And really, on the issue of media piracy... you are fighting an uphill battle. Do you really think you are going to beat it? NBC, you shouldn't be complaining because you're the one that cut its nose off to spite its face by ditching a contract with Apple and iTunes for all your shows, not to mention your heavy hand down on YouTube. And why? Because people were enjoying your videos through some other medium than your own website?? Note: on iTunes, they were paying for the episodes.... the exchange was that the consumer got to watch the episode they paid for whenever they wanted to without commercials. I guess that was too much of a concession to the viewer.
Don't you people see that this whole issue of media piracy isn't all bad? People hear about new bands, share songs, share videos, and in doing so share excitement and passion and a part of themselves with their friends and family. What do you (and your brilliant marketing execs) think is the best form of marketing? Your annoying, repetitive, bludgeon-me-to-death TV commercials? Or a friend saying "hey you should check this out." You just don't get it. Look at viral videos. People have tried to create videos to "tap" into this viral craze, but it doesn't work. If something is good, or funny, or entertaining on some level, people will enjoy it and then will want to share it with friends. Stop trying to hinder the consumer from enjoying and sharing your product with other consumers.
Look at Radiohead.... They essentially gave the finger to the music industry and all the crap they are pulling with copyrights and sharing restrictions, and instead they focused on what matters, the fans. Before releasing the hard copy of their latest album "In Rainbows," they offered a digital copy of the entire album on their website for download. The pricing, they left it up to the fans, who could decide how much they wanted to pay for the download, or pay nothing at all. Essentially, Radiohead was saying, "Here is some music we made because we are passionate about music, and we think it is really good. If you like it too and want to support us as a band, then pay what you would like." This revolutionary way of releasing an album is almost close to a charity accepting donations, yet I think the message hits home. It shows confidence in your material, respect and appreciation for your fans, and it also makes the consumer really think about what it means to buy music.
It makes you think about the work and creativity that goes into a full length album and about the fact that the artists should be compensated for that. Or maybe you want to listen to the digital version for free and then buy the CD when it comes out, either to support the band or to have the full-quality studio recording. But regardless, whatever Radiohead did, they must have hit a chord or found a niche somewhere, because in spite of the open digital release, "In Rainbows" is #1 on the music charts. (see also NY Times article) And that is the CD, list price of $13.98. See? Letting the consumer decide doesn't undermine the music industry, in fact, it seems quite the opposite. How much would you pay an artist for an album if you could buy it for free? What if you new the majority of the money was actually going to the band and not to the label?
Anyways, from internet censorship and filtering to Radiohead and the music industry, I think we've come full circle...
No comments:
Post a Comment