3 ms·
This seems pretty unlikely. I don't think they expect to convert more than 10% of their users into paid users, at least short-term. And if it's ads vs ads, th
by bpodgursky 11y ago
This seems pretty unlikely. I don't think they expect to convert more than 10% of their users into paid users, at least short-term. And if it's ads vs ads, there won't be any reason to use it.
Hulu's decisions are driven by their investors who are direct competitors for recreation time (cable companies who can't realistically cut ads). Youtube doesn't have that -- if they can make equal or more revenue per person via paid subs vs ads, why not?
- shostack 11y agoBecause they could potentially make more net revenue by doing subs + ads. People are getting pretty pissed off at the gradual ad creep on something they pay for (subscription or otherwise...). Companies in their duties to their shareholders will have to make decisions on whether the potential loss from pissed customers who leave is offset by the increased revenue from the people who just whine about the ad creep but continue paying with their subscriptions and eyeballs. Also, it is not always up to the streaming company. Hulu has shows that are excluded from the "No Commercials" bit because of their licensing agreements. So if you want to watch those, you still get ads.[1] [1]http://www.slashgear.com/hang-on-hulu-ad-free-still-has-ads-03401495/ http://www.slashgear.com/hang-on-hulu-ad-free-still-has-ads-...
- learc83 11y agoThat's true, but it is only 7 shows, and they've removed ads from during the show. You get an ad before and after.
- shostack 11y agoFor now. Perhaps sometime soon when they need to increase ad revenue they will have two ads before the show and after. Or something else. It is a slippery slope indeed.