UPDATE: This phenomenon, confusing the creation of content with the right to control its distribution (and where it’s seen) is widespread.
The network opposition to YouTube is brain-dead.
Cable networks like Comedy Central and MSNBC (and now Viacom) have been badgering YouTube to remove their content from its virtual shelves. Instead, they have been pointing people to their own copies of the same content, as in this example.
The idea is control. Before anything plays you have to watch their ad, a 30-second job that’s even louder than its broadcast counterpart. (Can’t wait until they find a way to disable my mute button.)
This is completely unnecessary. And it’s counter-productive. The MSNBC site doesn’t scale. I’m still waiting to see what I was promised 10 minutes ago, probably because of server contention. Google’s system, being scaled, would not have that problem. Not only that, but posting content on YouTube means it can be linked to from here — increasing its distribution further, making me (or you) its distributor.
Finally, as to the ad and the resulting revenue. (This guy lives at Cincom Expert Access.)
What you think that AdBlock thing is about on all
YouTube videos today? It’s there so you can insert ads in front of
the video. YouTube is hoping to develop something like Blogads for
the small-timers, but there’s no reason why a network couldn’t simply
insert its own ads in that same place, wherever their content is
posted. All they have to do is assert ownership, which I’m certain
Google would happily go along with.
So let’s see. In order to "make more money," networks are trying to
force people toward sites that don’t run well, and they’re ignoring an
opportunity to make more profit — and defray their costs — from
advertising.
The only reason for this attitude is they’re not thinking. They’re
going "mine, mine, mine" and forgetting that no one is questioning that
the content is theirs. People are just trying to rebroadcast it, have
masses of people point to it, and pay them for it.
Which somehow isn’t good enough for them.
Like I said, brain-dead.
Thanks for the mention – and the Expert Access link. Best to you – Steve kayser
Thanks for the mention – and the Expert Access link. Best to you – Steve kayser
Actually, cnet points out the real issue. Some clown at Gawker Media was uploading clips with Gawker ads embedded. I think the media companies were willing to give YouTube somewhat of a pass and see how things turned out. Perhaps the clips would drive people to watch the shows, so the thinking might have gone. Problem is, when people start hijacking the clips to make their own commercial delivery platforms, media owners get a little pissed and start enforcing their rights instead of playing along.
Actually, cnet points out the real issue. Some clown at Gawker Media was uploading clips with Gawker ads embedded. I think the media companies were willing to give YouTube somewhat of a pass and see how things turned out. Perhaps the clips would drive people to watch the shows, so the thinking might have gone. Problem is, when people start hijacking the clips to make their own commercial delivery platforms, media owners get a little pissed and start enforcing their rights instead of playing along.