Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums

from the cognitive-dissonance? dept

Wed, Dec 16th 2009 10:26am — Mike Masnick

We were amazed a few months back when a variety of press reports started surfacing after Susan Boyle became famous via a YouTube clip, claiming what a shame it was that no one was monetizing that video. That whole thing seemed preposterous. YouTube provided free software, free hosting and free distribution and turned Susan Boyle into a world famous star, overnight. As we noted at the time, if you can't monetize that in some other manner, you don't belong in business. And, indeed, as tons of folks have reported, Susan Boyle's first album has been a massive top seller -- the best opening week selling album of the year, and the best opening for a "debut" album in sixteen years. And, yes, much of the reason that anyone knows of her existence is because of the clip on YouTube.

But would you believe that people are still complaining about YouTube's role in all of this? Rob points us to an interview with Simon Cowell, who demonstrates stunning cognitive dissonance in both slamming and praising YouTube in two contradictory consecutive sentences:

Cowell also spoke of the popularity of Susan Boyle's Britain's Got Talent audition, which saw her rendition of I Dreamed A Dream viewed 100 million times in its initial days on YouTube - without any kickback for him.

"That will change," he told GQ. Because, eventually, if YouTube are not paying, they're not getting the clip.

"But at the moment I'm very happy to get promotion around the world. She'll sell 10 million albums this year because of YouTube."

So, wait, is he upset or not? Would he have preferred that YouTube had not shown the video which it didn't pay for, and a very small number of people knew of Susan Boyle? Or is he happy that he got free hosting, free software, free bandwidth and free promotional value that helped him sell 10 million of her albums? Maybe he should be paying Google...

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

Filed Under: free, promotion, simon cowell, susan boyle, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 9:32am

Maybe...
Maybe he's upset because YouTube did his job for him and he's afraid he's obsolete.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 10:32am

I think an old fashioned face palm will do in this case

............................................________
....................................,. -‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”................................ ...“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
........ .............,?......................................................,
.................../........ ...................................................,}
................./........................... ...........................,:`^`..}
.............../............................................... ....,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_ ........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,. -~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,, ,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`...... ..................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._........ ...........................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,............................... ..
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,, ...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,............. ......,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
............. ......................,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendan (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 10:47am

Maybe he should pay Google
I like this plan.

Once a video with corporate backing hits a certain viewership count or rate, YT can start demand money, or it will block users from seeing the content. We'll see how they like that.

Disclaimer: This is probably a terrible idea. Both parties are better off just taking the mutual benefits without money directly changing hands. Can't we all just get along(tail)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 10:53am

You got the headline wrong
The headline ought to read Simon Cowell's Dilemma: YouTube Should Be Paid; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:00am

If YouTube didn't steal Simon Cowell's personal property then I guess we wouldn't be having this conversation, now, would we?

We are raising a generation of thieves! A society of stealers! A cabal of copyright infringers, wait, that one doesn't have the same moral heft as the other two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:15am

Re:
The main problem with this site is you can never really tell when someone is writing what should be obvious satire or when someone believes he's writing the absolute truth.

I'm leaning towards satire with this one...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:17am

Re:
yep, if we ignore the fact that millions of people bought an album, we are all terrible, terrible thieves. Yes, even you who did not see the video or heard of Simon Cowell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:20am

I don't think there is any better argument for copyright reform than what Simon Cowell pointed out here.

Simon indirectly shows the application of the double standard being applied towards copyright between these interests. It's quite simple: We won't enforce copyright until it's no longer a hot item and we take our marketing people elsewhere. When we stop devoting marketing dollars, then by golly, someone's rights are being infringed and we will enforce our copyright.

You need to understand that the Marketing People often have rights to create buzz and chatter, and if they get a hot lead like Suzanne Boyle, they may also claim such organic success as a result of their own effort and not willing to really admit that it's buzz from the very onset was quite organic in nature.

When the marketing budget is exhausted, and people continue to talk about it, by gum, that's an infringement of someone's copyrights, and someone has to pay for facilitating this free advertisement.

Perhaps the problem is that Simon hasn't paid into a marketing budget to promote Suzanne Boyle yet is paying hand-over-fist to the same or similar marketing company that made Suzanne Boyle famous expecting similar results. Thusly, someone has to pay handsomely for these rights.

But that's really not it, because it's not an organic strategy. It's the old Cart-before-the-horse problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:21am

I've said it before, but in today's legal climate, radio never would have stood a chance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:21am

You know what the problem is? Youtube is free. Apparently the issues with understanding free in a business model is tough from both side.

If Youtube had just been charging all of these years, no one would suggest that they need to pay anyone for the use of the clip, someone would have been paying them for distribution. You know like how I constantly see American Idol clips on TV in an attempt to get me to watch the show.

There's absolutely no flaw in this plan, other than the issue with no one visiting youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yano (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:23am

as if Simon Cowell needs the money, this attitude of embracing the free publicity then wanting to charge for the clip use is nauseating. fucking cunts want tollbooths around everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 11:52am

Re:
"You know what the problem is? Youtube is free..."

The same thing could have been said about radio. But yet, no one complained about radio being free or getting a free ride back when Elvis, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones were selling millions of albums based upon their radio play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:07pm

Re:
"Wow." I think of the time you put into creating that and can only think "Wow."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re:
Actually, radio caused a stink back in the day with phonograph and sheet music publishers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bubba, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:13pm

Re: Re:
right, the industry embraced radio, then raped it like asex-offender step uncle, and left it the hollow wasted useless driveling shell it is today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:16pm

He knew what he was saying...
Just like RIAA, the MPAA and all the others like them; Simon knew what he was saying. They actually do want it both ways. They want publicity to sell movies/albums/whatever, but they want you to pay them for the privilege of providing that publicity. Simon, even with all his money, could never have paid for enough advertising to equal what YouTube did for him, but that doesn't stop him from wanting paid on both sides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re:
Except for the fact that he's bazillionaire, Simon Cowell is an ass clown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re:
Your astonishment is misdirected - unless by some odd chance it was Brian who kicked off this particular meme.

http://www.facepalm.com/page/Ascii-Facepalms.aspx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DaveL (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:27pm

wait...
Well... another way to interpret what he said might be in order...

I think he realized that YouTube made money (page hits = $$ ) off the Susan Boyle video as well and that in the future, he might find a way to monetize that by making YouTube (or something similar) pay him for that. But as it is now, he's glad to let YouTube promote his upcoming talent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:28pm

Perhaps Simon didn't want to make money
Obviously Simon is an altruist and never wanted to exploit the poor woman. He was forced to do so by the demand generated by youtube. Youtube forced him to sell millions of CDs and he hates the carbon foot print it forced him into.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:28pm

I think he was just speculating that in the future large television stations would want a kickback from the site, but until then hes happy getting the extra millions of views.

I dont see anywhere where he says "I want them to pay" or an opinion in the least on the current state. Just speculation that in the future someone will successfully force youtube to pay for clips.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:32pm

If it had not been for a link to the youtube video in an email I would have never heard of Susan. I don't like the shows that Simon produces and never watch them..

So Simon should be thankful for the free exposure, reap the benefits of the album, dvd, tour, sales and move on... honestly without the youtube exposure I am willing to bet that when ever Susan performed on the show there were increased viewers as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:34pm

I dont see any conflict
She was a virtual unknown and youtube helped her become famous (it was a mutually beneficial deal). Now she is famous and she doesnt want to be on youtube anymore. Where is the conflict?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 12:57pm

I think he is stating the obvious: No matter how much good youtube did for Susan Boyle, it also did good for YouTube and Google (ad sales, exposure, etc). If You Tube wants to use a copyrighted clip, they need to pay. It's a pretty simple thing.

It doesn't matter the "good" that is done, if the "good" isn't wanted, then they don't have the right to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyanna, 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:20pm

Re:
This is pretty much a win in my book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
I have no doubt that sheet music publishers and song writers were upset. That's why they get paid for radio play.

But I've never heard that the seller of phonographs, i.e., the music labels, complaining about airplay. There's this thing called payola. Despite what you may have heard, it did not start in the 50s. For as long as music was played on the radio, the people selling the music were willing to pay for the play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyanna, 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:41pm

Re: wait...
But that in itself isn't correct. YouTube may have made money off of all the hits and adds that they displayed. But in the end, Simon or the Britain's Got Talent show would never have been able to promote their show or the contests as much as that one clip did. They got FREE advertising.

I saw that video and after watching it I saw other videos from the show and watched them. I payed attention to the results of the show. I sent the link to my friends and family. Hell, I'm buying my mom her CD for Christmas b/c she loved that clip so much.

I'm Canadian, and had it not been for that clip they wouldn't have gotten a record sale from me b/c I would have no idea who Susan Boyle is. How many of the sales has Simon received b/c of this YouTube clip? I'm sure I'm not the only one!

At the end of the day, he needs to ask himself if the free advertising he received from YouTube (or anywhere else) helped him sell more records, and if he could have paid for that type of advertisement with the same results. And the answer, in this case, is no. He reached a much larger audience because of YouTube, and in my opinion, shouldn't be looking at the proverbial gift horse in the mouth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:42pm

For goodness sakes...
Will you people get it right? It's Simon Cowbell.

Oh, and he knows nothing of the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:44pm

The problem is obvious: it's not that the "big fish" are afraid they're not making enough money, it's that they're appalled that someone ELSE is making money. It's not my happiness what matters, but how unhappy everyone is compared to me.

Same thing applies to all this entitlement culture: someone else is making money, we must stop that. No matter if they're actually helping US make money also, the trick is to win the money ourselves and prevent their enrichment at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 1:47pm

Re:
Then the copyright owners should have had the Susan Boyle clip removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 16 Dec 2009 @ 2:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yeah yeah, I get it. It just looks like crap on my monitor. Interestingly enough the originals look great on same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 2:33pm

Re: Climate
> I've said it before, but in today's legal climate, radio never would
> have stood a chance.

Neither would the automobile. The BIAA (Blacksmithing Industry Association of America) would have lobbied their congressmen to pass protectionist laws banning the automobile because it would destroy the market for horseshoes and buggy whips.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMenach (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 3:19pm

Youtube has a procedure...
Youtube has a very simple procedure where a copyright holder can request a video be taken down, and YouTube is very quick about taking down clips after receiving a request. Since the copyright holder in question did nothing to remove the video, it must be assumed that they approved of it being there.

And in response to the AC comment: "No matter how much good youtube did for Susan Boyle, it also did good for YouTube and Google (ad sales, exposure, etc). If You Tube wants to use a copyrighted clip, they need to pay. It's a pretty simple thing.

You once again fail. There is nothing that says copyrighted clips must be paid for. All that is needed is credit and permission. The law says nothing about a "need to pay".
P.S. I find it quite amusing that in one comment you used YoutTube three times and managed to spell it three different ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2009 @ 6:45pm

Blank Slate
All these comments and nobody remembers that YouTube is not providing the content but provides the platform for the content? They are the blank book that the users write on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Dec 2009 @ 7:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a matter of monitors it's a matter of the font, which is different in each case. I didn't realize your initial comment was intended as a jibe, though - I was just letting you know that the ASCII facepalm was an existing thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Shrimp, 16 Dec 2009 @ 9:22pm

Re:
Why?

Radio pays fees to use music, they don't get it for free. There isn't even the slightest whiff of logic to your statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMenach's Ugly Utube, 16 Dec 2009 @ 9:26pm

Re: Youtube has a procedure...
Doc, please.

YouTube is like any other user of music or copyrighted material, they are obliged to pay a usage fee. Many people waive that usage fee by uploading in a sort of creative commons or copyleft way, although most of them are infringing on someone else's work when they do it.

It is still an ongoing process, but the basics are there: If you want to use copyrighted material, you have to pay for the rights. What that cost is, well, that is subject to negotiation. But nobody gets a free ride, unless the right holders decide so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2009 @ 1:08am

I just bought the CD from Amazon as an MP3 download. If it wasn't for YouTube, the talk radio host I listen to on the way to work in the morning never would have seen the video, raved about it, and talked about Susan Boyle's personal story. His enthusiasm was what made me go to YouTube to look at the video. The host also played the audio of the YouTube video on the radio, and I'm not sure if that was legal or not, but hearing the audio convinced me this was music I wanted to buy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]