Slashdot Mirror
After Monty Python Goes YouTube, Big Jump In DVD Sales
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.
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!
But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?
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!
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.
I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.
Remember RFC 873!
Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.
I don't care why you're posting AC
No it's not.
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/), 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?
"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.
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.
And you think a single product release increased the sales of a well established and household brand by 23,000%?
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.
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!!
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.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
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.)
What's a "sceptic tank"? An armored military vehicle which insists that absolute knowledge of the truth is impossible?
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.
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.
That's it, the internet must be stopped.
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.