Blink 182 has put out a new album and they created a video for one of the singles where they took various clips from YouTube where fans had used their music (a form of pirating I guess).
This was a brilliant move on their part because instead of crying like little babies about not getting paid when some kid creates a video and uses their music in it, they augment their brand by embracing those who love their music so much that they use it in new and creative ways.
This approach is 180 degrees compared to how Metallica handled the issue of unlicensed use of their music back in the day when they went after Napster.
Whether pirating is right or wrong (technically it's legally wrong, morally people have different views), the fact is that people 'play with content' today more than ever before.
As such, the best way of looking at digital content today is for the originator to embrace (or at least accept) that their work will be further evolved by their fans.
And what you lose on the front end (ie. revenue if such fans had to pay) you gain on the back end (increased sales through viral marketing). One kid making a video and not paying you for the use of your music is hardly a negative if it exposes thousands of others to your music that otherwise may never have heard about you.
The old saying 'if you can't beat em, join em' applies to where marketing is heading. Attacking your customer base rarely grows your brand value. So if you want to remain relevant, get the television interviews, sell the t-shirts, get the brand endorsements, sell out concerts, etc. - then you have to ask yourself, do you really want to attack your customer base?
YouTube currently is under strict lock down when it comes to posting television shows or movies online. And obviously, I get why that is. But it's worth considering whether such postings actually damage revenue associated with a particular show or movie? Or rather, does it simply increase viewership?
Sure, you might watch a Michael Moore movie on YouTube for free (or at least they use to have them on YouTube), but if that results in more people going to see his next movie in the theatres, people who otherwise may never have taken an interest, does that hurt anyone? Or rather, does it increase future revenue streams?
Blink 182 has wisely chosen to embrace their customer base and they are getting a ton of positive buzz as a result.
The only thing that would make me laugh my ass off would be if the people in those videos turned around and sued Blink 182 and AT&T for using their video images without licensed permission (I'm assuming AT&T didn't contact all of these people and get permission to use their video content, although who knows, maybe they did).
I can't imagine that happening mind you. Average folks tend not to think like multi-national conglomerates.
This was a brilliant move on their part because instead of crying like little babies about not getting paid when some kid creates a video and uses their music in it, they augment their brand by embracing those who love their music so much that they use it in new and creative ways.
This approach is 180 degrees compared to how Metallica handled the issue of unlicensed use of their music back in the day when they went after Napster.
Whether pirating is right or wrong (technically it's legally wrong, morally people have different views), the fact is that people 'play with content' today more than ever before.
As such, the best way of looking at digital content today is for the originator to embrace (or at least accept) that their work will be further evolved by their fans.
And what you lose on the front end (ie. revenue if such fans had to pay) you gain on the back end (increased sales through viral marketing). One kid making a video and not paying you for the use of your music is hardly a negative if it exposes thousands of others to your music that otherwise may never have heard about you.
The old saying 'if you can't beat em, join em' applies to where marketing is heading. Attacking your customer base rarely grows your brand value. So if you want to remain relevant, get the television interviews, sell the t-shirts, get the brand endorsements, sell out concerts, etc. - then you have to ask yourself, do you really want to attack your customer base?
YouTube currently is under strict lock down when it comes to posting television shows or movies online. And obviously, I get why that is. But it's worth considering whether such postings actually damage revenue associated with a particular show or movie? Or rather, does it simply increase viewership?
Sure, you might watch a Michael Moore movie on YouTube for free (or at least they use to have them on YouTube), but if that results in more people going to see his next movie in the theatres, people who otherwise may never have taken an interest, does that hurt anyone? Or rather, does it increase future revenue streams?
Blink 182 has wisely chosen to embrace their customer base and they are getting a ton of positive buzz as a result.
The only thing that would make me laugh my ass off would be if the people in those videos turned around and sued Blink 182 and AT&T for using their video images without licensed permission (I'm assuming AT&T didn't contact all of these people and get permission to use their video content, although who knows, maybe they did).
I can't imagine that happening mind you. Average folks tend not to think like multi-national conglomerates.
Comments
Post a Comment