Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Monty Python Goes YouTube, Big Jump In DVD Sales

Posted by timothy on 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.

11 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Flawed theory by symbolset · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Flawed theory by gravos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
    2. Re:Flawed theory by eof · · 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.

    3. Re:Flawed theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Flawed theory by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Flawed theory by zacronos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. The YouTube model can work by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:The YouTube model can work by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Re:Not to be a naysayer.... by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Being an established brand makes this by shaitand · · 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.

  5. Anecdotal? by alvinrod · · 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.