tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930103.post2301811873514069051..comments2024-03-28T09:33:26.444+00:00Comments on No Rock And Roll Fun: YouTube vs the PRS: PRS summons a mobSimon Hayes Budgenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07084524317888577404noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930103.post-14472203134260944522009-03-25T16:17:00.000+00:002009-03-25T16:17:00.000+00:00James, I believe Monty Python's recent action in s...James, I believe Monty Python's recent action in sticking up their own quality versions of their clips on Youtube, with Amazon links, backs up your argument and proves it can work fine as a promo tool. Their DVD sales on Amazon shot up by 23,000%. The problem with the PRS is that they are focussed so heavily on broadcast royalties it's not enough for them to just promote physical sales, regardless of the realities of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930103.post-75753669899716740082009-03-25T15:44:00.000+00:002009-03-25T15:44:00.000+00:00It all seems very one-sided, this debate. The sugg...It all seems very one-sided, this debate. The suggestion seems to be that Google are the only side benefitting from hosting videos, and the artists get nothing in return.<BR/><BR/>I can't speak for anyone else, but I've found Youtube has got me buying more music. I'll see a video (or hear a song then hunt the video down), watch it a couple of times, find some other tracks by the same artist, realise that they're brilliant and decide I need the album in my life. Often, it's been a song late at night on a music channel which, if I didn't hunt down there and then, I'd forget about as I dozed off and never see again. Thanks to Youtube, the song's been able to stay in my conscience until I've had a chance to hand over proper money for the proper album. <BR/><BR/>Sure, you could say artists' websites offer a similar service. But those sites are never as straightforward as Youtube. By the time you've found the right site, figured out their achingly hip navigation, worked out which page has the videos on, waited for it to load and sat through endless 'Buffering' countdowns, you've forgotten why you were there in the first place. By offering one easy-to-use place for any artist to have their video hosted for free, I would have thought it was Youtube that was doing them a favour, not the other way round.<BR/><BR/>As DK says; Why do they call those things 'promotional videos', anyway?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930103.post-90998986207489355742009-03-25T15:18:00.000+00:002009-03-25T15:18:00.000+00:00The quotes (often from people I would expect to ha...The quotes (often from people I would expect to have more sense like Tom Robinson) really are extraordinary in their wrongheadedness and make me quite angry. Poly Styrene says "3 billion is a whole lot of profit I think it only fair that the song writers and performers get a fair share." Again with the Google profits=Youtube profits conflation.<BR/><BR/>And this from somebody called Martin: "As a songwriter I think it's out of order that Google wants to take our chance of having a window off the Internet." Because it's Google's responsibility to provide marketing for your work on a website they own Martin, yes.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: "I had a video that had about 25,000 views in total and when I got my PRS cheque through, I think I made two or three pounds off that maximum. In terms of income, PRS is one of the only things that's profitable for me. So it's quite ludicrous that Google wants to lowering still the amount they pay out for videos . How can something that's played 25,000 times just make pennies?". Like Waterman, none of these guys appear to understand the simple concept of something being streamed to only one person at a time, so wrapped up are they in the old model of TV/radio distribution to millions at a time. Gaah! I'm a songwriter, and I understand it. What makes them so dense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1930103.post-80622458851637072022009-03-25T13:52:00.000+00:002009-03-25T13:52:00.000+00:00Pardon me for being dense, but these are *promotio...Pardon me for being dense, but these are *promotional* videos right? So, adverts? So why do the companies that make them expect to be paid every time they're shown? Surely it should be the other way around - after all, Cadbury's have to pay through the nose for all those adverts in Corrie.dkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00878503231680776005noreply@blogger.com