An anonymous reader writes "Apparently it with the release of all of Monty Python's material on YouTube, their sales have blown through the roof on Amazon.com. It is too bad there isn't any proper news article about this, but I think it bodes well for those who champion free content. More importantly, it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths." Not every performer (or group of performers) has the decades-strong appeal of Monty Python, but this is a great thing to see. The linked article claims that the sales increase in the Python DVDs is 23,000 percent; there are probably some other ways to figure the numbers, but a big increase is easy to see.
No, for every Monty Python movie there's two dozen films the quality of "Glitter", "The Hottie and the Nottie" and "The Postman".
There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube. They're much better off with a thumbnail view of the clamshell case.
It's quite logical, when you think about it... the YouTube videos, while there are many, are just a taster. Even if many clips from an episode or a TV show are uploaded, you can't get the whole thing in its original form. It's true that the sketch show nature of Monty Python helps, but I think we can apply this thinking to a lot more stuff. Once you've had a taste and you like it, you inevitably want more.
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
Their argument will probably be something along the lines of how it wasn't piracy that made the DVD sales go up, it was them shoving clips on youtube. Kind of like a computer user who remembers steps to open programs, but doesn't just figure out the basic underlying concept of the design.
Don't underestimate the idiocy driving the MPAA's decisions. Free advertising is free advertising, but it doesn't mean they'll connect the dots....And now for something completely different: a man with three buttocks!
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
It's one data point, but I'm not sure that this disproves that argument quite yet. It does show that marketing entertainment broadly helps expose you to a broader audience; which can result in greater sales.
The Dead have done this for years, and it has worked quite nicely for them.
Entertainment, by its nature, is a very personal taste sort of thing. By giving people the opportunity to see your act they can decide if they like it, and the are more willing to buy stuff.
TV is moving this way as well - with networks such as FOX in the US making shows available on line. This can help build a following for a show; resulting in higher ratings. I'm even willing to watch a commercial or two to be able to stream a video while traveling.
As for the piracy = lost sales argument, I think there is a point where it crosses over from "Let's see if I like them enough to spend money on them" to "I can get it for free so why buy it?"
D/L some materiel and then buying a CD/DVD is, IMHO, fine. D/L it, find out it sucks and never listen / watch again - sure. D/L it , keep it, use it and not but it? Not cool. At some point, if you like it the artist ought to get rewarded. Yes, I realize the artist gets very little from a sale; and would like to see a way to really get money into their hands, but that is not, IMHO, a justification for piracy.
There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube.
I think that says more about their average quality than it does about YouTube.
It also would very likely force the MPAA's feet into their mouths, if they had to essentially make the argument that "Most of our movies suck so much that if people actually saw them first, no one would want to buy them. We make most of our money by selling people crap they don't really want."
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday January 24 2009, @10:54PM (#26595369)
A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that upwards of 50% of the media I buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube, I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me.
One example was the tv show The 4400. I had not seen a single episode of the show until I stumbled across a clip on youtube. Since then, I have purchased all 4 seasons on dvd. There's no question about it, those dvd sales would almost certainly never have happened without that youtube clip.
Any media product's success hinges on exposure. You should want as many people as possible to see your art. Giving it away for free is the ONLY way you will maximize potential paid sales. Get with the program.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday January 25 2009, @02:55AM (#26596423)
A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that upwards of 50% of the media I buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube, I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me.
Ah, Slashdot, home of the anecdote. Here's one for you: A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I don't purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that 100% of the media I don't buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me. I still wouldn't have bought it, but I enjoyed getting it for free because someone posted it on for ex youtube.
Interestingly, your anecdote doesn't undermine the point GP was making at all, and actually supports it. In your case, you say that the only media you don't buy is stuff you'd never have known exists if it weren't for youtube and similar free sources. This says that the RIAA and MPAA haven't lost any sales due to your watching youtube, since there is no media that you don't buy merely because you can get it for free elsewhere. Based on that anecdote, there is nothing to lose (at least to people like you) from giving away your art for free online. Based on GP's anecdote, there is something to gain from people like GP.
I understand you were really trying to make a sarcastic point about anecdotes, and how they don't count as data. However, you failed miserably.
You're right. I've become a, of all things, Evanescence fan. Without downloading "Fallen", more or less by accident, I would never have become exposed to that kind of music as a guy in my 40s. Now I've bought their 4 CDs.
Oh, and if you don't know them, download "Fallen" and listen to it a few times.
... but couldn't at least some of that increase be from the fact that they had a big honkin' 21-disc box set released not so long ago? Sure it was just repackaging material already out on DVD (it's just the same discs from the old 16 disc box set along with the 5 single-disc "Personal Best" compilations thrown in), but it did get them a "new" release that people might stumble upon in reviews or on a new release chart.
As an IP rights holder and someone who's trying to figure out how to survive and thrive in the world of the web (see my book at http://www.elevatorpitchessentials.com/ [elevatorpi...ntials.com]), I do find this story interesting and perhaps heartening.
However, isn't the advantage in this case due to the fact that YouTube shows clips of either degraded quality or at least reduced size? If you want to view the skits in their original quality and size, and on a TV, you have to buy the DVDs.
I'm not sure how this applies to all rights holders other than maybe music holders. I do find that Limewire plays much the same role for me when it comes to music. When it comes to the songs I like, I tend to find the typical compression artifacting annoying and end up buying the MP3 somewhere.
How does this apply to authors and others whose work is a bit harder to degrade without blowing the secret?
Compared to the quality of most Monty Python releases (I'm looking at you Life of Brian in Particular) YouTube is a step up in compression, sound and packaging.
In a world where the people with money have increasing ways to spend it, you are competing in mind share terms. If you are just starting out, you are a grain of sand on a beach. Even if you are actually a diamond, who would know?
So either you buy advertising and marketing ($$$$$), or you give stuff out free and hope that lots of people like it and tell their friends, and eventually you get something like a network effect.
Just look at the popular music and books out there. A some of them aren't really that good - it's just they are good (lucky?;) ) enough, and then people talk about them and it becomes part of their shared experience, and so some of them will buy for themselves or for others.
Note though, if you can only create one decent work in your entire life, then giving away that only golden egg you lay isn't going to make you much money. But that just means you're not very good at that, and you should be finding a different way of earning a living.
If I can only paint one excellent picture in my whole lifetime, I shouldn't try to make money as an artist. Maybe just paint as a hobby.
Another thing: make it easy for people to pay you. Doesn't matter how they get your stuff - whether it's from P2P or from someone else's trash.
Someone had a pirate copy of GTA3, and enjoyed it so much that he wanted to buy one - but it was banned in his country. He actually went to a neighbouring country to try to buy it, but it was banned there too!
Would have been better if there was a website where he could just pay the money and not worry about shipping charges. He already has the game why pay for shipping? He's paid the "unauthorised distributors" their share - which presumably includes shipping, handling, distribution, stocking etc.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday January 24 2009, @10:51PM (#26595343)
"Not every performer (or group of performers) has the decades-strong appeal of Monty Python, but this is a great thing to see."
The way Monty Python became popular was by putting their comedy on the air where millions of people could watch them for free(On TV). It's exactly the same business model as YouTube and to imply that dumping material on YouTube for the world to watch for free won't work today is just naive.
Not quite accurate. When you put things on TV, you get paid. And you have to be very good to get something on TV. When you put things on YouTube, you aren't getting paid and you're throwing yourself into the mix with every idiot who thinks they're entertaining. Now, it may be easier for people to get discovered on YouTube than it used to be...or it might be harder, simply because of the mass. But the true problem here is monetizing it. It's great for guys like Monty Python, who are already famous and already have merchandise in production and have millions of fans. But it's not in any way a replacement for TV. Not until YouTube starts putting in ads or something and paying the content producers.
And you have to be very good to get something on TV
Good Lord, man. Have you ever watched TV in your entire life?
Good lord, man. Have you never been to film school or at least a film festival?
Even craptastic TV shows are orders of magnitude better than educated beginners. And if you've ever had to sit through a class project in highschool you would see just how good TV really is.
Bad TV is just the worst good tv. Even a Sci-Fi original like Mammoth is high quality television compared to the level of bad that's possible. Most people just judge television on the spectrum of what they see with the worst shows being a 0 and the best shows being 100. They haven't been subjected to the -1 through -1000 that is also produced.
There are some classic Monty Python bits, don't get me wrong. However, by and large, the bits you remember are it. There is a lot of mediocre fare, there.
I was a kid back when Monty Python was "live". The rare PBS (in USA) airing of their shows was risque fair, forbidden knowledge, if you will, for the American audience, back in the day. Hey, you might even see "full frontal nudity" if you were lucky.
Years later, out of nostalgia,
I bought the boxed set of Monty Python at Costco. This was a few years ago, something like 13 DVDs, I don't recall exactly... watched the whole TV broadcast series over the course of a few weeks, much to the consternation of my wife.
Anyhow, my take-away was, yeah, there were some classic bits, but a lot of it was just tedious.
My copy went out on eBay with both the buyer and seller happy. They got a bit of a discount off retail, and I can say I have seen every episode.
I can't say it would break my heart if all the "good stuff" fell into the public domain, and the rest just faded away...
There are some classic Monty Python bits, don't get me wrong. However, by and large, the bits you remember are it. There is a lot of mediocre fare, there.
Very True. In my opinion, 70% of more of Monty Python stuff was very tedious.
The real classic comes not from Monty Python, but from Python members John Cleese & Connie Booth - the 12 episodes of Fawlty Towers.
Each of the 12 episodes is a classic. Each can be watched multiple times.
The fact that they are an established brand doesn't make them the exception, it makes them even more impressive. Monty python has been around for a long time, you have to figure that their established fan base already owns their content. ANYTHING increasing the sales of a decades old brand like monty python by an astronomical figure like 23000% is simply amazing.
It's no different than companies, a young company increasing profits by 200% a quarter isn't that noteworthy, IBM managing to increase their sales by 200% in a single quarter would be amazing.
Many people from Latin American countries (like me)haven't ever watched this before, this kind of humor was rarely shown in latin-american television, because the "average Jose" wouldn't enjoy it if its translated into spanish. But times change...
last generations (people now in their 20's - 30's) learned english in schools (the "boom" of bilingual schools started in the 80's - lucky me), now they are getting on the internet and enjoying different flavors of humor (and many other cultural components) they find while surfing.
now that Latin America economy is growing (Peru -my country- is expected to grow 6% this year) this will surely open a new market not only for them but for whoever does a similar thing.
funny thing, I bet it wouldn't be hard for you to find an IT job over here, the catch is it will be a "peruvian salary" (much lower than US). On the other hand, you can buy a GOOD lunch (peruvian cuisine is one of the best in the world) at the center of our main commercial district for about US$ 7 (two dish meal + natural juice + fresh fruit - they are called "executive menu"). Not a bad deal if you live here.
a much better idea will be if you come here to start your own IT company - wouldn't be a huge investment and local University graduates will happily work for less than 1k$ a month. You can sell services overseas if you want.
when I was little I dreamed of living in the US, so I could go to Disney & Epcot every weekend. Right now I wouldn't live over there even if they payed me for doing it. Living in South America is not as bad as they want you to believe (except for.ve 'cause their president is nuts).
How do you reach the next generation? This seems obvious... the next generation watches youtube. When I was introduced to Monty Python, it was tv.
I saw it, it was funny, sometimes I wanted to watch it when it wasn't on tv... so I might buy it.
Now it's youtube... they saw it, it was funny, they thought it'd be neat to watch it in the car... or at least, not at the computer.
This exposure and marketing thing is not that complicated. The problem seems to be IP holder's inability to really grasp how big the internet enabled marketplace is... a tiny percentages of sale conversions, in a freakin enormous marketplaces = lots of sales.
Thing is, you have to accept the idea that you might make MORE from your body of work, by recognizing that 'enough' might not be a sale from everyone that enjoyed your work, every time they did. You can't gain the benefits of the massive free exposure of the internet, if you are not willing to concede some of the sales as marketing.
As much as I appreciate a try before I buy option, I'm not entirely sure that the success met here will translate into any kind of general result, data not being the plural of anecdote and all.
I tend to actually purchase more content now than I have in the past. Most of this has to do with actually having a decent paying job and disposable income, rather than being a poor high school or college student. Even now, however, I will tend to see if I can find a few episodes of a show available as a torrent or on some website that streams the show before I commit money towards it. Sometimes I find that I like the show and will go out and buy a season or so on DVD and other times I find out that I don't care anything for the show and won't purchase any of it.
Previously this was more legally grey but now that Hulu seems to offer popular shows a day or so after their original air date it's not that much of an issue. Then again, I don't use their service (It's not the advertisements, but mostly the fact that I need to register and completely resent having to do so), so I'm not overly knowledgeable about the variety of programming. In general, I think that the content providers are starting to realize that it's inevitable that the content is going to end up online, whether they like it or not and are starting to react to that.
In general though, I probably tend to purchase less than a third of what I preview online. Some of this is due to the fact that I can't purchase it even if I wanted to do so, but the vast majority of it isn't all that great or engaging. Personally I don't care whether or not people sample before making a purchase or time commitment. I do so all the time, but if you genuinely enjoy a TV show, music album, or movie, purchase it. The people who make that content require money from somewhere to continue to produce that content and I would feel dishonest consuming all of it without giving something back.
In short, exercise your freedoms but don't be a dick.
A sample can create new customers. iTunes does it, Proctor & Gamble does it, the Python Group Ltd./Inc./IP Holdings appears to have done it quite nicely: let the consumer get a clue about what they're buying. Just don't give your product away.
Youtube presents me with a tiny window of video (or a big blotchy one) which is not as good as what I get on a DVD. If I really want to SEE the content, I'll buy it in a better format.
Hopefully, this will knock some sense into the big production companies.
I am shocked an appalled by the malicious free capitalism that the Monty Python troupe has exhibited by making their skits free on YouTube without having consumers purchase them first. This is in clear violation of the principles of marketing and I will do everything within my power to see this effort is sacked.
Signed
Cary Sherman, President of RIAA (Mrs.)
their sales have blown through the roof on Amazon.com. It is too bad there isn't any proper news article about this
Maybe because it never happened? The linked story is a blog, which cites another blog, which claims that sales jumped to 240 times their previous value, but doesn't say where they got their figures.
As far as I can see, this is just another stupid blog rumor.
The MPAA doesn't what free content everywhere because the majority of contents are attached to impulse buyers. The majority of music or movies are common consumer products, like a pair of trousers. They have a very short product life cycle. If they don't sell those albums, or those movies in 6 months to 1 year, they won't sell them at all. True interesting things like the Python's stuff are timeless because they are also art, not pure consumer products.
moreover none of amazons "Movies & TV" bestseller lists http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dvd/ref=pd_ts_d_ldr_dvd/183-1981496-3747918 [amazon.com] or sublists (links on the left side) has a monty python title (if it was no. 2 on 01/21/2009, like the first mashable "news" claims, then i don't think it would have been out so fast)
also the "news" doesn't mention, WHICH title was no. 2 in the bestseller list, but I think amazon's search-results are sorted by Sales Rank and the highest one in the search-results for "monty python" is http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0009XRZ92 [amazon.com] on rank 755 in Movies & TV.
Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.
No, for every Monty Python movie there's two dozen films the quality of "Glitter", "The Hottie and the Nottie" and "The Postman".
There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube. They're much better off with a thumbnail view of the clamshell case.
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
What's a "sceptic tank"? An armored military vehicle which insists that absolute knowledge of the truth is impossible?
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
And the bear is even more confused about the situation, I'm sure.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Funny)
very VERY carefully...
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Funny)
So essentially what you're saying is that it's the perfect accompaniment for a chocolate frog?
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.
No it doesn't!
for every Monty Python movie there's two dozen films the quality of "Glitter", "The Hottie and the Nottie" and "The Postman".
No there aren't!
There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube.
It would too!
They're much better off with a thumbnail view of the clamshell case.
They would most certainly not!
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
No it's not.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't underestimate the idiocy driving the MPAA's decisions. Free advertising is free advertising, but it doesn't mean they'll connect the dots. ...And now for something completely different: a man with three buttocks!
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.
It's one data point, but I'm not sure that this disproves that argument quite yet. It does show that marketing entertainment broadly helps expose you to a broader audience; which can result in greater sales.
The Dead have done this for years, and it has worked quite nicely for them.
Entertainment, by its nature, is a very personal taste sort of thing. By giving people the opportunity to see your act they can decide if they like it, and the are more willing to buy stuff.
TV is moving this way as well - with networks such as FOX in the US making shows available on line. This can help build a following for a show; resulting in higher ratings. I'm even willing to watch a commercial or two to be able to stream a video while traveling.
As for the piracy = lost sales argument, I think there is a point where it crosses over from "Let's see if I like them enough to spend money on them" to "I can get it for free so why buy it?" D/L some materiel and then buying a CD/DVD is, IMHO, fine. D/L it, find out it sucks and never listen / watch again - sure. D/L it , keep it, use it and not but it? Not cool. At some point, if you like it the artist ought to get rewarded. Yes, I realize the artist gets very little from a sale; and would like to see a way to really get money into their hands, but that is not, IMHO, a justification for piracy.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Funny)
"Oh yeah? Whats his diocese?"
"I dunno, looked rather Warner Music Group to me..."
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube.
I think that says more about their average quality than it does about YouTube.
It also would very likely force the MPAA's feet into their mouths, if they had to essentially make the argument that "Most of our movies suck so much that if people actually saw them first, no one would want to buy them. We make most of our money by selling people crap they don't really want."
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Interesting)
A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that upwards of 50% of the media I buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube, I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me.
One example was the tv show The 4400. I had not seen a single episode of the show until I stumbled across a clip on youtube. Since then, I have purchased all 4 seasons on dvd. There's no question about it, those dvd sales would almost certainly never have happened without that youtube clip.
Any media product's success hinges on exposure. You should want as many people as possible to see your art. Giving it away for free is the ONLY way you will maximize potential paid sales. Get with the program.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, Slashdot, home of the anecdote. Here's one for you: A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I don't purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that 100% of the media I don't buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me. I still wouldn't have bought it, but I enjoyed getting it for free because someone posted it on for ex youtube.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand you were really trying to make a sarcastic point about anecdotes, and how they don't count as data. However, you failed miserably.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right. I've become a, of all things, Evanescence fan. Without downloading "Fallen", more or less by accident, I would never have become exposed to that kind of music as a guy in my 40s. Now I've bought their 4 CDs.
Oh, and if you don't know them, download "Fallen" and listen to it a few times.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
That's it, the internet must be stopped.
Parent
Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Funny)
The Postman was a cool movie. It did help to have already read the book though. How many people who hated the movie have read the book?
Tom Petty as the balloon man? Don't get much cooler...
Parent
Yes, yes, (Score:5, Funny)
But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?
Re:Yes, yes, (Score:5, Funny)
But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?
African DVDs are non-migratory.
Parent
Re:Yes, yes, (Score:5, Funny)
(if you don't get it, watch the movie. It's not a troll)
Parent
Not to be a naysayer.... (Score:5, Informative)
... but couldn't at least some of that increase be from the fact that they had a big honkin' 21-disc box set released not so long ago? Sure it was just repackaging material already out on DVD (it's just the same discs from the old 16 disc box set along with the 5 single-disc "Personal Best" compilations thrown in), but it did get them a "new" release that people might stumble upon in reviews or on a new release chart.
Re:Not to be a naysayer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you think a single product release increased the sales of a well established and household brand by 23,000%?
Parent
Degraded Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Degraded Quality (Score:5, Funny)
Compared to the quality of most Monty Python releases (I'm looking at you Life of Brian in Particular) YouTube is a step up in compression, sound and packaging.
Parent
Seems to work fine for others. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to work fine for the book authors whose works are here:
http://www.baen.com/library/ [baen.com]
In a world where the people with money have increasing ways to spend it, you are competing in mind share terms. If you are just starting out, you are a grain of sand on a beach. Even if you are actually a diamond, who would know?
So either you buy advertising and marketing ($$$$$), or you give stuff out free and hope that lots of people like it and tell their friends, and eventually you get something like a network effect.
Just look at the popular music and books out there. A some of them aren't really that good - it's just they are good (lucky? ;) ) enough, and then people talk about them and it becomes part of their shared experience, and so some of them will buy for themselves or for others.
Note though, if you can only create one decent work in your entire life, then giving away that only golden egg you lay isn't going to make you much money. But that just means you're not very good at that, and you should be finding a different way of earning a living.
If I can only paint one excellent picture in my whole lifetime, I shouldn't try to make money as an artist. Maybe just paint as a hobby.
Another thing: make it easy for people to pay you. Doesn't matter how they get your stuff - whether it's from P2P or from someone else's trash.
Someone had a pirate copy of GTA3, and enjoyed it so much that he wanted to buy one - but it was banned in his country. He actually went to a neighbouring country to try to buy it, but it was banned there too!
Would have been better if there was a website where he could just pay the money and not worry about shipping charges. He already has the game why pay for shipping? He's paid the "unauthorised distributors" their share - which presumably includes shipping, handling, distribution, stocking etc.
Parent
The YouTube model can work (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not every performer (or group of performers) has the decades-strong appeal of Monty Python, but this is a great thing to see."
The way Monty Python became popular was by putting their comedy on the air where millions of people could watch them for free(On TV). It's exactly the same business model as YouTube and to imply that dumping material on YouTube for the world to watch for free won't work today is just naive.
Re:The YouTube model can work (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite accurate. When you put things on TV, you get paid. And you have to be very good to get something on TV. When you put things on YouTube, you aren't getting paid and you're throwing yourself into the mix with every idiot who thinks they're entertaining. Now, it may be easier for people to get discovered on YouTube than it used to be...or it might be harder, simply because of the mass. But the true problem here is monetizing it. It's great for guys like Monty Python, who are already famous and already have merchandise in production and have millions of fans. But it's not in any way a replacement for TV. Not until YouTube starts putting in ads or something and paying the content producers.
Parent
Re:The YouTube model can work (Score:5, Funny)
And you have to be very good to get something on TV.
Good Lord, man. Have you ever watched TV in your entire life?
Parent
Re:The YouTube model can work (Score:5, Interesting)
And you have to be very good to get something on TV
Good Lord, man. Have you ever watched TV in your entire life?
Good lord, man. Have you never been to film school or at least a film festival?
Even craptastic TV shows are orders of magnitude better than educated beginners. And if you've ever had to sit through a class project in highschool you would see just how good TV really is.
Bad TV is just the worst good tv. Even a Sci-Fi original like Mammoth is high quality television compared to the level of bad that's possible. Most people just judge television on the spectrum of what they see with the worst shows being a 0 and the best shows being 100. They haven't been subjected to the -1 through -1000 that is also produced.
Parent
Prediction - eBay Monty Python sales spike (Score:3, Insightful)
I was a kid back when Monty Python was "live". The rare PBS (in USA) airing of their shows was risque fair, forbidden knowledge, if you will, for the American audience, back in the day. Hey, you might even see "full frontal nudity" if you were lucky.
Years later, out of nostalgia, I bought the boxed set of Monty Python at Costco. This was a few years ago, something like 13 DVDs, I don't recall exactly... watched the whole TV broadcast series over the course of a few weeks, much to the consternation of my wife.
Anyhow, my take-away was, yeah, there were some classic bits, but a lot of it was just tedious.
My copy went out on eBay with both the buyer and seller happy. They got a bit of a discount off retail, and I can say I have seen every episode.
I can't say it would break my heart if all the "good stuff" fell into the public domain, and the rest just faded away...
Fawlty Towers (Score:4, Insightful)
Very True. In my opinion, 70% of more of Monty Python stuff was very tedious.
The real classic comes not from Monty Python, but from Python members John Cleese & Connie Booth -
the 12 episodes of Fawlty Towers.
Each of the 12 episodes is a classic. Each can be watched multiple times.
Parent
Being an established brand makes this (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they are an established brand doesn't make them the exception, it makes them even more impressive. Monty python has been around for a long time, you have to figure that their established fan base already owns their content. ANYTHING increasing the sales of a decades old brand like monty python by an astronomical figure like 23000% is simply amazing.
It's no different than companies, a young company increasing profits by 200% a quarter isn't that noteworthy, IBM managing to increase their sales by 200% in a single quarter would be amazing.
Start the spinning... (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA already said that people are buying the DVDs only to pirate them. Don't you see, more sales = more piracy.
If pirates couldn't buy the DVDs they couldn't pirate them or upload them to YouTube.
Stop all sales of DVDs. Stop production of DVDs. Stop breathing!!
I viewed the show for fist time in youtube! (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people from Latin American countries (like me)haven't ever watched this before, this kind of humor was rarely shown in latin-american television, because the "average Jose" wouldn't enjoy it if its translated into spanish. But times change...
last generations (people now in their 20's - 30's) learned english in schools (the "boom" of bilingual schools started in the 80's - lucky me), now they are getting on the internet and enjoying different flavors of humor (and many other cultural components) they find while surfing.
now that Latin America economy is growing (Peru -my country- is expected to grow 6% this year) this will surely open a new market not only for them but for whoever does a similar thing.
Re:I viewed the show for fist time in youtube! (Score:5, Interesting)
a much better idea will be if you come here to start your own IT company - wouldn't be a huge investment and local University graduates will happily work for less than 1k$ a month. You can sell services overseas if you want.
when I was little I dreamed of living in the US, so I could go to Disney & Epcot every weekend. Right now I wouldn't live over there even if they payed me for doing it. Living in South America is not as bad as they want you to believe (except for
Parent
Seems obvious in hindsight... (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you reach the next generation?
This seems obvious... the next generation watches youtube. When I was introduced to Monty Python, it was tv.
I saw it, it was funny, sometimes I wanted to watch it when it wasn't on tv... so I might buy it.
Now it's youtube... they saw it, it was funny, they thought it'd be neat to watch it in the car... or at least, not at the computer.
This exposure and marketing thing is not that complicated. The problem seems to be IP holder's inability to really grasp how big the internet enabled marketplace is... a tiny percentages of sale conversions, in a freakin enormous marketplaces = lots of sales.
Thing is, you have to accept the idea that you might make MORE from your body of work, by recognizing that 'enough' might not be a sale from everyone that enjoyed your work, every time they did. You can't gain the benefits of the massive free exposure of the internet, if you are not willing to concede some of the sales as marketing.
Anecdotal? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I appreciate a try before I buy option, I'm not entirely sure that the success met here will translate into any kind of general result, data not being the plural of anecdote and all.
I tend to actually purchase more content now than I have in the past. Most of this has to do with actually having a decent paying job and disposable income, rather than being a poor high school or college student. Even now, however, I will tend to see if I can find a few episodes of a show available as a torrent or on some website that streams the show before I commit money towards it. Sometimes I find that I like the show and will go out and buy a season or so on DVD and other times I find out that I don't care anything for the show and won't purchase any of it.
Previously this was more legally grey but now that Hulu seems to offer popular shows a day or so after their original air date it's not that much of an issue. Then again, I don't use their service (It's not the advertisements, but mostly the fact that I need to register and completely resent having to do so), so I'm not overly knowledgeable about the variety of programming. In general, I think that the content providers are starting to realize that it's inevitable that the content is going to end up online, whether they like it or not and are starting to react to that.
In general though, I probably tend to purchase less than a third of what I preview online. Some of this is due to the fact that I can't purchase it even if I wanted to do so, but the vast majority of it isn't all that great or engaging. Personally I don't care whether or not people sample before making a purchase or time commitment. I do so all the time, but if you genuinely enjoy a TV show, music album, or movie, purchase it. The people who make that content require money from somewhere to continue to produce that content and I would feel dishonest consuming all of it without giving something back.
In short, exercise your freedoms but don't be a dick.
Try before you buy and poor video quality (Score:5, Informative)
A sample can create new customers. iTunes does it, Proctor & Gamble does it, the Python Group Ltd./Inc./IP Holdings appears to have done it quite nicely: let the consumer get a clue about what they're buying. Just don't give your product away.
Youtube presents me with a tiny window of video (or a big blotchy one) which is not as good as what I get on a DVD. If I really want to SEE the content, I'll buy it in a better format.
Hopefully, this will knock some sense into the big production companies.
RIAA Does Not Support This (Score:5, Funny)
Signed
Cary Sherman, President of RIAA (Mrs.)
Appropriate use of the "foot" humor icon... (Score:4, Insightful)
;-)
Blog Rumor? (Score:5, Interesting)
their sales have blown through the roof on Amazon.com. It is too bad there isn't any proper news article about this
Maybe because it never happened? The linked story is a blog, which cites another blog, which claims that sales jumped to 240 times their previous value, but doesn't say where they got their figures.
As far as I can see, this is just another stupid blog rumor.
Quality material sales itself (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA is a FAKE! (Score:5, Informative)
refers to http://mashable.com/2009/01/22/youtube-boost-sales/ [mashable.com]
which allegedly refers to a mashable news from 01/21/2009, but the linked site http://mashable.com/2009/01/21/youtube-click-to-buy-overlay-ads/ [mashable.com]
has NOTHING to do with amazons bestseller lists AND there was no mashable news on 01/21/2009 about amazon at all. see http://mashable.com/page/2/ [mashable.com] and http://mashable.com/page/3/ [mashable.com]
moreover none of amazons "Movies & TV" bestseller lists http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dvd/ref=pd_ts_d_ldr_dvd/183-1981496-3747918 [amazon.com] or sublists (links on the left side) has a monty python title (if it was no. 2 on 01/21/2009, like the first mashable "news" claims, then i don't think it would have been out so fast)
also the "news" doesn't mention, WHICH title was no. 2 in the bestseller list, but I think amazon's search-results are sorted by Sales Rank and the highest one in the search-results for "monty python" is http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0009XRZ92 [amazon.com] on rank 755 in Movies & TV.
i think, the whole article is just made up.