This is also a pet peeve of mine (I tried to find an old classic Campbell's commercial the other day, and the only copies had been removed due to copyrights. What?! You are preventing me from seeing your commercial somewhere other than TV even though I am seeking you out? What's that about?).
Anyway, today I read an interesting article on MediaPost (unfortunately subscription required, but I've included a screenshot of the article below). The main point of the article: Making entertainment available for free increases demand, which ultimately results in sales. This includes both officially sponsored content and pirated content. The article cites successful examples of this theory such as the Monty Python YouTube Channel and the RadioHead "pay what you want" online campaign.
This follows the same theory as free samples. Maybe people who would never buy your album would after hearing a song or two for free on YouTube. Why? They don't know if they like your music and won't pay until they do. But, once they like it, they won't want to go back to YouTube and hit play and search over and over again. It's not convenient. You can't automatically have playlists or upload them to your iPod for on the go convenience. Same reason you should be on Pandora, let people discover you, remember you, and appreciate you for allowing them to have free content. After all, I didn't respect Campbell's right to be copyrighted in some rational inner battle, rather, I was annoyed I couldn't share the commercial I loved.
What are your opinions?
MediaPost Article (click through to zoom in)
6 comments:
Oh yay! Thanks for bringing more light to this subject, I'm getting fed up with the music industry's rejection of online media.
A few weeks ago I saw a Tweet that said YouTube pulled a video memorial to a teenager who had died. Are you effing kidding me? I think the music industry needs to start patrolling weddings, funerals, graduations, and school dances to make sure they're getting all their royalties. Actually, I was humming Single Ladies earlier today--do I owe Beyonce some money?
As someone told me last week, can't remember who: "It's already happened. After Napster there really was no turning back. Now, trying to withdraw content from an audience that expects it just makes you look like a jackass."
To Libby's comment: Oh my GOD! How insensitive can they BE??? Bad PR people... you are just making the music industry look more heartless than ever! I applaud Radiohead and others for finding ways to beat the system and show that musicians aren't the ones behind all this.
Really awesome post. I've been struggling with this in terms of television online--as a busy gal, I always miss shows when they air, and without fail I'll catch it on surfthechannel. But when I can't see it online, I stop watching the series in its entirety, because I want to get it all in order. Similarly, I watched ALL of season 1 of Gossip Girl online and haven't yet missed an episode on TV; so it actually drew me to the program.
Despite having watched Lost seasons 1-4 and all of Pushing Daisies online, I absolutely will still buy the DVDs. I've actually already done this with 30 Rock and Mad Men too, so I really do believe it will still translates to sales, AND loyalty.
oops, meant to say that for this reason. After Napster went under, I still wouldn't pay for music online, but I also didn't download after a myriad of viruses from kazaa and whatnot. I only started paying when I started receiving iTunes cards. Even so, I always have a little internal struggle when I try to decide if it's worth it to buy an episode I can't find online. Loved Susan's comment, I think she's totally right on.
Post a Comment