Viacom: Pass SOPA Or Spongebob Dies
from the seriously dept
It's the most unintentionally hilarious video of the year... Viacom has put out one of the most ridiculous "anti-piracy" propaganda videos yet, complete with debunked stats, ridiculous claims, ominous music... and lots and lots of Viacom employees admitting that they're too clueless to adapt to a changing marketplace, and begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs. Seriously. As the video goes on, the claims get more and more ridiculous, to the point where someone even threatens that if you don't keep buying Viacom products, Spongebob might no longer exist. And, really, that's the hilarious part. So much of the video is just people begging others to save them. They beg people to give them money. They beg the government to save their jobs. Nowhere, however, do they talk about actually adapting. Nowhere do they talk about making use of what the internet provides to build bigger audiences, to promote better, and to better monetize. Because that's the kind of stuff that Viacom just doesn't do. It just begs others to cover up for its own business failures.Remember, this is the same company where the CEO made $84.5 million last year (a $50 million raise). I'd embed the video here, but remember that Viacom is trying to sue YouTube out of existence, so they didn't put it up on YouTube... in fact, they didn't put it up in a manner that lets you embed it anywhere. So you'll just have to go to Viacom's website and watch the video directly there yourself... costing Viacom's bandwidth. They could have gotten that bandwidth for free if they'd just posted the video to YouTube... but, as we're told in the video, "free" is "stealing." And it destroys jobs. Except for Viacom's CEO. He's doing okay.
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: business models, exaggeration, jobs, sopa, spongebob
Companies: viacom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
vote Sandy Cheeks for president of Viacom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blackmailing children is low..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It may be the only way to get rid of the cultural scourge that is Spongebob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off Squarebritches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hypocrisy...
Becky Mair - Editor VH1's Basketball Wives
So... Becky wants to use the story of Shaquille O' Neal without any regard to the other people that her story might influence. And yet, her show appears on VH1 free of charge to be watched and recorded through a Tivo or DVR.
"The theft is happening at such a level that major corporations are benefitting from it"
Keri Flint - Production Management
Then what the hell is Viacom doing and why aren't they paying you as much as your CEO?
I have to laugh at this. Their boss gets a raise and they're complaining about competition from overseas instead of figuring out ways to make their own attractions more appealing.
Where's the people that say "we need to make a cyberlocker of our own?" Where's the innovators in Viacom that have said "this is how we compete"? All I'm hearing is a bunch of whiners and defeatists that have given up the battle and don't even know how to fight. They show a picture of the dolls and products that they sell, but I have no way of knowing how they compete in different markets. I don't know the Competitive Price Points if they sell in China nor do I know the economics of their situation.
And I'm supposed to feel sympathy because people feel like their website is either outdated or they have no way of showing off their work? WTF?
The logic train is truly derailed with this video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The hypocrisy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you going to admit that the "raise" is entirely the stock options, and nothing more?
If you are going to attack people, at least try to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's try to be honest - $50M is $50M, and $50M on top of $30M should not leave the rest of the staff crying about losing their jobs.
Just saying, when the money gets obscene, you have long gone past the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This can be summed up in three words.
I'm RICH, BIATCH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The stock price in 2008 was 13.xx, today it is over 40. If I was a stock holder, I would say whatever he has done has made me a whole lot of money. I don't think it is particularly fair to blame someone for being successful.
Past success is also not an indication of future performance either, and his 50 million of stock could be worthless in a couple of years if piracy wipes them out.
So I just think that might is being a little dishonest in suggesting he got a pay raise (he did not) when in fact he had stock options that vested.
Mike knows that, he just chooses to ignore it and yell "censorship" every chance he gets instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oops. I guess Viacom is doing well after all. Never mind about that doom and gloom stuff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All indications are that piracy is helping his stocks grow over 300% in value since 2008...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because as we all know, there was absolutely NO PIRACY AT ALL between 2008 and 2011, which is why the company tripled its valuation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They keep trying to lay the blame for their own personal failings to others, I think it is only fair that we point out that despite claims to the contrary they continue to be successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Buying stocks only gives them working capital, sometimes a lot of working capital, but those stocks impact the companies cash on hand,(not profit) and are responsible to the market, not the company. The stock capitalization does not go to the bottom line. The options might be valuable if the stock holds its price.
Oh wait...the stocks hold their price? The board is happy enough with performance to give out bonuses? Then how is the company hurting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just to be honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you going to admit that the "raise" is entirely the stock options, and nothing more?
If you are going to attack people, at least try to be honest."
I had no idea Philippe P. Dauman read this blog!
Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stock options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Masnick, but if your dorky tech buddies can't make money unless it's off of illegal infringement, then they need to adapt and find a better business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep, yep it has. And that's all I need from the video to know it's acceptable morally. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
Yep, yep it has. And that's all I need from the video to know it's acceptable morally. Period.
-----------------
False equation: what's "socially acceptable" isn't a moral absolute. Slavery was once "socially acceptable" in the USA. You can find any number of horrors that were or are "socially acceptable" yet are morally repugnant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
Just because somethings deemed "morally repugnant" in our allegedly enlightened day and age doesn't mean jack squat--the important part is it was moral at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Anonymous Coward, Nov 15th, 2011 @ 10:04am
...and having a child out of wedlock was once something that could cause you to be ostracised from your family, even killed in some cases, same with admitting to being homosexual or having an interracial relationship. It was considered moral to burn people suspected of witchcraft.
Morality is a fluid concept and totally subjective. We should not be making laws based purely on morality, but even if you do then the laws will be useless if a majority of the population decide to ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
"begging you to give them money so they can keep their jobs" -- isn't that what "crowd funding" is?
Anyway, Mike, as I've said before: your fame and fortune is assured if you'll just give a clue to "clueless" executives on how to make money in the new age that you posit.
Let's say Viacom has just spent $100M on a brand new movie. Now tell them how they can put it on Youtube so don't pay even bandwidth, and then how they recover their "sunk (or fixed) costs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
You can find a YouTube alternative where they can charge for commercial time during the movie like cable TV.
If the movie is good people will buy the DVD/BlueRay because YouTube dose not look good on a 42 inch LED TV.
My point make it available to the masses when everybody is talking about it not after an year, and make it cheap, they will get the money from the sales. I bought a movie which was released in 2003 last week because it was 8 euro and I saw the movie in cinema and file shared more than 6 times and I never got bored of it, but the original is something that I can store and show of to my friends what a wonderful collection I have. hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
No crowd-funded project has a CEO making millions.
Viacom does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
The same way they been doing for their entire existence, charging $0.20/month from everyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
Forget my question. Others beside me have asked this question a ton of times and not once have you come up with a satisfactory response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #1 rule of advertising: get noticed.
If they can't make money from that movie, they've overspent and they deserve to fail. Plenty of movies are made for less, and they turn a healthy profit.
You're obsessed with the $100 million figure, but it's only very recently that movies have cost anything like that, and most of those that do have no business costing that much if the industry was more controlled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom's CEO's pay package
Bonuses are given out as cash, and they're not taxed at the usual rates as income. They're covered by capital gains, which is why CEO's prefer them-the tax is much lower than ordinary income tax.
You want to see how much money he really made? Try this chart at the NY Times:
http://projects.nytimes.com/executive_compensation
To be specific-
He got a salary of $2,625,000.000
a bonus of $11,250,000.00
perks of $ 141,000.00
Stock of $41,833,309.00
Options of $28,620,000.00
Nice paycheck, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viacom's CEO's pay package
Bonuses are taxed as income, not capital gains.
http://www.savingadvice.com/forums/taxes/26640-bonuses-taxes.html
http://www.consumerismc ommentary.com/federal-taxes-on-bonus-pay/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are LIARS!! Our first amendment rights have already been taken away, through the wrongful establishment of broadcasting and cableco monopolies into the sole hands of big giant corporations. Mike would probably never get the opportunity to criticize our outrageous IP laws and to discuss all of the substantial harm they cause and to discuss what the founding fathers felt about IP (that it's a privilege, not a right, and that it should only be used to promote the progress and benefit society, not because anyone is rightfully or naturally entitled to these privileges and not to compensate IP holders because they rightfully deserve compensation, that's not their purpose) on national television, yet the government established mainstream media is more than happy to broadcast pro-IP propaganda. Our first amendment rights have already been denied to us in many ways.
Restaurants and other venues can't even host independent performers without receiving legal threats demanding payments under the pretext that someone 'might' infringe and this deters independent performers from independently building their own audience.
The OWS movement (though I do think they are being ambiguous and will probably accomplish little because of this) can't even protest without the government denying them access.
Outside of the Internet, bad laws have already been used to take away our first amendment rights. So don't come here and lie and claim that our first amendment rights aren't being taken away. They are and they already have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintentional?
Oh, and if you want me to feel bad for the "makeup artist without a job" or the "guy who hangs the lights", then maybe you should try to find one to talk about how piracy is affecting them. Good luck. All of those with useful talents (and no, "marketing" or "director of programming" don't count) have as much work as they always have, and have only felt the sting of the economy as much as every other industry in the country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintentional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unintentional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only one way to kill Spongebob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spongebob Will NEVER Die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It more likely seems that the executives have found that they don't have to pay creative people to write new stuff because they can just recycle and reuse old stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cartoon everyone loves has been watched over 1.6 billion times by people who would rather break the law than not watch it and we didn't bother to cash in a dime on that audience, even though simply uploading them to YouTube legally would bring at least millions without any effort at all. Please kill YouTube for not offering us more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long Spongebob
They'd better be careful here. I have 3 kids who watch a lot of Nickelodeon. Keep uttering more crap like this, and I'll delete the channel from the lineup.
Note to media companies: Runing the Internet that my job depends upon will cause me to never buy anything from you again.... EVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The execution of Spongebob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love that they don't understand the concept of promotion, loss leaders, hooks, etc. and yet are running their website based on free tools designed to lure you into purchasing a different product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do I care about these people?
"60 gazillion people watched Jon Stewart... ILLEGALLY!"
Oh... my? Huh, what was that again? Felonious viewers of Jon freakin' Stewart? It looks like a parody that one might see on Jon Stewart...
Yes, we REALLY need to protect the jobs of some of the most useless members of "the 1%" with this garbage. This is going to go over real well with Joe Sixpack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, WHAT?! Do these employees really have their heads up their rear ends they can't see how horribly this will be abused? Do they really think Viacom would not use this new "tool" to crush a new competitor that is starting to take business away from Viacom? Do they not know this will make everybody who builds a business online guilty until proven innocent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to point out......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT interesting
The CREATORS make a show..
They shop it around to all the major corps..(they control it ALL)
Once a corp purchases the rights to show the SHOW..
They market it, to TV channels, and find a Slot and commercials to PAY for it..
Popular shows get better slots, and cost more if you want to show your commercials.
If a show gets REAL popular, it gets power to RAISE the price to the corp..as its making money for the CORP.
It comes down to DISTRIBUTION. and the CORP has that power.
For those that dont know.
I like watch/seeing cartoons, so I wonder the net to LEGAL SITES to watch a few. YOU CANT. most of the major corp sites(cartoon network) require you to be a cable TV customer, and ONLY certain cable companies..
It used to be fun and easy to goto the sites and watch some old/new cartoons..but if you know much about your cable/sat TV...7 corps OWN 99% of the channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another point
With all the Cable/Sat networks. You can only get a saturation of 60-70% of all the people in the USA.
Many are quitting cable/sat.
YOU pay for things you dont want to watch. $50-100 for things you DONT wish to see/hear. The most expensive is the sports channels. about $2-5 per channel.
THIS from corps that WANT YOU TO WATCH COMMERCIALS.
They charge the cable/SAT who charges YOU, to make money on commercials. that they GET PAID FOR..
Ever watch a sports event..count the commercials.
I went to broadcast TV, and get 20 channels, OUT in the boonies. I wonder how many channels you get in Major cities.
I shouldnt need to PAY to watch corps make money on Commercials..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daily Show
I'm sorry Viacom, I don't get it and it sounds like you just "made shit up". TDS is freely available. Comedy Central posts the entire episode a little while after it airs.
What a crock of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Viacom - FAIL
(paraphrasing) "You can't steal a 30 cent pack of gum, or a 30,000 dollar car, but it's acceptable to steal a 30,000,000 dollar movie."
They really shifted into dishonest rhetoric with that one. The gum sells for 30 cents, the car for 30,000, but the movie doesn't sell for 30M. All products have costs associated with them, R&D, manufacturing, etc. Those aren't the selling prices, though. For Viacom to compare selling prices to their creation cost is one big poor-fucking-me smoke screen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Viacom - FAIL
See this? It's a bicycle. Steel frame and rubber wheels. Let's say it cost you 50 bucks to make (just picking a number at random, I have no idea of the costs involved). You want to sell it to me and make a profit. You say $1000. The market says no and your product goes unsold. Eventually, you hit upon the magic number and your product is sold.
See this? It's a bicycle. It's made of adamantium and the wheels are nuclear missile proof. You've sunk the GDP of a small nation into research, development and building it. You charge an amount equal to the U.S. National Debt. As part of the selling point, you say it cost you millions to build, therefore its automatically valuable. The market says no. The market wants a bike that goes from A to B. All these extra features aren't needed. Your bike goes unsold.
See this? It's the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Big name actors are involved. Lots of special effects. You've sunk hundreds of millions into it and somehow feel entitled to getting that money back. However, you haven't counted on the age of the internet. The customers don't value your movie the same way you do. The customer wants to sit down for two hours, watch something and then walk away. Beyond that, the movie has no value to them. At most, they want to cough up a few bucks, because that is all the movie is worth to them. They may not even pay the few bucks, because someone else is offering it for free, with no catch.
But, you say you're special. You MUST recoup all of your costs - to say otherwise is heresy. You MUST overcharge and overvalue your content, far beyond what the market wants. You MUST threaten to cut jobs (that's what it is, blackmail, because its Viacom that has to go the employees and say "you're fired"). You MUST subvert the democratic process.
Now what's this? It's a movie...wait? The budget? It's not $100 million? But...that can't be! It's one of the Ten Commandments, the Eleventh Commandment 'Thou shalt throw money needlessly when making a movie'.
The actors...I don't recognize them. Perhaps they're good. Perhaps they're not. I'll give it a watch. How much? Free? How will you make money?
Oh I see. Merchandise. One to one chats with the production crew. Other scarcities.
So...I guess in the end, the future is that you don't pay for movies at all. You pay for the scarcities and get the movie for free. After all, its market forces at work. The customer wins: they get something scarce, they get something not scarce and their civil liberties aren't harmed. The movie producers win: they've sold something, they've made a movie and they have a reputation for doing some good. They haven't tried to destroy anyone's lives for copying 1's and 0's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i LIKE IT..
NICE NUMBER..with 300million in the USA, and LESS then a 70% saturation to EVERY man/women/child in the USA(about 200 million)it shows MORE problems Outside the USA then inside..
Saturation in other countries, is MUCH less. I will GUESS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPv6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IPv6
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IPv6
It was something closely related to humor, known as a pun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now on Youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
South park is a perfect example of everything Viacom should be doing with the rest of its media. If Viacom would put up a website that streamed every spongebob episode for free, this would effectively eliminate one of the biggest reasons people pirate stuff: cost. As mentioned before, revenue could be collected from ads, making Viacom more money. Also not to mention that episodes could be viewed at will rather than at a predetermined, scheduled time, opening up the show to a wider audience.
Viacom is just one of those companies who had it MADE in the mid 1990s... with a near monopoly on some of the most fondly remembered cartoons and shows of our youths. However, the times have changed. They don't have it made anymore. Viacom could easily reposition themselves back at the top of the game by adapting to a new business model -- not unlike that of Southparkstudios.com --, but instead of going through the trouble to adapt to the changing times, they'd rather use litigation and legislation to cling to the past with a broken and outdated business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beating a dead sponge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]