EMI Gets State Farm To Sponsor Embedding Ok Go Video -- But Should You Need A Sponsor To Embed?

from the ok-stop dept

Mon, Feb 22nd 2010 4:16pm — Mike Masnick

We were just writing -- yet again -- about EMI's short-sighted decision to block all embedding of Ok Go's videos (even ones that the band produced entirely on their own). This is despite the fact that it was the widespread embedding of the famed treadmill video that helped Ok Go become as well known as it has -- earning EMI a lot of money. Now comes the news of a "resolution" to the issue, as EMI will allow an Ok Go video to be embedded thanks to an as-yet-unexplained "sponsorship" by State Farm. While this shows, in some way, how different business models can step in and help pay for content, it worries me that EMI now seems to think a video needs to be directly sponsored to allow for embedding. Does EMI truly not understand that embedding is what helped Ok Go become so well known? There's no reason why they couldn't have allowed the regular embedding to remain and still have done a sponsor deal on top of it.

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: embedding, ok go, sponsorship, videos
Companies: emi, state farm

18 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Poster, 22 Feb 2010 @ 4:26pm

Wow, that's not stupid at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2010 @ 4:30pm

If you can get someone or a company to pay you for a good that has zero cost then why wouldn't you?

There is a new sucker evreyday. Today its State Farm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Taylor, 22 Feb 2010 @ 4:39pm

Memetic Inhibitors
It's extremely stupid - it's completely missing the fact that they (the band and the company) are in the business of making money off the back of memes.

Placing an inhibitor on the propagation of the meme is massively counter-productive.

Record companies used to shell out hundreds of thousands in payola (illegally) to radio stations - now there are armies of fans willing to take up this function for free... and EMI is trying to stop them.

Really, this company does not deserve to be in business. The culture would be better served if it broke up into a series of indies run by less out of touch people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr (profile), 22 Feb 2010 @ 4:40pm

Re:
Nobody objects to that. The notion that you have to get paid to let people advertise for you is scary. Worse yet, not everyone can get an article in the NY Times to create bad PR and force their label to do something about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2010 @ 5:14pm

Re: Memetic Inhibitors
EMI is already on its way out.. You probably know about its debt problems. It looks like it'll pass to Citigroup within the year (iirc), and who knows what will happen to it next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Feb 2010 @ 8:11pm

Re:
"Wow, that's not stupid at all."

You are perfectly correct ... After spending $10,000 USD on Lawyers fees, $5,000 on payroll, and $2,500 on airfare and hotels, $10,000 on prostitutes and cocaine, that by far exceeds the $5,400 dollars they made so far on the youTube downloads and the $500 dollars they are going to make on the sponsorship. (sarc)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2010 @ 8:39pm

Re: Re:
The notion that you should give away what someone is willing to pay for is scary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teknosapien (profile), 22 Feb 2010 @ 9:10pm

one word
Tape!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2010 @ 10:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
The notion that you should give away what someone is willing to pay for is scary.

If giving it away helps you make more elsewhere, is it really that scary? Or is it just smart business strategy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 23 Feb 2010 @ 5:49am

Let me guess... since State Farm is a North America-only company, the embedded video will only serve around 400 million potential customers instead of the full 6 billion. It's hard to have a truly viral video when 5 continents worth of people are completely prevented from viewing it, thus killing much of its potential to act as advertising for the band.

Alternatively, if it is available internationally, there's a lot of money State Farm are paying to advertise their products to people who can't possibly use them...

Maybe at some point these idiots will learn how the internet works. It's a start, I suppose, but no less ridiculous than not allowing embedding at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 23 Feb 2010 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re:
You know that jar of free candy at the store? The one with candy that they give away? Someone, somewhere, is willing to pay for candy. Scary, huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen, 23 Feb 2010 @ 12:35pm

video on nick
I happened to see the video on Nickelodeon this morning; the channel plays videos between episodes of "Full House," which my 8yo daughter loves (I swear it's not me). Her review: the song and video are terrible. I had to agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2010 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
The folks tht made the candy did not give it away. Someone else bought the candy and then gave it away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2010 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They got State Farm to pay and they will still benefit from the increased exposure related to embedding. That is a better situation for EMI. Unfriendly? Anti-Consumer? Perhaps, but still better for EMI than just giving it away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 23 Feb 2010 @ 2:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great comeback!

Someone didn't give it away, but then someone did give it away!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2010 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point is that at some point the candy was not free. There was a cost to make the candy, candy does not come from thin air. Yes, candy can be used as a promotional item but the folks that are making the candy are not giving it away. Other folks may purchase it and give it away but that does not mean that folks who make candy should start giving it away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if they pay a music video producer/director/filmmaker to make a video and then gives it away for free, then it is all good, but if they do it themselves on the cheap, then it's not OK?

Great logic there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Feb 2010 @ 8:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yeah, also according to your logic, candy makers shouldn't give away free samples.

It only works if you use candy to promote a shop, but do not give away candy to promote the product!
[ link to this | view in thread ]