This has been bugging me for awhile, and I've just got to get it out in the open: If I want to put a cool movie trailer, a funny Comedy Central clip, or a news clip on my web site, why do I have to go to YouTube, where some kid has uploaded it in violation of the owner's copyright, and where as likely as not it'll be yanked a few days later, in order to do it? I'm talking about stuff that's already on the web--Comedy Central puts the best clips from its shows on its own web site, as does NBC for Saturday Night Live, and Apple.com has all the best movie trailers. But while I can stick a pirated clip from YouTube on my web site with two clicks, there's usually no simple, straightforward way to do the same thing from a legitimate site.Some companies have shown signs of getting a clue. Google Video now hosts many movie trailers and some of them can be embeddeded in blogs and MySpace pages, some movies and TV shows--in particular those targeted at the youth market--now have a presence on YouTube, and a few big record labels have struck music video deals with YouTube, but the selection remains pretty bare. What troubles me is that there's no discernible disadvantage for companies to put their own TV clips, movie trailers, and music videos online in a YouTube-like way. There can't be a technical barrier--the tiny dev team at Netscape.com put together their impressive embeddable video-sharing feature in a matter of weeks--nor a commercial one--movie trailers are advertisements, as are TV clips in their own way, and there's no downside to allowing them to reach more eyeballs. What's more, if they hosted their own embeddable videos, they could decide what plays before and after them instead of some kid on YouTube deciding for them, and though they'd be crazy to put anything longer than a two seconds before the video, after the video is a great time to advertise, as the Revver folks have discovered.
So, movie studios, TV networks, ad agencies, and record companies, here's my plea: Let me advertise your stuff on my web site. Hire some smart folks to put together a Flash player like YouTube's for your site, give me HTML snippets to copy and paste into my blog, and let my visitors see your stuff, and your ads, without the extra clicks and without waiting for your lame Windows Media Player to load. Don't make me go to YouTube for what you, in the interest of your shareholders, should be giving me yourselves.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-17-2006 @ 10:36AM
Jason said...
Yes! Well said!
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 11:19AM
Bill said...
And ya know, most of that stuff isn't available for viewing for a price so just what are they loosing? In fact, just the opposite. Sometimes this stuff becomes viral and causes people to want to watch the show. The "Lazy Sunday" SNL skit ("say what?! Chronicles of NARNIA!"), for example. Just what did NBC/SNL have to lose by making it available for free non-commercial, not-for-profit use?
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 11:38AM
Eric Acevedo said...
I see no reason why the major networks couldn't use Google video, YouTube, or Yahoo! video as the tool to post their TV clips and movie trailers. The tool is already there, why should they need to create their own? Besides, these sites are where people are already going. The TV networks should form alliances with these large video sites and get their own "channels" to post their "official" movies. If they did this, then you would be able to legally post their clips on your site with no problem.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 12:20PM
Angela K said...
Hear, hear!!
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 12:33PM
Yatrik said...
Amen to that!
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 12:40PM
Jordan Running said...
Terry: There's nothing stopping those companies from advertising before and after the embedded content (like I said, just look at Revver), and in doing so those ads would reach an order of magnitude more eyeballs. Every day these companies are losing profits because bloggers and MySpace kids have to get their clips from YouTube instead of the horse's mouth.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 12:54PM
Bob Jones said...
Isn't NBBC a simmilar idea?
I do think they should allow it to be shared, obviously if they are advertising on their site - they would need to put something like that in the clip.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 12:58PM
Imathon said...
Large movie studios, TV networks, ad agencies, and record companies haven't come into terms yet with the mp3 and p2p phenomena.
However uploading their content to YouTube would be an obviosly tangible benefit to them as long as it is a vehicle of their publicity and a brand!
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 1:16PM
Ben Richards said...
How does google's video service compare to that of youtube?
What will be the furure of the two now that google owns youtube?
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 1:39PM
Peter said...
Jordan - You might not like it, but it is their content and they can do what they want with it. I agree with Terry that they probably prefer to have you come to their site and view it there.
Your altruistic idea also presumes that all uses will be positive. I certainly wouldn't want someone pulling a video from my site so they could make fun of it and blog about how much it sucks. They have the right to comment on it, but I don't need to provide them easy access to the content to do so.
I would also argue with the idea that "kids have to get their clips", as if sharing video clips is some sort of god-given right. Maybe I just don't understand the culture but no one is going to die if they don't get to see a funny video.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 1:55PM
Jordan Running said...
Peter: I never said anything about altruism. I'm talking about pure profit. The longer they wait to get on this bandwagon, the more money they lose.
I also never said the kids have any right to do what they're doing. I absolutely agree that these companies have every right to do whatever they want with their content. But there's no scenario in which the kids "don't get to see a funny video." Either the companies put their stuff online and let them embed it in their MySpace pages on the companies' terms, or the kids will put it on YouTube et al themselves on their own terms. And those "this video sucks" pages you mentioned will happen in both scenarios. The difference is that in one scenario the companies can assert their copyright, stick an ad at the end, and increase their profits (not to mention control and monitor distribution), and in the other scenario they can't. This is a no-brainer for the companies.
They have every right to do what they want with their content, but that doesn't make what they're doing (and not doing) any less stupid.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 2:36PM
MrSpencer said...
You mentioned record companies so I will add: http://www.sonybmg.com/musicbox/
Where you can get a hot Justin Timberlake video for your blog ;) among others...
Other media companies will follow this direction in the near future. Its just painfully slow for a no brainer.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 5:24PM
Terry said...
Um, maybe the networks want you to visit their web site, so they can promote their products and ads?
I know it's annoying, but they paid to create the content, so they want to profit as much as possible.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 5:31PM
Russell Heimlich said...
DV Guru agrees -> http://www.dvguru.com/2006/10/17/embedded-video-should-be-easy/
Sounds like a Firefox extension would be good for this. There is also the Media HTML Generator -> http://cit.ucsf.edu/embedmedia/step1.php
Reply