how profitable Hulu needs to be (or even if it needs to be profitable other than just being prefferable to be profitable for Fox and its Hulu network partners) to keep the shows or networks afloat - specifically in regards to how much satellite or cable bills, extra subscription fees, DVD sales, and TV ads pay for the shows I watch.