Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Media Entertainment

After Monty Python Goes YouTube, Big Jump In DVD Sales 281

Posted by timothy
from the causation-may-have-something-to-do-with-correlation dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Monty Python Goes YouTube, Big Jump In DVD Sales

Comments Filter:
  • Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolset (646467) on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:21PM (#26595167) Journal

    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)

      by gravos (912628) on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:26PM (#26595199) Homepage
      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:28PM (#26595209)

      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!

    • Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eof (33820) on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:28PM (#26595213)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Darundal (891860)
        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by aurispector (530273)

          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)

        by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @09:40AM (#26597645)

        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.

    • by interval1066 (668936) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:19AM (#26595527) Homepage Journal
      "Mum? There's a dead record label on the landing!"
      "Oh yeah? Whats his diocese?"
      "I dunno, looked rather Warner Music Group to me..."
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by flyingsquid (813711)
        No no, he's not dead, he's restin'! Remarkable record label, the Warner Music Group, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
    • Re:Flawed theory (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday January 25, 2009 @01:10AM (#26595803) Journal

      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."

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Brickwall (985910)
        We make most of our money by selling people crap they don't really want."

        Slate runs occasional columns on the business of movies, called "The Hollywood Economist". Your typical piece of crap usually dies at the box office after its first weekend. In fact, according to Slate, in 2006, the big six studios spent an average of $38 million per new release on advertising and promotion, even though their films grossed an average of $24 million at the box office. The studios make their money on DVD's, pay-TV, fo

    • by erroneus (253617)

      Not a flawed theory, but an incomplete one. It is absolutely true that content has to be of very good quality before people will be motivated to buy it after they have seen it. So to reflect this facet of the theory, they should limit such releases to the public to only the very best stuff, leaving the crap out of the program.

  • Yes, yes, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:27PM (#26595201)

    But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?

  • by Shrubbman (3807) on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:32PM (#26595243)

    ... 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.

    • by shaitand (626655) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:01AM (#26595409) Journal

      And you think a single product release increased the sales of a well established and household brand by 23,000%?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by htnmmo (1454573)

      The real reason is that these Monty Python videos from almost 40 years ago have the same production quality as the shaky cam crap people are putting up on youtube, except with better writing.

      These people don't know what they're buying. They think they're buying some thumb typing monkey's home videos from last week.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by 4D6963 (933028)
      Hmmm... now I think I understand why my brand new software would sell #DIV/0 times better this year than last year...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285)
      Exactly. In addition there was an old fashion price cut. old fashioned price cut. The complete set which elsewhere has sold for 100+ dollars now sells for around $60 on amazon, and has been on sale for as low as $40. The release online might have helped sales, but i think a fraction of customers would have bought if the set had cost twice as much.
  • Degraded Quality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thepainguy (1436453) <thepainguy@gmail.com> on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:49PM (#26595333) Homepage
    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?
    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:21AM (#26595549)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by penguinchris (1020961)

        I know you're joking, but, Life of Brian is on Blu-Ray and it looks really good at 1080p. It works as a joke for them that the TV show and their films were made cheaply and with low quality film stock, but realistically they don't look *that* much worse than most other films from the period.

        That said, I've seen Life of Brian and Holy Grail in theaters projected on film, and you don't gain much from the experience (in fact it's almost worse, because literally everyone in the theater says every line out loud

        • Actually I wasn't joking. The VHS and DVD of Life of Brian is like watching a 20 year old VHS transfer underwater.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Actually I wasn't joking. The VHS and DVD of Life of Brian is like watching a 20 year old VHS transfer underwater.

            What are you talking about? VCRs and DVD players don't even work underw... ooooh, I see.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Saysys (976276)
      blow the secret! I buy many more books after watching someone spend half an hour explaining the intricacies of the book, ala book TV on c-span, than I buy books off the shelf I've never heard of.

      If you had just posted a link to a video of you giving a speech to 10-30 people for 15-30 min I'd be much more inclined to buy the book. Better yet I'd be much more likely to show a video than a text-filled link to other business school professors and make adoption of your book in our classes much easier.

      As i
    • by debatem1 (1087307)
      I don't buy things to get better quality. I buy them to have them, guaranteed, a year or five from now. To make sure I have it when I have that one song stuck in my head, or want to see movie X from year abcd, or need to know all about assembler programming on palm pilots. Its one of the things that ticks me off most about DRM- why should I tolerate the risk of having my media collection wiped when I could just rip a CD?
    • by byolinux (535260) *

      Out of interest, why does your book need to be sold as a printed copy? Can you not sell a PDF for say $5, instant download?

    • by TheLink (130905) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @04:56AM (#26596651) Journal

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:51PM (#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.

    • by Urza9814 (883915) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:44AM (#26595681)

      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.

      • It's great for guys like Monty Python, who are already famous and already have merchandise in production and have millions of fans.

        I think the ponit is that if something like that was released today, and gained millions of fans on YouTube, that they would also be able to sell a few DVDs. Which is what Monty Python just did. It's not as if they were selling Dead Parrot Plushies -- it was just DVDs.

        Not until YouTube starts putting in ads or something and paying the content producers.

        Which they are, to some of them.

        • by Urza9814 (883915)

          I think the ponit is that if something like that was released today, and gained millions of fans on YouTube, that they would also be able to sell a few DVDs. Which is what Monty Python just did. It's not as if they were selling Dead Parrot Plushies -- it was just DVDs.

          Well, they could also perhaps monetize it on their own site - great thing about the internet, damn near anyone could set up their own simple store. Or hell, burn their own DVDs and sell them on eBay. But still, the point I'm trying to make is that YouTube is no replacement to TV. You don't get paid (or at least not near as much), you don't get a contract, and you don't get the benefit of getting viewers simply because there's only so many channels people can watch. I mean, let's face it, if you're on TV at

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            You don't get paid (or at least not near as much),

            Citation needed. How much does broadcast TV make? How much do YouTube ads make?

            you don't get the benefit of getting viewers simply because there's only so many channels people can watch.

            True, but that's an inevitability. On TV, you already have several hundred, some places almost a thousand channels. You've also got DVRs, which cable and satellite providers are pretty much giving away with the service.

            So, people are getting more choice about what to watch, and when. YouTube is the logical and inevitable end result.

            Sure, you can say anyone that makes it on the top whatever list is famous...but how long does that usually last? A week? Maybe a month?

            The mob is less predictable than you think.

            Leeroy Jenkins. All your base. Penny Arcade. Even Slashd

      • They wouldn't have been paid "star" salaries for the original BBC TV shows, and the movies weren't very profitable for them personally. Certainly, it is clear from the linked article that they thought that they had been ripped off ... and that is a large part of why they released everything on YouTube.

        The point that the article is making is precisely that while artists do not get a cent from YouTube directly, indirectly it is driving sales. It is also probably true that the artist are getting more of the

      • When you put things on YouTube, you aren't getting paid

        They are, actually---Google splits the ad revenue from ads shown on video pages with content providers.

      • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @02:48AM (#26596209)

        And you have to be very good to get something on TV.

        Good Lord, man. Have you ever watched TV in your entire life?

        • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @04:18AM (#26596503)

          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's been several incredible deals for the "Monty Python's Flying Circus" boxed set over the past few months. That probably boosted sales a bit.

    • by PitaBred (632671)
      I know I got one. I considered some of the earlier sets, but they seemed to do stupid things like not including the Dead Parrot sketch. Once I found the complete set, I asked for it for Christmas ;)
    • 20% == a bit

      23,000% == a little bigger

  • sample quality? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023)

    A bunch of people seeing old favorites in crappy streaming flash, I can understand, would remind people how fun a DVD-quality video of their favorites would be.

    And when technology gets good enough to skip the "a dvd of this would be nice" phase, that business model will no longer work. Then look for artificial limitations (quality, advertisements) to create that differential

    For now though, yes it does seem like a big fat ITYS for the content copyright holders who assumed that internets REDUCE sales.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    the release of all of Monty Python's material on YouTube

    Then why do I only see some 40+ video's of 2-4 minutes?

  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Saturday January 24, 2009 @11:57PM (#26595381) Journal
    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...
    • And my points are (sortof) being made by persons more famous than I. But I cannot retract my post, I can only say, "never mind".
    • Fawlty Towers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Frankie70 (803801) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @05:49AM (#26596805)

      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.

      • Terrence Vance Gilliam, American-born British writer, filmmaker, animator and member of the Monty Python comedy troupe known for directing several well-regarded films including Brazil (1985), Twelve Monkeys (1995), and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998). Each can be watched multiple times ; ).

    • You, Sir, are apparently equipped with a sense of humour akin to a sloth that just went through the grandad's secret opium stash.

      Monty Python was and remains a timeless work of satiric and absurd comedy, regardless if it is in written [orangecow.org] or in acted form.
      In the future, I'd recommend that you stick with such comedic shows such as "The Friends", "The American Pie" series of films and "Collected and Abridged Works of Judd Apatow" connect-the-dots-and-paint-by-numbers educational books.
      Such arrangements should kee

    • With all due respect, some of the material might appear tedious to you because it's culturally specific.

      I can imagine a lot of jokes about 1970s Britain (with a lot of poking at the Home Counties middle classed attitudes of the time) might completely miss you in the same way that I (as a British person) can watch US comedies with my American friends and they are falling about laughing at cultural references that all Americans take for granted and I completely miss, and just sit and think - "what's funny? th

  • by shaitand (626655) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:05AM (#26595433) Journal

    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.

  • Even if you can download stuff for free at any moment of the day, there are a ton of people that like to collect things, to have something physical.

    This is exactly why even though use and sales for online video will grow, but there will always be a substantial market for physical media (currently DVD and Blu-Ray).

  • by VinylRecords (1292374) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:27AM (#26595581)

    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!!

  • Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.
  • by crazybit (918023) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @12:52AM (#26595723)
    now I will like to buy their DVD's.

    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.
  • by Symbha (679466) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @01:04AM (#26595773)

    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)

    by alvinrod (889928) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @01:13AM (#26595819)

    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.

  • And hence does not apply to the RIAA and MPAA.

  • by thered2001 (1257950) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @01:18AM (#26595843) Journal

    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.

  • by CyberSlammer (1459173) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @01:24AM (#26595863)
    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.)
  • Seriously - can anyone point to the actual data (I am still hoping to find it)? I clicked through to the linked article, clicked from there to a few more pages, and just found a lot of self-promoting links to more of their own blog entries - no numbers at all. All I found was pretty typical poor-quality blog writing.

    The Python's just released a big boxed set with additional bonus material - we bought the set for our daughter as a Christmas present. So...

    - What was the date of the YouTube release (assuming i

  • ...that MP videos show up on search results for "Biggus Dickus".
  • by Dr. Photo (640363) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @02:32AM (#26596133) Journal

    ;-)

  • Blog Rumor? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 (162816) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @03:28AM (#26596343) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zig007 (1097227)

      I just looked at Amazons' bestseller lists [amazon.com], and I can't find any Monty Python stuff anywhere.
      Maybe I am looking in the wrong place, or maybe it has already dropped out of the list. But...

      Anyway, I found the original youtube blog post with the mentioned 23 000 percent figure [youtube.com].
      And an official YouTube blog may not be the most unbiased source of data regarding the efficiency of their "eCommerce platform".

      Not that they don't deserve the success.

  • by cuby (832037) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @05:38AM (#26596765)
    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.
  • TFA is a FAKE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by AlgorithMan (937244) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @10:38AM (#26597957) Homepage
    TFA http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/01/23/free-monty-python-videos-on-youtube-lead-to-23000-dvd-sale-increase/ [slashfilm.com]
    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.
  • by Belial6 (794905) on Sunday January 25, 2009 @02:44PM (#26599691)
    What this also tells us it that people want an honest to goodness real life physical copy of their media in professional packaging. We constantly hear how everything is going digital, and how the physical medium is dead. Personally, I have never, and will do my best to never "buy" a digital copy of media. I have given in on a couple of software applications, but those were only in programs that are updated often enough that a couple of months after receiving the media, it would already be an outdated version. For something like movies and music and games, I want to know that I can still use it when the company goes out of business, and if I have to do the manufacturing myself, I see no reason to pay.

    I watch a LOT of movies, and I mean a LOT. Netflix has been my friend, and the Roku has been great. The vast majority of the movies suck, and while I will get mild enjoyment out of watching a bad movie, I will definitely not be watching them a second, third, or tenth time. The movies that I will be watching again and again, I buy on DVD. I have no interest what so ever to "buy" a download of them. I want packaging that I can put on my shelf and when I pass by and see it, it will remind me, "Oh, yeah, I think I want to watch that today." That just doesn't happen with downloaded movies and music. These numbers seem to show that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

Working...