$1-billion of uploads (Saturated Market)

« Why you should avoid these common mistakes | Main | Can you talk the talk? Part 1 »

$1-billion of uploads

Social Media Viacom vs. YouTube. A $1B lawsuit is a tough thing to contend with. That's a staggeringly high number. You can't count to one billion. If you counted at a rate of 1 number per second, and you never slept, never ate, never stopped counting, it would take you almost 32 years. That's a lot of money to be potentially paid out because a bunch of people couldn't wait to watch that episode of the daily show when it re-ran at noon. I certainly applaud the companies who have taken a kinder approach (such as uploading their own videos, which gives them more control over how much of an episode you can see for free).

I'm amused that many people are so quick to criticize the companies for pulling clips, or suing, but then they further criticize companies for using YouTube to their own advantage. You can't have your cake and eat it too; businesses have just as much right and access to post content as anyone else. And let's face it, this really shouldn't be a surprise. It was only a matter of time before someone in some boardroom said, "hey, maybe instead of suing these people, let's sell to them!" If you introduce a new media, people are going to put ads on it.

Something crazy occurred to me, however. What do you suppose would happen if a company whose copyrighted programs were being showed on YouTube went ahead and started co-opting original content from public users? Well, besides the PR nightmare. I think this would be an interesting thought experiment for people who routinely denounce companies that insist on removing their content from the 'Tube.

Now, this isn't a political blog, and I'm not here to take sides. I do believe that instead of fighting the YouTube phenomenon, companies should learn to work with it to both create value for viewers and help themselves in the process. On the other hand, I don't entirely agree with the prevalence of downloaded material. I admit I was a downloader up until very recently, but I no longer agree with the practice.

Here's one more thing on downloading, just some food for thought. I usually hear an argument that bands don't make much money from cd sales, they make it from touring, so you're not hurting the band by downloading their album. But that's not entirely true. You see, record labels look at sales of albums to determine how they're doing. And if a band's album isn't selling, there's a good chance their contract will not be renewed, or maybe they will even be dropped from the label. It can be a blow to the band's ego, as well. If your album doesn't sell, you don't know if it's downloads or if it just sucks.

I eagerly await the day that business and public can find a mutually beneficial middle ground. If you want to know what that might look like, I strongly suggest you take a stroll over here.

Until next time,