<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;sponsorship&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Promotional Space Food</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10540211888/dailydirt-promotional-space-food.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10540211888/dailydirt-promotional-space-food.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Red Bull made a huge advertising event out of Felix Baumgartner's record-breaking free-fall from the edge of space. But it's not the only food/drink maker to sponsor a space-related promotion. Maybe it's a bit disconcerting that food companies have enough dough in their advertising budgets to fund crazy stunts, or maybe it's awesome that advertising/marketing budgets are being used to fund incredibly cool projects.... Either way, here are a few other examples of sponsored space foods.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1345139.stm" href="http://bbc.in/S5tqLc">Pizza Hut delivered the first pizza to the International Space Station in 2001, which Russian cosmonaut Yuri Usachov ate as a $1 million promotional stunt.</a> Salami instead of pepperoni was used as a topping, and extra salt and spices were added to adjust for the deadened taste buds of a long-term space inhabitant. [<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1345139.stm">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature3/gallery3.html" href="http://bit.ly/URtiMq">Commemorative M&#038;Ms celebrated SpaceShipOne's successful sub-orbital flight and its Ansari X Prize win.</a> M&#038;Ms were also used on a test flight to demonstrate weightlessness to spectators watching a remote video stream. [<a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature3/gallery3.html">url</a>]</li>
 
<li> <a title="http://www.mars.com/global/press-center/press-list/news-releases.aspx?SiteId=94&#038;Id=3041" href="http://bit.ly/10dXfx0">M&#038;Ms have been taken aboard numerous NASA missions for about 30 years.</a> However, NASA has generally been coy about calling the space-worthy candies M&#038;Ms. [<a href="http://www.mars.com/global/press-center/press-list/news-releases.aspx?SiteId=94&#038;Id=3041">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0708/The-9-weirdest-things-ever-flown-on-the-Space-Shuttle/Cans-of-Coca-Cola-Pepsi" href="http://bit.ly/W7QiHl">Specially-designed cans of Coke and Pepsi have been on a space shuttle mission during the Cola Wars.</a> The beverages weren't that refreshing for astronauts due to a lack of refrigeration and messiness. [<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0708/The-9-weirdest-things-ever-flown-on-the-Space-Shuttle/Cans-of-Coca-Cola-Pepsi">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10540211888/dailydirt-promotional-space-food.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10540211888/dailydirt-promotional-space-food.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101116/10540211888/dailydirt-promotional-space-food.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101116/10540211888</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:24:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Even The Sex At The Olympics Is Sponsored</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05195419960/olympic-sex-sponsorship-athletes-get-trouble-using-non-sponsor-condoms.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05195419960/olympic-sex-sponsorship-athletes-get-trouble-using-non-sponsor-condoms.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've had plenty of stories about the insane lengths the Olympics goes to in order to block out any appearance of a non-sponsor brand, including <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/1248442014.shtml">taping over</a> the brands of non-sponsors on bathroom fixtures and urinals.  And, apparently, the Olympics obsession with deleting all non-sponsorship brands <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/you-cant-hand-out-unauthorized-condoms-in-the-olympic-village/260817/" target="_blank">extends almost to the point of contact when athletes decide to get down and dirty with each other</a>.
<br /><br />
Every couple years, when the Olympics roll around, there are stories <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/20/what-goes-on-behind-closed-doors-after-the-events-are-over.html" target="_blank">like this one</a>, about the volume of sexual activity in the Olympic Village among the athletes.  And, if we go by condom count, the volume keeps on growing:
<blockquote><i>
At the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, the Australian organizing committee distributed 45,000 free condoms in the village. Eight years later in Beijing, 70,000 condoms&#8212;labeled with the phrase &#8216;Faster, Higher, Stronger&#8217;&#8212;were exhausted and 20,000 more were ordered. This year in London, the Olympic organizing committee is providing 150,000, using special dispensers which contain a message promoting sexual health. Averaged among 10,490 athletes, that&#8217;s enough condoms for every athlete to have sex 15 times over the Olympics&#8217; three weeks
</i></blockquote>
And, of course, the Olympics found a sponsor to pay up for the privilege of being where the rubber meets the... well, you know.  Durex is the official condom of the games.  But... uh oh, call in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml">brand police</a>!  BMX cyclist Caroline Buchanan <a href="https://twitter.com/CBuchanan68/status/231726715817299968" target="_blank">tweeted a photo</a> of free condoms available in the Olympic Village which (*gasp*!) <i>were not made by Durex</i>!
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/aQZ4f"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/aQZ4f.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
And, indeed, the response from the Olympics was swift, as they <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/07/london-2012-condoms-olympic-village?CMP=twt_gu" target="_blank">began an investigation</a> into this illicit behavior, because just think of all the problems if these athletes had sex with a <i>non-sponsored condom</i>!  That cannot be allowed at all.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05195419960/olympic-sex-sponsorship-athletes-get-trouble-using-non-sponsor-condoms.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05195419960/olympic-sex-sponsorship-athletes-get-trouble-using-non-sponsor-condoms.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120808/05195419960/olympic-sex-sponsorship-athletes-get-trouble-using-non-sponsor-condoms.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-f**k-without-the-official-olympic-rubber</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120808/05195419960</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about how the Olympics are so focused on hiding any non-sponsor brand that they had officials in Beijing during the last Olympics <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/1248442014.shtml">tape over bathroom fixtures</a> from non-sponsoring companies.  And it was clear that this same sort of activity was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml">set to continue</a> this time around in London, including a specific law against <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/08145216413/london-2012-olympics-go-gold-extreme-ambush-marketing-law-event-guilty-until-proven-innocent-no-streaking-allowed.shtml">"ambush marketing."</a>
<br /><br />
You may have heard the reports in London about the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33747_162-57473130/olympic-security-shortfall-called-absolute-chaos/" target="_blank">terrible security for the London Olympics</a> that has left things in "absolute chaos," due to a failure to hire enough security personnel.  In fact, there's talk of soldiers having to be called in to help.  Given all that, it's interesting to find out that the Olympics <i>do</i> have <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-flooded-with-brand-police-to-protect-sponsors-7945436.html" target="_blank">a fully-staffed "brand police" force</a>, which is heading around the city to carefully block any non-sponsor brands, and try to track down and kill off any kind of unpaid-for marketing.
<blockquote><i>
Almost 300 enforcement officers will be seen across the country checking firms to ensure they are not staging "ambush marketing" or illegally associating themselves with the Games at the expense of official sponsors such as Adidas, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and BP....
<br /><br />
Wearing purple caps and tops, the experts in trading and advertising working for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) are heading the biggest brand protection operation staged in the UK. Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to &pound;20,000.
</i></blockquote>
So, if a terrorist attack happens to hit London over the next few weeks, at least we'll know that it wasn't sponsored by some non-paying brand.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120716/11465719713/olympics-cant-hire-enough-actual-security-fully-staffed-with-brand-police.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that'll-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120716/11465719713</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 12:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Don't You Dare Show Olympic Spirit In The UK</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02524019096/dont-you-dare-show-olympic-spirit-uk.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02524019096/dont-you-dare-show-olympic-spirit-uk.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've spent plenty of time over the years highlighting the ridiculousness surrounding <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml">the Olympics</a> and their over-aggressive enforcement of IP laws (and even getting host nations to pass special trademark laws that only apply to the Olympics in some cases).  But it's really reaching positively ludicrous excesses in the UK.  First up, a story of a flower shop <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151093/Florist-told-sued-Coca-Cola-unless-takes-Olympic-rings-window-display.html" target="_blank">being threatened</a> for making a version of the Olympic logo out of tissue paper and hanging it in the shop window.  You see, that kind of Olympic pride is only allowed if you've paid for the permission.
<br /><br />
That story led us to an even crazier one.  Apparently an 81-year old woman tried to sell a &pound;1 doll at a church sale... but had it shut down because she'd dared to clothe the doll in a home made knit sweater that had a mini-Olympic logo on it.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/g28SM"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/g28SM.png" width=250 /></a>
</center>
<br />
It appears that they've turned this 81-year-old into someone who has realized the absurdity of over aggressive intellectual property protection:
<blockquote><i>
The 81-year-old grandmother of six from King&#8217;s Lynn said the last thing she wanted to do was cause a crisis but attacked the rules as 'absolutely ridiculous.
<br /><br />
'I thought that the hoops symbol was universal and I think it is disgusting that they can make rules about such little things, she said. 
</i></blockquote>
It seems that the Olympics would prefer that no one actually show any sort of pride or support for the Olympics unless it's an official sponsor who paid for the privilege.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02524019096/dont-you-dare-show-olympic-spirit-uk.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02524019096/dont-you-dare-show-olympic-spirit-uk.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120529/02524019096/dont-you-dare-show-olympic-spirit-uk.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>from-pistil-to-pulpit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120529/02524019096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 11:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Olympics Can't Handle An Official Parody Twitter Account, So Twitter Takes It Down</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/03442719059/olympics-cant-handle-official-parody-twitter-account-so-twitter-takes-it-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/03442719059/olympics-cant-handle-official-parody-twitter-account-so-twitter-takes-it-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed a number of times how ridiculously over-aggressive the Olympics can be when it comes to anything close to an IP issue -- even to the point where it gets host cities to agree to pass exceptional IP laws that only apply to issues that the Olympics chooses.  The Olympics are <i>especially</i> concerned with any non-sponsor brand <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml">even being seen</a>.  That means that non-sponsor brands, even if they're the brand of a toilet, will get "taped over."  So you can guess at just how insanely over aggressive the Olympics can be to anyone who comes near its own marks.  
<br /><br />
And that results in situations like the one where the London Olympics complained about a parody Twitter account, billed as the "official protesters of the London 2012 Olympic Games."  This is <i>obviously</i> a joke.  It's a parody on the fact that the Olympics seems to find an "official" sponsor of everything, so why not mock it using parody, which is widely seen as protected speech.  But, not here.  Apparently after the Games complained to Twitter, Twitter <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/23/twitter-london-2012-olympic-logo?CMP=twt_gu" target="_blank">suspended the entire account</a> and said it needs to no longer rely on trademarks, like the Olympics' logo.
<br /><br />
Except, that defeats the whole purpose.  How can you parody something when you're not even allowed to show what it is that you're parodying?  Twitter is good on a bunch of issues, but on this one, it looks like it may have rushed ahead and shut down an account too quickly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/03442719059/olympics-cant-handle-official-parody-twitter-account-so-twitter-takes-it-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/03442719059/olympics-cant-handle-official-parody-twitter-account-so-twitter-takes-it-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/03442719059/olympics-cant-handle-official-parody-twitter-account-so-twitter-takes-it-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-official-department-of-the-2012-london-olympics</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120524/03442719059</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>London 2012 Olympics Win Gold Medal For Cluelessness By Banning Video And Photo Uploads To Social Media During Games</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>As Techdirt has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/08145216413/london-2012-olympics-go-gold-extreme-ambush-marketing-law-event-guilty-until-proven-innocent-no-streaking-allowed.shtml">reported</a>, the London 2012 Olympics bring with them a range of "special" measures guaranteed to make London a place for lovers of freedom to avoid this summer.  But it seems that the organizers wish to ensure that <a href=
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/13/olympics-2012-branding-police-sponsors">anyone attending will also have a rather miserable time</a>:

<i><blockquote>Fans in the crowd won't be allowed to upload snippets of the day's action to YouTube -- or even, potentially, to post their snaps from inside the Olympic Village on Facebook. And a crack team of branding "police", the Games organisers Locog have acknowledged, will be checking every bathroom in every Olympic venue -- with the power to remove or tape over manufacturers' logos even on soap dispensers, wash basins and toilets.</blockquote></i>

The same thing happened four years ago in Beijing as well, when <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080818/1248442014.shtml">non-sponsor brands</a> were taped over in bathrooms so they didn't get "a free ride."  That's because the real focus of the Olympic games is not anything the athletes might be doing, but keeping sponsors and business partners happy.

<i><blockquote>With just a little more than three months to go until the opening of the London 2012 Games, attention is increasingly turning to what many legal experts consider to be the most stringent restrictions ever put in place to protect sponsors' brands and broadcasting rights, affecting every athlete, Olympics ticket holder and business in the UK.</blockquote></i>

That's desperately sad.  What is supposedly the greatest sporting event in the world could have been turned into the ultimate demonstration of how social media let spectators become participants through the real-time sharing of experiences.
</p><p>
Instead, the London 2012 organizing committee's obsession with policing brands and controlling what audiences do means that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/18/lord-coe-london-olympics-motto">the recently-unveiled motto for this summer's games</a> -- 'Inspire a generation' -- could hardly have been more inappropriate. 
</p><p>
The young people that are meant to be inspired by the London games will find themselves forbidden to use properly the very means that would have let them do that: the social networks where they share their most important moments.  As a result, London 2012 looks likely to be the most petty-minded and joyless Olympics so far.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120419/07562718563/london-2012-olympics-win-gold-medal-cluelessness-banning-video-photo-uploads-to-social-media-during-games.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-protect-those-brands</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120419/07562718563</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:46:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>Crony Capitalism: Big Companies Sponsor Fancy Dinner For TPP Negotiators</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/17043217875/crony-capitalism-big-companies-sponsor-fancy-dinner-tpp-negotiators.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/17043217875/crony-capitalism-big-companies-sponsor-fancy-dinner-tpp-negotiators.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about the ridiculous Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations, which are being held with incredible levels of secrecy, and which appear to include a wishlist of every copyright reform change that Hollywood wants, with little to no public scrutiny.  The USTR, who's in charge of negotiating the agreement for the US claims that there's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120218/01452217800/ustr-claims-tpp-has-unprecedented-transparency-it-wont-reveal-details-unless-youre-big-industry-lobbyist.shtml">unprecedented</a> transparency -- and that may be true if you're talking about the unprecedented <i>lack</i> of transparency in the negotiations.  And where it gets really ridiculous is that while the public has no access to the information, the big company lobbyists have pretty much full access.  We already spoke about the recent meetings in Hollywood, where TPP negotiators got to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23161417605/hollywood-gets-to-party-with-tpp-negotiators-public-interest-groups-get-thrown-out-hotel.shtml">party</a> with the Hollywood elite -- but civil society/public interest groups who tried to hold an open meeting in the hotel (and reserved space and everything) were kicked out of the hotel.
<br /><br />
The latest is the news that tonight (as we post this), a bunch of big companies who employ some of the key lobbyists supporting the extreme nature of TPP... are <a href="http://www.wita.org/en/cev/1146" target="_blank">hosting a fancy, expensive dinner in Washington DC</a>.  The dinner is sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce, Philip Morris, Chevron, PhRMA, Microsoft, Pfizer, Amgen, Dow Chemical, among others... and the ambassadors from the TPP countries will all be in attendance (though we've heard, but don't have confirmation, that Australia just pulled out after realizing how bad this looked).
<br /><br />
The next round of TPP negotiations take place next week in Australia, so it's nice that the corporate interests pushing an extreme version of the agreement get to wine and dine all of the key negotiators at an expensive and closed off dinner in DC, huh?  Public interest groups?  They just found out about the dinner today and (as you might expect) really aren't welcome.
<br /><br />
What's amazing to me is how incredibly tone deaf the USTR and the US government is to how this appears.  The USTR is negotiating a massive agreement that will change IP laws in pretty significant ways which clearly could favor some of these large companies.  And just days before they're set to negotiate... they're letting some of the biggest special interests supporting an extreme vision for TPP buy them a fancy dinner?  Even if you can believe that they're not actually influenced by this, do they not realize just how bad this <i>looks</i>?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/17043217875/crony-capitalism-big-companies-sponsor-fancy-dinner-tpp-negotiators.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/17043217875/crony-capitalism-big-companies-sponsor-fancy-dinner-tpp-negotiators.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120224/17043217875/crony-capitalism-big-companies-sponsor-fancy-dinner-tpp-negotiators.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-cool</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/17043217875</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:42:03 PST</pubDate>
<title>Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101219/21424212329/ok-go-explains-there-are-lots-ways-to-make-money-if-you-can-get-fans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101219/21424212329/ok-go-explains-there-are-lots-ways-to-make-money-if-you-can-get-fans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the last few years, we've covered many of the moves by the band <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=+ok+go+&#038;eid=&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories"><i>Ok Go</i></a> -- to build up a fanbase often with the help of amazingly viral videos, ditch their major record label (EMI), and explore new business model opportunities.  In the last few days, two different members of Ok Go explained a bit more of the band's thinking in two separate places, and both are worth reading.  First up, we have Tim Nordwind, who <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/12/interview-with-ok-go-on-file-sharing-the-major-label-system-balancing-creativity-with-marketing.html" target="_blank">did an interview with Hypebot</a>, where he explained the band's general view on file sharing:
<blockquote><i>
Obviously we'd love for anyone who has our music to buy a copy. But again, we're realistic enough to know that most music can be found online for free. <b>And trying to block people's access to it isn't good for bands or music. If music is going to be free, then musicians will simply have to find alternative methods to make a living in the music business</b>. People are spending money on music, but it's on the technology to play it. They spend hundreds of dollars on Ipods, but then fill it with 80 gigs of free music. <b>That's ok, but it's just a different world now, and bands must learn to adjust</b>.
</i></blockquote>
Elsewhere in the interview, he talks about the importance of making fans happy and how the band realizes that there are lots of different ways to make money, rather than just selling music directly:
<blockquote><i>
Our videos have opened up many more opportunities for us to make the things we want to make, and to chase our best and wildest ideas. Yes, we need to figure out how to make a living in a world where people don't buy music anymore. But really, we've been doing that for the last ten years. Things like licensing, touring, merch, and also now making videos through corporate sponsorship have all allowed us to keep the lights on and continue making music.
</i></blockquote>
Separately, last Friday, Damian Kulash wrote a nice writeup in the Wall Street Journal all about <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017592259031536.html" target="_blank">how bands can, should and will make money going forward</a>.  In many ways the piece reminds me a bit of my <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">future of music business models</a> post from earlier this year -- and Kulash even uses many of the same examples in his article (Corey Smith, Amanda Palmer, Josh Freese, etc.).  It's a really worthwhile read as well.  He starts by pointing out that for a little over half a century, the record labels had the world convinced that the "music" industry really was just the "recorded music" industry:
<blockquote><i>
For a decade, analysts have been hyperventilating about the demise of the music industry. But music isn't going away. We're just moving out of the brief period--a flash in history's pan--when an artist could expect to make a living selling records alone. Music is as old as humanity itself, and just as difficult to define. It's an ephemeral, temporal and subjective experience.
<br /><br />
For several decades, though, from about World War II until sometime in the last 10 years, the recording industry managed to successfully and profitably pin it down to a stable, if circular, definition: Music was recordings of music. Records not only made it possible for musicians to connect with listeners anywhere, at any time, but offered a discrete package for commoditization. It was the perfect bottling of lightning: A powerful experience could be packaged in plastic and then bought and sold like any other commercial product.
</i></blockquote>
But, he notes, that time is now gone, thanks in large part to the internet.  But that doesn't mean the <i>music</i> business is in trouble.  Just the business of selling recorded music.  But there's <i>lots</i> of things musicians can sell.  He highlights <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091208/0152167242.shtml">Corey Smith</a> and Smith's ability to make millions by giving away his music for free, and then touring.  But he also points out that touring isn't for everyone.  He covers how corporate licensing has become a bigger and bigger opportunity for bands that are getting popular.  While he doesn't highlight the specific economics of it, what he's really talking about is that if your band is big, you can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml">sell your fan's attention</a> -- which is something Ok Go has done successfully by getting corporate sponsorship of their videos.  As he notes, the sponsors provide more money than the record labels with many fewer strings:
<blockquote><i>
These days, money coming from a record label often comes with more embedded creative restrictions than the marketing dollars of other industries. A record label typically measures success in number of records sold. Outside sponsors, by contrast, tend to take a broader view of success. The measuring stick could be mentions in the press, traffic to a website, email addresses collected or views of online videos. Artists have meaningful, direct, and emotional access to our fans, and at a time when capturing the public's attention is increasingly difficult for the army of competing marketers, that access is a big asset.
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
Now when we need funding for a large project, we look for a sponsor. A couple weeks ago, my band held an eight-mile musical street parade through Los Angeles, courtesy of Range Rover. They brought no cars, signage or branding; they just asked that we credit them in the documentation of it. A few weeks earlier, we released a music video made in partnership with Samsung, and in February, one was underwritten by State Farm.
<br /><br />
We had complete creative control in the productions. At the end of each clip we thanked the company involved, and genuinely, because we truly are thankful. We got the money we needed to make what we want, our fans enjoyed our videos for free, and our corporate Medicis got what their marketing departments were after: millions of eyes and goodwill from our fans. While most bands struggle to wrestle modest video budgets from labels that see videos as loss leaders, ours wind up making us a profit.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, that only works if you have a big enough fanbase, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that less well known bands can use to make money as well.  He talks about an up-and-coming band in LA that doesn't even have a manager that was able make money:
<blockquote><i>
The unsigned and unmanaged Los Angeles band Killola toured last summer and offered deluxe USB packages that included full albums, live recordings and access to two future private online concerts for $40 per piece. Killola grossed $18,000 and wound up in the black for their tour. Mr. Donnelly says, "I can't imagine they'll be ordering their yacht anytime soon, but traditionally bands at that point in their careers aren't even breaking even on tour."
</i></blockquote>
The point, Kulash, notes, is that there's a lot of things a band can sell, focusing on "selling themselves."  And, the thing he doesn't mention is that, when you're focusing on selling the overall experience that is "you" as a musician or a band, it's something <i>that can't be freely copied</i>.  People can copy the music all they want, but they can't copy you.  "You" are a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">scarce good</a> that can't be "pirated."  That's exactly what more and more musicians are figuring out these days, and it's helping to make many more artists profitable.  And, no, it doesn't mean that any artist can make money.  But it certainly looks like any artist that understands this can do a hell of a lot better than they would have otherwise, if they just relied on the old way of making money in the music business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101219/21424212329/ok-go-explains-there-are-lots-ways-to-make-money-if-you-can-get-fans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101219/21424212329/ok-go-explains-there-are-lots-ways-to-make-money-if-you-can-get-fans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101219/21424212329/ok-go-explains-there-are-lots-ways-to-make-money-if-you-can-get-fans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>everything's-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101219/21424212329</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:08:29 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Open Source Company Explores CwF+RtB In Getting Sponsorship For Whitepaper</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100819/09502210687.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100819/09502210687.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://growingventuresolutions.com/">Ezra Gildesgame</a> writes in to let us know that their open source development firm was inspired by the whole <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090201/1408273588.shtml">CwF+RtB concept</a> to try to find a different way to <a href="http://growingventuresolutions.com/blog/drupal-security-report-connect-fans-reason-sponsor" target="_blank">fund a whitepaper on Drupal Security</a>.  The "tweak" they made was "connect with fans + reason to sponsor," and they were able to find sponsors to fund the whitepaper, while keeping the content free and building up greater connections.  Of course, some will note that finding a "sponsor" for a whitepaper is hardly a new idea -- and that's absolutely true.  Connecting with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy doesn't necessarily mean doing something "new" or totally out of the ordinary.  It's about looking at what's available, and how it can be used more efficiently.  In this case, they realized that they had built up a great community, and their attention (a scarce resource) would be of tremendous interest to some sponsors, which made for an easy sell to the sponsors.  Either way, it's nice to see folks inspired to do things based on what we talk about.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100819/09502210687.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100819/09502210687.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100819/09502210687.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>attention</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100819/09502210687</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:16:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>EMI Gets State Farm To Sponsor Embedding Ok Go Video -- But Should You Need A Sponsor To Embed?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1216268255.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1216268255.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just writing -- yet again -- about EMI's short-sighted decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2352328244.shtml">block all embedding</a> 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 <a href="http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-the-beat-goes-on/posts/ok-go-s-next-video-embeddable-by-the-whole-wide-world" target="_blank">will allow an Ok Go video to be embedded thanks to an as-yet-unexplained "sponsorship" by State Farm</a>.  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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1216268255.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1216268255.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1216268255.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ok-stop</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100222/1216268255</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:17:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft Pulls Out Of Family Guy Sponsorship... Gets Half The Benefit For None Of The Money?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1635226681.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1635226681.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the past couple weeks a few folks had sent in various versions of the plan by Microsoft to sponsor an entire episode of the show <i>Family Guy</i> that would involve somehow <a href="http://www.crn.com/software/220600897;jsessionid=FYEUVRNRBIETDQE1GHPSKHWATMY32JVN" target="_blank">weaving Microsoft Windows 7 into the story</a>.  While some found the whole concept to be <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/17/nsfw-why-seth-macfarlanes-microsoft-guy-is-the-end-of-television-and-the-world/" target="_blank">"the end of the world,"</a> that was pure nonsense.  It was a perfect example of how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml">advertising is content, and content is advertising</a>.  If the fear was that the episode would suck, well, then it wouldn't act as a very good commercial for Microsoft, then, would it?  If the fear was that the episode would be <i>good</i>, then what was the problem?
<br /><br />
Either way... it appears that the whole thing is now dead.  Reports are coming out that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10383502-56.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">Microsoft has bailed out on the project</a>, claiming that <a href="http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/10/microsoft-watches-family-guy-pulls-out-of-special.html" target="_blank">"the content was not a fit with the Windows brand."</a>  My first reaction to this was that whoever approved the deal in the first place must not watch <i>Family Guy</i> very much, because the whole show is based on "not being a fit" with pretty much anything.
<br /><br />
But the more I thought about it, the more I wonder if Microsoft just pulled a fast one on Fox and everyone else.  It's now received a ton of attention for the whole project... and doesn't have to pay Fox any money.  Perhaps Microsoft just out-Foxed Fox.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1635226681.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1635226681.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1635226681.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>did-they-just-pull-one-over-on-Seth-Macfarlane?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/1635226681</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:57:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>New Models To Compensate Journalists And Writers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We're seeing plenty of stories of old school journalists pining for the "good old days" (that never really existed), and that's exactly what the Wall Street Journal recently published with a ridiculously vapid opinion piece by a columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger,  Paul Mulshine, who <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033777465236429.html" target="_new">dismisses the entire world of bloggers and internet reporters</a> because some people he hears on the TV and radio can't pronounce the word "pundit" properly.  Beyond the sheer irony of dismissing <i>internet</i> reporting as being untrustworthy based on a few people on <i>TV and radio</i> who pronounce a word incorrectly, the guy also dismisses all new business models for compensating journalists, by saying:
<blockquote><i>
The old model for compensating journalists is as obsolete as the telegraph. If anyone out there in the blogosphere can tell me what the new model is, I will pronounce him the first genius I've ever encountered on the Internet.
</i></blockquote>
Perhaps Mr. Mulshine should stop listening to talk radio and actually get online -- where an increasing number of folks have actually figured out how to make journalism pay.  We recently pointed out that, in the sports world, salaries for top journalists were going up, as national sites like ESPN looked to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071226/020326.shtml">hire the best of the best</a>.
<br /><br />
Or perhaps he should talk to Mark Cuban -- though, I'm guessing Mulshine's old school views on journalism would have a serious problem with Cuban's <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2008/12/24/why-pro-sports-need-newspapers/">recent suggestion for how to save newspaper sports coverage</a>.  Cuban points out that sports leagues <i>need</i> local beat writers to cover their sports, as they do a much better job than the national sites like ESPN and Yahoo Sports.  Yet, he knows that newspapers are struggling -- so his suggestion is that the sports leagues should <i>fund the journalists</i>, while leaving the editorial control entirely up to the papers, aside from a guarantee of a certain amount of coverage in the local paper.
<br /><br />
This is, obviously, a controversial suggestion (even with editorial control separated from the dollars), especially for those who believe in complete editorial separation of church and state.  But, as Cuban notes, considering the state of the newspaper business these days, perhaps it's time to revisit that church.  He also leaves out the fact that this isn't quite as far fetched as it sounds.  Media companies have a pretty long history of also owning sports teams, seeing synergies between the media properties and the teams, though they've often failed to recognize those synergies (and these days, many media companies are trying to sell off the teams).  The Tribune Company is trying to sell its stake in the Chicago Cubs.  The NY Times has put out feelers to sell off its stake in the Red Sox (more of a fit for the NYT-owned Boston Globe).  Cablevision, in NY, owns the Knicks.  The concept has worked in reverse at times as well -- with much of the NY Yankees' recent fortunes coming from starting up its own media company, called YES (not to mention that before the current ownership of the Yankees, the team was owned by CBS).
<br /><br />
Either way, the suggestion is actually worth exploring in some format.  In truth, this is often what has happened anyway, with local companies buying ads in the paper and expecting coverage of the local sports teams, even when there wasn't a direct need for it.  Making it more explicit, while <i>also</i> making the editorial controls clear, doesn't seem so unreasonable.  In fact, it seems like it might make a lot <i>more</i> sense than the old way of doing things in that it gets everything out in the open.  As for Mr. Mulshine, he also seems to be harkening back to good old days that didn't really ever exist.  Nearly 100 years ago, there was apparently an <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/nikkiusher/200812/1604/" target="_new">eerily similar debate</a> over newspaper business models, with people fretting and worrying about how the traditional newspaper business models of ad sales and subscriptions simply couldn't support enough journalism.  While not many of the other proposed models took hold, perhaps it's time to take another shot.
<br /><br />
And, in fact, this is part of what we believe we're able to do here at <a href="http://www.floor64.com/">Floor64</a> with our <a href="http://www.insightcommunity.com/">Insight Community</a> offering.  Companies have been tapping into the Insight Community to generate interesting and relevant content, while ceding all editorial control to us.  For example, American Express has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0445202427.shtml">using Insight Community content</a> on its own award-winning <a href="http://blogs.openforum.com/">Open Forum</a> blog discussing trends and issues related to small businesses.  American Express does not have editorial control over most of the content, and the content is pretty clearly not specific to or slanted by American Express's sponsorship of the endeavor.  And, as some people are noting, that blog is full of such wonderful content, that plenty of other mainstream publications, including the NY Times and the Financial Times, are noticing that such a publication really is <a href="http://chasnote.com/2008/12/03/amex-open-forum-blog-its-an-smb-publication-now/" target="_new">no different</a> than a small business trade publication now.
<br /><br />
Except, rather than American Express having to buy ads in random small business trade publications, it gets to sponsor the whole thing -- while ceding much of the editorial control to others.  Obviously, we're a bit biased here, because we believe this is a tremendously viable model, but if you read the content on that site -- or, say, the content on the <a href="http://whitepaper.digitalnomads.com/">Digital Nomads</a> site, sponsored by Dell, that runs under a similar model, you can judge the quality of the content yourself -- and recognize that for all the whining and complaining about the old models going away, there are tremendous new opportunities opening themselves up, as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-possible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081230/0352103250</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:37:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Record Label Sells Sponsorship Of P2P Downloads</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/120625.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/120625.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>Nathan Wilhoft</b> was the first of several people to submit the story about <a href='http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082007/business/sprint_takes_lead_as_1st_sponsor_of_file_share_song_business_peter_lauria.htm'>Sprint "sponsoring" the P2P download of 16 million copies</a> of a song by the artist Plies. Sprint is paying a "substantial six-figure" sum to embed its logo in the song (apparently as the cover art), so that when users play the downloaded track on their computer or MP3 player, it will be displayed. It's an interesting tactic, both in terms of an advertising strategy, but also on the part of the artist and record label. While the label is still focused on selling the music, this is another small step in investigating some alternative business models. What's slightly odd, though, is that MediaDefender is in on the deal. It sounds like it's the middleman here, hooking up the record label with advertisers, then also uploading the tracks onto the P2P networks. MediaDefender is best known for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/001113/1642203.shtml">uploading spoof tracks</a> to P2P networks on behalf of labels to thwart file-sharers -- so perhaps they do know a thing or two about uploading. But that company's involvement could also be taken as another sign that things are starting to change, and that the music industry realizes <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070628/111645.shtml">it needs to evolve</a> to survive. But before getting too carried away, plenty of questions remain. Perhaps the biggest has to do with that 16 million downloads figure -- after all, once a track's onto P2P networks, how will the label control how many times its downloaded? Will users be allowed to actually upload and share the track on their own, with no fear of retribution from the label?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/120625.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/120625.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/120625.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>change?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070709/120625</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>