Network TV Execs Discover What Pirates Always Knew: Making Stuff Available Online Is Good Marketing

from the wait,-what? dept

Thu, Jan 19th 2012 8:48am — Mike Masnick

Want to understand just how tone deaf and clueless the legacy entertainment industry players are these days? It appears that network TV execs have just discovered the brilliant idea of using the internet to pre-release TV shows in an effort to build up buzz and an audience who will watch the full series. The stunning thing here is that these are the very same companies who go absolutely ballistic if their works get "leaked" early online -- and insist that criminal penalties are needed to stop this kind of action. It's really quite amazing how these execs are coming to the same conclusion that pretty much every internet user came to years ago: just make the damn stuff available. Instead, they're acting like it's some big revelation:

The networks have embraced the idea — originally hatched by cable networks — of introducing initial episodes of their shows through other distribution outlets like YouTube before they have their premiere on their own schedules.

Yes, the same YouTube that Viacom is still trying to sue out of existence. The same YouTube that supporters of PIPA and SOPA still insist is really a den of "piracy" from which Google unfairly profits.

So, here's a simple question: How much are these networks paying YouTube/Google for the use of YouTube's software, bandwidth and audience? Nothing? Damn those TV networks... just wanting all that stuff for free. But, more to the point, if laws like PIPA and SOPA were put in place a few years ago, the networks wouldn't even have a YouTube to do this. This is what's most stunning about all of this. They seem to think that they've come up with something brilliant and new here, when this is all that "pirates" were doing earlier: putting stuff online to make it accessible. When "pirates" do it, it's theft? And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme? How's that work?

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, marketing, networks, online, piracy, streaming, tv

47 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

arcan, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:54am

what if we find out what the pirates are doing.

then do it ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:55am

Ah, the major networks, for whom the present is often mistakenly viewed as "the future."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Machin Shin (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:57am

Once again we get more evidence that it is not really about the money, it is all about control. The media companies don't care about the money, they have shown that time and time again with their actions. What they do care about it their control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:58am

What I'd do
If I were working professionally in the film or music industry, I'd want as many people to see/hear my work as possible with the knowledge that if it's a quality product people enjoy, they will eventually purchase it. Furthermore, I'd add incentives such as a good economically sound price-point, additional content and other goodies to help seal the deal.

THAT'S called being competitive and relevant in today's marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Graham J (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:04am
  
  Re: What I'd do
  Blasphemy! I'm reporting you to the MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re: What I'd do
    :D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re: What I'd do
    Report him to the FBI, he might be a terrorist!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: What I'd do
  "if it's a quality product people enjoy"
  
  This is the problem. They want a serious return on all investments regardless of quality. If you have an awesome trailer for a crappy movie and no one can pirate it, you can have a decent opening weekend before everyone pans it and then Hollywood accounting your way to hidden profit.
  
  Yes, I used Hollywood accounting as a verb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re: What I'd do
    I can't stand it when people verb a word.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
      I luv verbing words!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Eileen (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
        Verbing weirds language.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
      "stand" was exclusively a noun and "standen" was the verb form in old english, then we went and verbed the noun...
      
      Language changes - careful what you condemn ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bengie, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
      Verbs are a subset for words. I think you mean "nouns".
      
      Language is living, constantly evolving. A language doesn't define how people use it, a language is defined by how people use it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
        You never met my college English professors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - eternaleye, 19 Jan 2012 @ 11:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
        Except French.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I'd do
      I honestly cannot believe it took me all day to notice your joke and now I am rather ashamed... I doff my hat to you
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re: What I'd do
    Yes, but it's an intransigent verb.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am

free stuff?
it'll never catch on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am

The real question:
Have the realized the opposite is also true?
That making stuff unavailable online is BAD marketing?

Just 'cause the got the one half doesn't mean they've yet managed to wrap their burdened neurons around the other half...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: The real question:
  "Have the realized the opposite is also true?
  That making stuff unavailable online is BAD marketing?"
  
  Pretty hard for people to support something which they don't even know exists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loki, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:02am

There argument is easy to predict. It's their content, and therefore they should be the one who should be able to monetize it.

The point they don't seem to grasp is that if they'd done this 10, or even 5 years, ago themselves, there wouldn't BE any (or at least as many) "pirates" doing it for them.

Yet again proving it's not a legislation of enforcement issues but a business model issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:02am

Good. Now tell that to the dozens of lives you ruined and all those printers that were sued out of existence for torrenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:03am

"When "pirates" do it, it's theft? And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme? How's that work?"

Same reason that the difference between terrorism and war is state-sponsorship. Same shit, different color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  Legally speaking it is a distinct difference.
  
  One group had legal permission to distribute the content and the other didn't.
  
  Now, the movie studios are humungous hypocrites of course, but the facts and laws are quite clear - and out of date with modern life, but that doesn't mean they don't still apply.
  
  We need to change the copyright laws to allow personal consumption or at least get the owners of the material to not prosecute those who distribute their works.
  
  I'm not taking over under odds on either thing happening :(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:47am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 19th, 2012 @ 9:03am
  Quantum paradox crumple-zones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsl4980 (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:09am

So a TV network exec does it and it's brilliant.

Some guy uploads a pre-release of X-Men and he's in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:11am

How's that work?

When execs decide to put stuff online, they are paid for it.
When pirates do it, they do it for free, putting the salary of execs at risk (because you can't compete with free).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loki, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  I have never met anyone who couldn't live very luxurious lives on $4 million a year (and I do in fact know people who make that kind of bank), much less $84 million.
  
  $80 million could employ 2,000 at $20K (granted not a great living but you can survive) a year for 2 years. CEO's cost Americans jobs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    CEOs cost America jobs
    Amen to that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:15am

Welcome to the future boys, 2001 is shiny and full of promise!
Here, have a mylar jacket, they're for everyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I-Blz, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  +1 *Clapclapclapclapclapclap*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:15am

Unbelievable
You have to read the whole article to really get the feel of how out of touch these people are. They're talking about using the internet for marketing their products like nobody has been doing it for the past ten years. They're really really excited about the potential of the internet. And there's also this thing called YouTube where you can put up videos and other people can see them. Seriously - check it out...

Do these executives all live in caves in the Hills of Columbia? Why would anyone want to hire such blissfully ignorant idiots? Come to think of it, how stupid and out of touch are the people that hired these executives?

F-ing unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 19 Jan 2012 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: Unbelievable
  No, theirs are plush caves in southern California.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:21am

The networks have embraced the idea
Welcome to 1991.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:26am

Ironically this is one reason I completely believe the MPAA about the harmful effects of the Wolverine workcut leak. The leaking of that movie clearly hurt because it enabled people to see how crappy the movie was before it was released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  No really. In fact it appears to have helped the box office.
  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDiUmJfCNquM&refer=home
  a
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChrisB (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  WRONG. Wolverine made $85MM at the box office opening weekend. It fits in the bell curve perfectly: X1 ($54MM), X2 ($85MM), X3 ($103MM), W ($85MM), X4 ($55MM). Wolverine has the lowest lifetime to opening weekend ratio of all those movies, which means people went opening weekend because of buzz and then realized it was crap.
  
  I, for one, would not have seen it in theatres if I hadn't seen the workprint. I didn't see X2 or X3 in theatres because of the reviews. I was curious to see how the final effects turned out on Wolverine.
  
  The damages for leaking that print are actually negative, so they owe that guy money. (Of course, he still might be guilty of actual physical theft, too, which should be punished.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 Jan 2012 @ 1:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I didn't see X2 or X3 in theatres because of the reviews."
    
    Weird. I was going to question you as I thought X2 had very good reviews at the time, but it looks like it really depends on who you talked to. Rotten Tomatoes has 88% fresh, while Metacritic only has a score of 68.
    
    Still, I watched it on DVD (as I was lukewarm on the first film), and have since bought a trilogy DVD boxset. Had I watched a pirated copy, no sales would have been lost, but I might have gone to see it on the big screen if I'd seen it at that time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:43am

YouTube (and Google) should treat these releases as the advertising they are and charge accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umb231 (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:58am

so... should we flag all their stuff on youtube as inappropriate as they'd never use a company they're suing like that and thus this must be some dirty impersonating freetard pirate?
or... should we contact their layers to get them to take it down for us? Might as well get the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing to work for us at least this one time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  We should issue take-down notices on their behalf.
  
  Its on You Tube and its "clearly copyrighted" material.
  
  You 'know' there is no legitimate use for You Tube!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 19 Jan 2012 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd recommend against that. You can only get away with fraudulent activities like that if you've got money and power. If you tried it yourself you'd probably learn that there are some rarely-seen penalties for such activities.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At least this would put a big damper on that stupid case against YouTube.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 11:13am

Enlightened
This is no surprise to me when TV series productions have been making use of the Internet for a decade. They are one group of people who have always kept in close contact with their fans and benefit from their feedback.

When a new series starts in many ways their fanbase is a partnership with both sides wanting success. What most counts are the viewer ratings and advertising revenue when that is the simple aspect of what shows live and die.

So to release pre-airs of the first one, two or even three episodes is a critical part of business through drumming up a sizeable fanbase even before the first episode is broadcast.

You may also care to notice that these TV productions are a Hollywood media area who do not punish their fans for simply being fans and wanting to "enjoy" via file-sharing. Again nothing counts more than ratings and advertising revenue and true fans are often only happy to catch official broadcasts as well.

So no fault to them for being enlightened but of course their network bosses and copyright protection agencies would not approve which is why it remains an unspoken truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EF, 19 Jan 2012 @ 11:17am

Gotcha
Love it, Mike. You're the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:37pm

There are not enough O's in the world to make up the sloo..oow that can be used to describe these morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Luke Witnesser, 20 Jan 2012 @ 4:34am

Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8

The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.

Can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]