(This is a less-drunken follow up to “NBC does stupid things.”)
Alright, the question is, do networks ultimately lose money when their intellectual property (IP) is shown willy-nilly on YouTube? Or, rather, how should networks use their IP to make big ol’ dumptrucks of money? (Let’s assume, for this argument, that the IP in question is appealing IP.)
There are two ways for a network to profit with a show:
1) Sell the show directly, in theaters, on DVDs, via on-demand cable, or online (e.g., iTunes Store).
2) Sell advertising around the show, making access free or, in the case of cable, a flat-fee.
The main thing about media is that it’s worthless without exposure. If people don’t know that they want it, then they won’t watch it, listen to it, or buy it. All things equal, more exposure means more money. And that is the goal: to make money! Protecting the IP isn’t an end in itself, merely a possible means.
Assuming that #2 is the main money-making method, then clips on YouTube are basically ads for the show, like movie trailers or the network’s own ads. (All of which, incidentally, draw from the “best” parts.) The idea is not to sell people on individual episodes, but on the series as a whole, so that they’ll watch the next episode on TV. For the network, a show’s only good if it gets people to watch commercials; thus, contraband clips are vindicated if just one more person tunes in.
But wouldn’t someone watching the good parts online skip the broadcast show, killing ratings and bankrupting the network? In my view, that’s not really a problem. The key difference is the level of inconvenience: the show is “free” in both instances, and it’s actually higher quality when broadcast, so convenience is the determining factor. People who would only watch the show if it’s convenient wouldn’t have watched the broadcast regardless, and so the network wouldn’t have profited either way. Meanwhile, people who discover the show via YouTube are potentially new watchers who wouldn’t be otherwise.
Things change when direct sales, particularly on-demand sales, enter the picture. I still believe that free clips on YouTube are ultimately beneficial, but on-demand sales cloud the case. The reason is that the network is selling all the episodes, not just the latest one. Suddenly, unlike the earlier scenario, a show’s only good if people literally buy it. All things being the same, obviously people are going to take the free alternative.
Of course, all things aren’t the same. Again, inconvenience is the issue: if it’s easier to pay for the show than to scrounge it up on the ‘net, there’s a good chance people will chose the former. That’s why the iTunes Store has been so incredibly successful: it makes paying to watch painless and inexpensive. Assuming your favorite show’s available, it’s much easier to buy the latest episode (or a specific episode) on iTunes than to piece it together on YouTube or try your luck with Bittorrent. I bought a subscription to Lost on iTunes—despite my Bittorrent know-how—primarily because it was more convenient to just buy it.
And again, YouTube’s main benefit is free promotion: I decided to buy a $19.99 subscription to The Colbert Report on iTunes after watching a bunch of choice clips on YouTube over the span of a few weeks. If Comedy Central had conclusively clamped down on YouTube I wouldn’t have given them a single cent—I don’t have cable, and iTunes’ random 30-second previews weren’t at all convincing.
Basically, a show needs to be shown in order to make money. Furthermore, Tivos, the iTunes Store, and alternative distractions are diminishing traditional TV’s profit potential. Letting the IP leak a little can mean more sales with reasonable risk, both directly and through increased exposure.
Recent Comments