Who-lu's Going to Stick Around?

So I’m thinking about getting rid of my cable. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really watch a lot of TV anymore, at least not on television... Sorry Comcast! Why pay for cable and Internet when I can just stream online for free? But it turns out Comcast still might be making a sweet buck off of me anyway (other than the Internet) with their recent acquisition of NBC, which includes one of their most promising online ventures, Hulu.com. Despite their excellent advertising structure, will looming subscription models cause Hulu to become a test case for the rebirth of media on the Internet?

Any time I want to watch TV, instead of picking up the remote I just jump on the computer. Hulu and other big name video streaming sites, like YouTube before it, are obviously changing how people consume their media. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any bold claims like, “The Internet has killed television,” but I do think that within my lifetime you will definitely see a shift in the medium towards the net.

If the internet has taught us anything, it’s that people have short attention spans and want that kind of instant gratification that they can control, or even create. Thus the Internet has flourished. But even as most media and entertainment companies now realize that a strong online marketing presence is necessary, they still struggle to find ways to make it profitable. Banner ads, Google AdSense and affiliate linking are all fine, but Hulu more than any other online site that I frequent has taken the offline television experience and made it work online... commercials and all.

Even the mighty Google YouTube, who has recently started to place actual commercials at the beginning of their videos, seems to be playing catch-up to Hulu in some respects. By keeping two or three commercials placed throughout their videos Hulu is able to keep a format that people are already accustomed to and they know works. In the Web format, I’d argue that this provides even more opportunity for advertisers as tracking statistics and user preferences allow them to specifically target their audience with a greater degree of precision than that of television.

Hulu often even gives the user control over what commercials they want to see. Allowing the user to choose which commercial(s) they want to view during their show should be huge to advertisers. The addition of Hulu’s advertising rating system (Like or Dislike) helps give advertisers even more instant feedback on what works and what doesn’t.

But the recent news that Hulu may very well be planning to move to a subscription based model has caused a bit of stir and outcry.

“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,” says News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey (remember Fox aka News Copr. owns a big chunk of Hulu).

And this all comes along side Rupert Murdoch’s recent public display of affection for Google. But is this really justified? Are these huge mega corporations unable to monetize their websites as they have done with television without a subscription model?

The entire medium is changing. The music industry will attest to that. Should people have to pay twice (once to get online and again to view the content) to watch online? Is the subscription model the only way to go, or is there another way to keep the content free and still make a buck? Many of those who claim outrage have said they will stop using Hulu once it charges but will they really? I know I will. How about you?