Are Free Bandwidth And Distribution Bad? Ask Susan Boyle

from the oh,-they're-not-getting-paid? dept

Five years ago, if there was a show called Britain's Got Talent (it only showed up two years ago), and it had a sensation like Susan Boyle, it would have had a hard time putting it online. It could have signed up with an expensive hosting service to stream the video, but also would have needed to make a choice about what technology to use (RealMedia? Quicktime?), which would have made it difficult for many people to actually watch it. The bandwidth costs of having people download or stream the video would have been quite high as well. Chances are, they wouldn't have bothered. It just would be way too expensive, with too little a response. Yet, now, thanks to YouTube, they can do it entirely for free. That's amazing. Susan Boyle is an international sensation thanks to YouTube. Without YouTube, she would have been a local UK sensation at best.

But, you have folks at the NY Times who seem to think that it's a bad thing, because the producers of the TV show aren't making any advertising revenue from the clip being on YouTube. No, but they've created a huge singing sensation that is getting attention from millions of people. If they can't figure out how to make money off of that in the long run, they don't deserve to be in business. However, it still amazes me that anyone thinks that because a video is up on YouTube but not making money, it's somehow a bad thing. The producers of the show are getting free technology, a free community of watchers, free bandwidth and free promotions that wouldn't have been possible just a few years ago. And this isn't enough?

Filed Under: free bandwidth, free promotion, online video, susan boyle