EMI Gets State Farm To Sponsor Embedding Ok Go Video -- But Should You Need A Sponsor To Embed?

from the ok-stop dept

We were just writing -- yet again -- about EMI's short-sighted decision to block all embedding of Ok Go's videos (even ones that the band produced entirely on their own). This is despite the fact that it was the widespread embedding of the famed treadmill video that helped Ok Go become as well known as it has -- earning EMI a lot of money. Now comes the news of a "resolution" to the issue, as EMI will allow an Ok Go video to be embedded thanks to an as-yet-unexplained "sponsorship" by State Farm. While this shows, in some way, how different business models can step in and help pay for content, it worries me that EMI now seems to think a video needs to be directly sponsored to allow for embedding. Does EMI truly not understand that embedding is what helped Ok Go become so well known? There's no reason why they couldn't have allowed the regular embedding to remain and still have done a sponsor deal on top of it.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 4:26pm

    Wow, that's not stupid at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 8:11pm

      Re:

      "Wow, that's not stupid at all."

      You are perfectly correct ... After spending $10,000 USD on Lawyers fees, $5,000 on payroll, and $2,500 on airfare and hotels, $10,000 on prostitutes and cocaine, that by far exceeds the $5,400 dollars they made so far on the youTube downloads and the $500 dollars they are going to make on the sponsorship. (sarc)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 4:30pm

    If you can get someone or a company to pay you for a good that has zero cost then why wouldn't you?

    There is a new sucker evreyday. Today its State Farm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      scarr (profile), Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 4:40pm

      Re:

      Nobody objects to that. The notion that you have to get paid to let people advertise for you is scary. Worse yet, not everyone can get an article in the NY Times to create bad PR and force their label to do something about it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 8:39pm

        Re: Re:

        The notion that you should give away what someone is willing to pay for is scary.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 10:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The notion that you should give away what someone is willing to pay for is scary.


          If giving it away helps you make more elsewhere, is it really that scary? Or is it just smart business strategy?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 1:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They got State Farm to pay and they will still benefit from the increased exposure related to embedding. That is a better situation for EMI. Unfriendly? Anti-Consumer? Perhaps, but still better for EMI than just giving it away.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 9:11am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You know that jar of free candy at the store? The one with candy that they give away? Someone, somewhere, is willing to pay for candy. Scary, huh?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 1:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The folks tht made the candy did not give it away. Someone else bought the candy and then gave it away.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Great comeback!

              Someone didn't give it away, but then someone did give it away!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 2:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Point is that at some point the candy was not free. There was a cost to make the candy, candy does not come from thin air. Yes, candy can be used as a promotional item but the folks that are making the candy are not giving it away. Other folks may purchase it and give it away but that does not mean that folks who make candy should start giving it away.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 8:40am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So, if they pay a music video producer/director/filmmaker to make a video and then gives it away for free, then it is all good, but if they do it themselves on the cheap, then it's not OK?

                  Great logic there.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 24th, 2010 @ 8:42am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh, yeah, also according to your logic, candy makers shouldn't give away free samples.

                  It only works if you use candy to promote a shop, but do not give away candy to promote the product!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nick Taylor, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 4:39pm

    Memetic Inhibitors

    It's extremely stupid - it's completely missing the fact that they (the band and the company) are in the business of making money off the back of memes.

    Placing an inhibitor on the propagation of the meme is massively counter-productive.

    Record companies used to shell out hundreds of thousands in payola (illegally) to radio stations - now there are armies of fans willing to take up this function for free... and EMI is trying to stop them.

    Really, this company does not deserve to be in business. The culture would be better served if it broke up into a series of indies run by less out of touch people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 5:14pm

      Re: Memetic Inhibitors

      EMI is already on its way out.. You probably know about its debt problems. It looks like it'll pass to Citigroup within the year (iirc), and who knows what will happen to it next.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    teknosapien (profile), Feb 22nd, 2010 @ 9:10pm

    one word

    Tape!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 5:49am

    Let me guess... since State Farm is a North America-only company, the embedded video will only serve around 400 million potential customers instead of the full 6 billion. It's hard to have a truly viral video when 5 continents worth of people are completely prevented from viewing it, thus killing much of its potential to act as advertising for the band.

    Alternatively, if it is available internationally, there's a lot of money State Farm are paying to advertise their products to people who can't possibly use them...

    Maybe at some point these idiots will learn how the internet works. It's a start, I suppose, but no less ridiculous than not allowing embedding at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Stephen, Feb 23rd, 2010 @ 12:35pm

    video on nick

    I happened to see the video on Nickelodeon this morning; the channel plays videos between episodes of "Full House," which my 8yo daughter loves (I swear it's not me). Her review: the song and video are terrible. I had to agree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This