Warner Music's Online Video Archive: Too Little, Too Late
from the this-is-big-news? dept
Lots of news sites are covering Warner Music's announcement today that they're going to offer music videos from their archives for free (with ads) streaming online. About the only reason why this should be news is the fact that it took them until 2007 to realize that these promotional videos could be used for promotional purposes. Remember, the whole point of music videos was to attract more interest in the music and musicians. In other words, music videos have always been promotional materials, and as such it's bizarre that it's taken Warner Music this long to realize that it might make sense to offer them up for people to view. That said, Warner Music still seems confused about this, as they're focused not on making it even easier to use these music videos for promotional purpose, but on "monetizing" them. First, these videos are at Warner's own hub, rather than distributed to content sites where people already go. They seem to believe that people will want to search them out, a strategy that hasn't worked for other media companies because it goes against the way people want to interact with the content. People don't know which artists are on the Warner Music label, and they don't care. If they want music videos they want to go to places where they can get all kinds of music videos, rather than just a random group that happens to have a business relationship with a company that the users don't care about. Then, of course, these videos are only for streaming -- not for promoting. Users can't share them with their friends, they can only download videos for a fee. At some point you would think that the folks at the major labels would start to realize the difference between promotional goods and goods that should be sold, but it appears they're still a long way away from that epiphany.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Real World Killed the Video Star
Why do I bring up Petty? Well he has filmed a few videos under the Warner Brothers label - including his award winning videos You Don't Know How It Feels and Mary Jane's Last Dance. If you feel it's worth the trouble, go look 'em up on Warner Bros new site - or check YouTube; they don't have any commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a real job
Warner is doing what they want in their own time frame. They already used the videos for promotion back when they got exposure on MTV and VH1. They sold videos on tape and DVD also because people would pay to have a copy of their favorite videos. Now things are changed with the internet. They've got content people want to see and a distribution channel with lots of eyeballs. They'll make money off of advertising while providing content fans want to see.
What would you have them do instead, let YouTube make the advertising revenue? Are you just some Google fanboy or a paid shill for Google? It doesn't matter. Your little (emphasis on little) opinions matter naught to people who actually create things for a living.
Flap your gums all you want. Cry that people don't give you stuff for free. The world will go on spinning. You'll make your little (emphasis on little) money for a couple more years. When the dust settles and the models are established, you'll be left with a disk full of garbage opinions with NO hope of monetizing them. TimeWarner will still have a phat load of content. It will still be monetizing in ways that irritate you. Maybe you can beg on the street outside the TimeWarner building in NYC. Better yet, while you still have a little income, buy a hotdog cart and become a vendor. You can sell street food to the people you criticize today.
Grow up. Get a real job. Create something worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a real job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get a real job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get a real job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get a real job
"Are you a Time Warner Fanboy or a paid shill for Time Warner?"
That's right, anybody who hasn't partaken of Mike's anti-IP Kool-Aid is a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get a real job
No. Only those of who seem to live in Corporate IP RIAA MPAA DRM DMCA OMFGIJUSCAME World (Patent Pending).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Get a real job
Why do you read the content if you dont like it?
You are an idiot (emphasis on idiot)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a real job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is why it is different then what MTV does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knows - but one could definitely ask that same question of you? Are you a Time Warner Fanboy or a paid shill for Time Warner?
I agree - I don't give a rat's tail what company makes the music video, markets the music, or whatever. And no - I don't just want stuff for free, but I'm not going to pay for something that's not worth the cost. Like 'DRM Free' Music from apple that costs 30 cents more per song? Naaaaa
Plus, Yahoo's already been doing this for years and on Yahoo I would get all of this and more.
Of course - this would assume any recent music from any of the RIAA zombies was any good.... One thing has happened in all of this for me - I've found quite a number of small, independent artists I'm really coming to like. And yes, I have PAID them for their work. It's something most people really don't have a problem with, to be honest, but all you hear about is the smaller portion that's actually getting stuff for free and the RIAA's 'War on the Consumer'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warner Bros on YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has a job and he's doing it
Sure they are -- apparently oblivious to the promotional value of the music videos. That's Mike's point -- not that he's not getting something for free.
Warner makes its real money selling music, not music videos. The videos were a promotional add-on to get more people interested in the music. Certainly they'll make a few bucks by controlling access to the videos and they certainly have every right to do so. But if those videos were really used to promote the music -- by making them easy to find and share -- they'd probably make much more money on the increased music sales.
The music business model has changed a lot. It's a hard business to be in right now. However, and I think that Mike's comments have been trying to point this out, the record companies and RIAA have been brain dead in their reactions to this change and this is just one example of a mindset that is consistently short-sighted.
... let YouTube make the advertising revenue?
If somebody can reach a market that provides my major revenue stream better than I can and will help promote my products, then damn right I'd let them have the advertising revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, if he really believes in socialism - shouldn't he just give away content anyway?
I mean - afterall, he's just the majority stakeholder in a big evil corporation, making more profit than even some oil companies.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community
I mean - if he doesn't - then it could be said he's nothing but a hypocrit. Shouldn't the 'community' own the content?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]