# Hulu Introduces $11.99 Commercial-Free Option



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

Hulu Introduces $11.99 Commercial-Free Option, But Vows To Boost Ad Sales

Hulu has finally responded to the chorus of subscribers who don't want to put up with ads when they pay a monthly fee to stream movies and TV shows. The service today adds an $11.99-a-month ad-free option, while maintaining its $7.99 service with what it describes as "limited commercials."

http://deadline.com/2015/09/hulu-ad-free-service-1201512438/

Some shows will still have commercials before and after but not during the show.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

So a 50% increase to still have commercials? Seems like its not worth it to me. I dont mind paying a little more for the convenience but to me it sounds like they missed the mark with both doing away with commercials and with the charge to do so.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

_A slight negative for some will come in the new tier's "exception shows," which will present users with bookended ads even when a subscriber is paying $12 per month. From ABC, NBC, and FOX, the seven exception shows are: New Girl_, _Scandal_, _How to Get Away with Murder_, _Grey's Anatomy_, _Once Upon a Time_, _Marvel's Agents of Shield_, and _Grimm_. Perhaps a minor silver lining: the exception shows won't include the timed ads in the middle of a video and will only include a 15-second pre-show and 30-second post-show commercial.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Okay that isnt as bad as I dont watch any of those shows. Still I think they missed the mark on what no commercials is worth. It is not worth a 50% increase in fees for no commercials. Do you think anyone would pay 50% more if their satellite and or cable operator offered no commercials at that price? No and Dish had equipment that does it for you instead of jacking up the rates. It should of been maybe $2 more but not $4. Not cool in my book. To me this means they dont value their service that much of 50% of it is based off the commercials alone. Just seems stupid to me. Their price competing with Netflix was great. Okay so its hard to complete with Netflix, so raise $2 not $4. End rant.


----------



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

yeah the increase is ridiculous, but honestly $11.99/mo isn't bad compared to what providers are now charging just for a HD Box/DVR. $21.99 for DirecTV and one TV


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I have a Tivo Roamio that I'm using only for streaming services and on that with Hulu I don't get many ads at all. Oft times I can binge watch a series and might only have 2-3 ads over a span of 5+ episodes. I'll stick with the ads and the lower cost.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Thats one way to look at it, another is that Netflix is 7.99 and it does not have commercials. The price increase does not fit the benefit.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Hulu subscriber here, and will not pay the extra for this upgrade. I watch Netflix 99% of the time and Amazon & Hulu about .50% each. I would pay $15 a month for Netflix at this rate with no hesitation because of the TV Shows they carry


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Having been a Netflix and Acorn TV watcher for some time, I am no longer able to tolerate any commercials. We still subscribe to Dish's welcome tier because wife wants it to be "just there", but she never watches either. I have tried to talk her into cancelling, but no luck. Happy wife, happy life.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Nobody likes to pay more, but I think it's worth $4/month to get rid of the commercials. I can put up with 15 seconds at the beginning of the exception shows as long as they don't interrupt the shows. Also note that Hulu is adding content from Epix, which Netflix is dropping. That's all of the new releases from Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate. That alone is worth $4 a month. Bad move by Netflix in not renewing that deal.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

the2130 said:


> Nobody likes to pay more, but I think it's worth $4/month to get rid of the commercials. I can put up with 15 seconds at the beginning of the exception shows as long as they don't interrupt the shows. Also note that Hulu is adding content from Epix, which Netflix is dropping. That's all of the new releases from Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate. That alone is worth $4 a month. Bad move by Netflix in not renewing that deal.


If you value your business model at $8 a month how are the commercials being removed worth 50% more? If it was full on 5 minutes of commercials 5 times per hour show or more, maybe but its like 1-3 commercials 3-5 times per hour. That is not worth a 50% increase in the fees.

I just got emailed by my Internet Service Provider yesterday saying they were going to double my internet speed for $5. They could of easily asked for $10-20 more but they didnt. That is an example of them knowing when not to push the issue. Hulu should charge for the no commercial option, but $2 more a month should be the cap on that. I would of probably paid $2 more to try it out but a 50% increase is not gonna happen my me.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I suppose Hulu could put as many commercials as they like at the end of the show. Most people would turn off the show when it's over anyway.

I like Netflix at $8.99 per month for two users. I'm looking forward to Longmire Season 4, available September 10.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They can scale it back to $9.99 if $11.99 is too much. If they introduced "no commercials" for $9.99 then raised the price it would be worse than setting a high price on day one (unless marketed as an introductory price).

If $11.99 is too much then people will pay the old rate and watch commercials. Perhaps Hulu can add more commercials until people pay the higher price.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

It's $13.99 a month for the No Commercials plan if you subscribe and are billed via your iTunes account. Hulu claims this is due to additional transaction costs associated with Apple.

http://www.hulu.com/help/articles/52427902


----------



## ronton3 (Mar 15, 2006)

I have Netflix and Amazon Prime, I have been waiting for Hulu to do this for the Criterion movies. I will at least try it, especially after the Epix moves. I would never do it while the lying, fraudulent commercials were present. I am now thinking of dropping Netflix.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

joshjr said:


> If you value your business model at $8 a month how are the commercials being removed worth 50% more? If it was full on 5 minutes of commercials 5 times per hour show or more, maybe but its like 1-3 commercials 3-5 times per hour. That is not worth a 50% increase in the fees.


If it isn't worth it to you, then you have the option of staying with the ad-supported version. Nobody is forcing you to pay it. Hulu is doing this because they have had a lot of subscribers asking for it, and they are listening to their customers. Those of us who are willing to pay an extra $4 can watch ad-free programming and those who aren't can stay with what they have.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

coolman302003 said:


> It's $13.99 a month for the No Commercials plan if you subscribe and are billed via your iTunes account. Hulu claims this is due to additional transaction costs associated with Apple.


Good reason for not using iTunes.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

the2130 said:


> If it isn't worth it to you, then you have the option of staying with the ad-supported version. Nobody is forcing you to pay it. Hulu is doing this because they have had a lot of subscribers asking for it, and they are listening to their customers. Those of us who are willing to pay an extra $4 can watch ad-free programming and those who aren't can stay with what they have.


Thanks for the update. I am glad we were able to clear that up. In a business model where the idea is more content to watch and in this case all they did was take a few commercials out does not justify a 50% increase in price. Not like they bumped their viewing library by 50% or even 25% and raised rates. I stand by the fact that the benefit does not fit the cost increase. I WONT be upgrading to the commercial free version out of principal. $4 is nothing but I am not gonna pay that much more for something so trivial.

The way you state it would be like Chevy raised the price of a Camaro with built in wifi option from $50K to $75K. Well damn, I am glad the ones that wanted it got it but that does not mean its worth the price they want for it. I look forward to them finding out that the $4 increase is to much. Good luck.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cool. Vote with your wallet. I believe $7.99 is too much for regular Hulu so I vote with my wallet and do not subscribe.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

This is just another example of 'have you stopped beating your wife?".

When I first got Hulu, it was $7.99 and their content was ad-free. Then they inserted
commercials. Now, for more money, Hulu offers to run ads only at the beginning and
end of shows. No thanks.

I seldom use Hulu anyway so I have decided to cancel my subscription altogether. I
will stick with Netflix and Amazon Prime where the value _and_ commercial-free viewing
is still there for me.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I think we're beyond the "testing" stage on pricing models for streaming.

In the case of HULU *if* you don't have OTA, cable, or satellite TV and want to watch a few hours of current broadcast and cable shows available on HULU, the commercial-free $12/mo is not that high. It competes directly with the "skip through commercials" model of DVR'd cable/satellite TV.

The pricing models are interesting. CBS All Access is half the price of HULU but even though it gives you live streaming of your local CBS channel if your local CBS channel is a CBS O&O, it is only one broadcast network - nothing else. And you must watch commercials.

Commercial-free HBO and Showtime streaming cost about the same as if you included them in your cable or satellite subscription. Essentially they follow the Netflix model but the pricing is closer to HULU.

Obviously we're not going to get completely away from the cable/satellite package model to a true à la carte model, but hopefully we will see a more competitive marketplace.

And I'm a really happy camper getting Acorn TV content.

Now back to the very difficult problem of figuring out how to schedule TV watching as I abandon the OTA/cable/satellite model of networks telling me when to watch stuff. But it is turning out to be a problem I'm happy to have.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Nick said:


> When I first got Hulu, it was $7.99 and their content was ad-free. Then they inserted
> commercials. Now, for more money, Hulu offers to run ads only at the beginning and
> end of shows. No thanks.


Neither the free Hulu nor the $7.99 Hulu Plus was ever ad-free.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

phrelin said:


> The pricing models are interesting. CBS All Access is half the price of HULU but even though it gives you live streaming of your local CBS channel if your local CBS channel is a CBS O&O, it is only one broadcast network - nothing else. And you must watch commercials.


Correct. CBS All Access is only $5.99 per month, but it is only CBS shows. Hulu has shows from Fox, NBC, ABC, and CW. Both services have older shows as well, but you need both if you want to watch current seasons of shows on-demand.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

phrelin said:


> Commercial-free HBO and Showtime streaming cost about the same as if you included them in your cable or satellite subscription. Essentially they follow the Netflix model but the pricing is closer to HULU.


Showtime has some good original shows, but very limited selection of movies since they dropped their studio output deals with Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate a few years ago and those 3 studios formed Epix. The Epix content is now being dropped from Netflix and added to Hulu, which gives Hulu a selection of recent movie releases comparable to what HBO offers, in addition to next-day access to network TV shows (all but CBS shows). At $11.99 a month, it's comparable to what you would pay for one of the premium channels (less than what HBO costs) and now you can watch the movies uninterrupted.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

joshjr said:


> The way you state it would be like Chevy raised the price of a Camaro with built in wifi option from $50K to $75K. Well damn, I am glad the ones that wanted it got it but that does not mean its worth the price they want for it. I look forward to them finding out that the $4 increase is to much. Good luck.


Hmm, you're comparing a $25,000 difference in the price of a car to a $4 difference in the price of Hulu?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

the2130 said:


> Hmm, you're comparing a $25,000 difference in the price of a car to a $4 difference in the price of Hulu?


50% higher price in both cases ... but $4 is easier to scratch together.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

the2130 said:


> Correct. CBS All Access is only $5.99 per month, but it is only CBS shows. Hulu has shows from Fox, NBC, ABC, and CW. Both services have older shows as well, but you need both if you want to watch current seasons of shows on-demand.


The $5.99 is too much for a single channel with commercials. CBS has a free streaming news channel, but the commercials are way too loud for comfortable listening/watching.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Streaming isn't going to continue to be cheap or free for long... as it gains in popularity, those who provide it will realize they have underpriced and will raise prices accordingly. I don't know why this surprised anyone.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

You're probably right but let's not forget the adverse reaction
(big stink) when Netflix tried to raise their prices a while back.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Netflix jumped the gun... they tried, in my opinion, to raise prices too early in the game... while they were popular and people liked them, they weren't in the "gotta have" category for many of their subscribers. I think the same attempt to raise prices today would still be met with resistance, as such things always are, but not get the same "sky is falling" reaction that customers threatened back then.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

the2130 said:


> Hmm, you're comparing a $25,000 difference in the price of a car to a $4 difference in the price of Hulu?


50% is 50% no matter what we talking about.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Streaming isn't going to continue to be cheap or free for long... as it gains in popularity, those who provide it will realize they have underpriced and will raise prices accordingly. I don't know why this surprised anyone.


That does not make sense for what we are talking about. Commercials were never free or cheap. We paid for them somehow. No we will be paying more to not have them. As far as I know this wasnt about content it was about removing most commercials.


----------



## Edmund (Apr 17, 2003)

Movies on Hulu are commercial free, always has been. So those were stick to $7.99 deal don't have to worry about commercials on the new epix movies coming to Hulu.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

joshjr said:


> 50% is 50% no matter what we talking about.


...and $4 is $4, not $25,000.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The $5.99 is too much for a single channel with commercials. CBS has a free streaming news channel, but the commercials are way too loud for comfortable listening/watching.


It seems high for a single network's content, but it might make sense for cord-cutters who want to watch CBS shows.


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Streaming isn't going to continue to be cheap or free for long... as it gains in popularity, those who provide it will realize they have underpriced and will raise prices accordingly. I don't know why this surprised anyone.


Yes, but the great thing about streaming is that it's much easier to vote with your wallet. You are not locked into contracts with leased equip like you are with cable/satellite. It's very easy to walk away if the price is too much. They have to walk the delicate balance between what their service is worth & what people will actually pay.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Most payTV contracts don't require you to commit either... they offer a discount or free installation or something IF you choose to commit... but you can choose to pay "regular" price and not have any commitment at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

joshjr said:


> That does not make sense for what we are talking about. Commercials were never free or cheap. We paid for them somehow. No we will be paying more to not have them. As far as I know this wasnt about content it was about removing most commercials.


Commercials are paid for by sponsors. When there were <5 channels the sponsors were willing to pay more proportionally because there was a greater chance their commercial would be seen. As the number of channels has increased, sponsors aren't willing to pay quite as much because viewers might be watching any of several hundred channels... so those channels had to start charging consumers directly (or semi-directly anyway) to offset lost revenue from sponsors.

IF you don't want commercials, you have to expect to pay more. You don't have to, right now, but it's not unreasonable to expect it IF given the choice.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

In the fifties, there were only 8 minutes of commercials per hour, and many of the commercials were actually entertaining. And TV was only OTA and free. Now cable channels have about 20 minutes of commercials per hour which are anything but entertaining, and we pay big buck$ for TV. And the media companies don't understand why the younger folk aren't watching TV.

Similar thing with the internet. Websites initially were ad free. Now advertisers are battling to make their ads stand out from all the others with all kinds of fancy animation, which annoys the hell out of the viewer. In addition, some ads throw in malware to boot. Viewers fight back with ad blockers, and advertisers accuse viewers of being unethical.

At one time landline phones were not used for advertising, and every call was answered. Nowadays, those that still have landline phones, do not answer unless they recognize the caller ID. Advertisers have basically killed landline phones.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> In the fifties, there were only 8 minutes of commercials per hour, and many of the commercials were actually entertaining. And TV was only OTA and free.


When there were far less channels, you stood a better chance of getting your commercial seen by viewers. Back then TV wasn't even on 24 hours a day with programming... TV was "appointment viewing" where you were in front of the TV during specific times of day so advertisers knew they were being seen.



Wilf said:


> Now cable channels have about 20 minutes of commercials per hour which are anything but entertaining, and we pay big buck$ for TV. And the media companies don't understand why the younger folk aren't watching TV.


More channels means less viewers per channel... channels have increased at a much faster pace than the population. So advertisers aren't willing to pay as much for a spot as they would be when they feel like more people will be watching. This is why big events, like the Super Bowl, can charge higher advertisement rates... but everything else, viewership is down. The WORST-rated TV program from the 1950-1970s might beat out the BEST programs of today in terms of raw numbers simply because of there being less choice at that time.

Oh, and young people do watch TV shows... They might not watch them live and they might watch them on Youtube or somewhere... but they do watch. Young people know far too much about pop-culture to not be watching TV programs... I guarantee IF they only had the choice to watch TV and weren't able to find the content elsewhere (sometimes illegally)... they would be watching more TV.



Wilf said:


> At one time landline phones were not used for advertising, and every call was answered. Nowadays, those that still have landline phones, do not answer unless they recognize the caller ID. Advertisers have basically killed landline phones.


This is simply not true... "every call answered" never was a thing. Before the days of caller ID and answering machines, people would screen their calls by having a "secret ring" equivalent of a secret knock. If you didn't want to talk to someone... you'd tell the people you did want to talk to that they should call and let it ring a certain number of times, hang up, then call you back. Long before people didn't want to talk to telemarketers there were bill collectors... and before that there was family and friends you didn't want to talk to sometimes too.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This is simply not true... "every call answered" never was a thing. Before the days of caller ID and answering machines, people would screen their calls by having a "secret ring" equivalent of a secret knock. If you didn't want to talk to someone... you'd tell the people you did want to talk to that they should call and let it ring a certain number of times, hang up, then call you back. Long before people didn't want to talk to telemarketers there were bill collectors... and before that there was family and friends you didn't want to talk to sometimes too.


You are obviously much younger than I. In the forties and much of the fifties, every call was answered. The only "secret rings" were when two homes shared a single line, and the ring indicated the home that was being called. Having a dedicated line for a home was expensive in those days. A long distance call cost many dollars and were not common.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

the2130 said:


> ...and $4 is $4, not $25,000.


To each their own. Where do you draw the line? If Hulu raised their rates 100% to remove most commercials would you still be singing the same song and dance?


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

joshjr said:


> To each their own. Where do you draw the line? If Hulu raised their rates 100% to remove most commercials would you still be singing the same song and dance?


Not sure I'd pay $8, but it was an easy decision to upgrade for $4 extra.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Streaming isn't going to continue to be cheap or free for long... as it gains in popularity, those who provide it will realize they have underpriced and will raise prices accordingly. I don't know why this surprised anyone.


Same thing is happening now as happened with premium channels years ago - the different services start making exclusive deals for content and you need multiple services to get all the content you want. That's one of the reasons cited for Netflix dropping the Epix deal - they are focusing on exclusive content.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> You are obviously much younger than I. In the forties and much of the fifties, every call was answered. The only "secret rings" were when two homes shared a single line, and the ring indicated the home that was being called. Having a dedicated line for a home was expensive in those days. A long distance call cost many dollars and were not common.


Yeah... I shouldn't have said "never" since obviously the farther back you go, the less phones there were, and thus more apt for all calls to be answered. But my larger point was that caller ID and answering machines didn't kill that... people not wanting to talk to everyone who might call is what killed it... and that was happening in the 1970s!



joshjr said:


> To each their own. Where do you draw the line? If Hulu raised their rates 100% to remove most commercials would you still be singing the same song and dance?


Percentages are meaningless on their own. I would rather have a 100% increase on a $5 charge than a 10% increase on a $100 charge. Saying "they raised rates by 50%" means nothing without considering what the rates were before... and ultimately the bottom line isn't what percentage was, but whether you think the new total is worth what you're paying. Just like always.



the2130 said:


> Same thing is happening now as happened with premium channels years ago - the different services start making exclusive deals for content and you need multiple services to get all the content you want. That's one of the reasons cited for Netflix dropping the Epix deal - they are focusing on exclusive content.


Yep... we might change the delivery mechanism, but we'll quickly end up in the same place with all the varied content being distributed by multiple owners, and if you want most or all of it, you'll need to subscribe to multiple services... and I still say the endgame is that unless you only want to watch very little content, most people will end up paying more for less the way things seem to be headed.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yep... we might change the delivery mechanism, but we'll quickly end up in the same place with all the varied content being distributed by multiple owners, and if you want most or all of it, you'll need to subscribe to multiple services... and I still say the endgame is that unless you only want to watch very little content, most people will end up paying more for less the way things seem to be headed.


I am sure you are right if one wants to subscribe to a lot of services. But a lot of folks, have not wanted to pay for a lot of stuff they do not watch in cable bundles. Subscribing to one or two streaming services is way cheaper than a typical cable bundle - not even close. I can't speak for others, but I am watching more video than I ever have, and enjoying it more than I ever have. The reason is freedom from commercials, which is HUGE for me.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

joshjr said:


> To each their own. Where do you draw the line? If Hulu raised their rates 100% to remove most commercials would you still be singing the same song and dance?


I think we need to make something clear here. *HULU did *_*not*_* raise their rates*. They merely offered an additional level of service for those who have a desire to pay more to get rid of commercials. People like me refused to subscribe to HULU because of commercials - with the advent of the DVR I quit watching commercials and don't want to spend what little life I have left watching commercials. So I will pay the higher rate when I find a need to subscribe to HULU.


----------

