How much was the couple that generated the twelve million hits compensated? If they did that sort thing on TV they would have gotten at least one to 5 per cent of the gross. Not just Sony, Chris Brown and YouTube should benefit. ALL contributors should benefit if the music industry is serious about compensating the artist. In this case the artists also were the couple in the wedding.
I mean, in a networked environment this is completely true, we all know it, so why is it such a fucking problem? I'm sure if the reasoning shifted toward compensating ALL involved in the creation or rather, let's face it, this wedding video is a perfect example of resuscitating dormant content, no one was playing "Forever" by the artist who made it, no one was talking about it, no one but these Minnesotans maybe, who are unwittingly creating the Crazy of today or is it Angel? Either way, the wedding video added revenue that would not have been there otherwise, and this happened because of YouTube and its millions and millions of unique visitors.
So why can't a Creative Commons of Revenue be created to outline the scenarios in which commerical compensation can be derived? Why is this such a murky issue to even broach these days? Why is it always have to be horseless carriage (ctrl f the term when you get their if your impatient) with regard to innovation, every single fucking time? Everything's always gotta be locked down, the control is in the companies who produce the content, and that control is defined by giving up the content to the public, who find the use for it, I more or less heard that on a moderately recent podcast discussing Google Wave on TwiT, at approximately 33 minutes and 2 seconds, this is uttered.
Now, this leads me to the title of this post, the new innovations in doing the monetization seem to be in the form, of this company, they have also done this at MTV. The technology they are incorporating is not like...the newest thing ever thought, on the surface its simply overlays on video, though very innovatively, not surprising given their name. Granted there are limitations, but their are also many possibilities. The overlay product placements in otherwise disposable content, such as more or less anything on this network will be what makes these shows more interesting in syndication, by inadvertent irony as a form of hieroglyphic commentary on a larger scale, while of course generating revenue and having aforementioned irony, more than likely unnoticed by fans. (blogger's note: when i typed in the shows name and went to the site for the link, unsurprisingly my point was verified by the exact design of the site, a coincidence that these days, happens at least twice every other day, prolly for everyone, ne wayz). Make no mistake though, a lot of times, on other types of content advertising overlays will be annoying, no matter how evolved they become, they will seem like the head/body swapping of early mash up culture, when so and so's head was put on so and so's body. In other words, like the colourization of black and white movies, it's a process that will work sometimes and not other times.
My final non conclusion about overlays and the needed evolution of advertising is simple, it needs to be engaging, Innovid is the leader so far...but even they will need to address the engagement issue as well, next post will address logistics of getting what you want when you want it, to your actual fucking address, and if you live in an apartment, don't forget to include your buzz code cause the drivers don't have phones supplied by the company.