Yesterday I received an email saying that Channel 4 has requested my video be removed from YouTube. I was trying to spread buzz online about something I liked, but they ordered me not to and deleted my content. It got me thinking about online publicity, content ownership, and word of mouth. I started wondering why on earth Channel 4 would do such a thing, and I ended up feeling, unnecessarily, like I hate Channel 4. Here's what happened.
Two nights ago a snippet on Celebrity Big Brother made me chuckle, so I wanted to share it with my social network. It was a clip of the middle-aged gobby scouser Tina Malone, the one off Shameless, explaining her views on the internet.
So I recorded the clip on my mobile to send to YouTube. Publishing it online to Twitter and FriendFeed had the desired effect... Two priceless snippets from the TV clip:
"The internet, yes it's about information, but mainly, the internet is about PORN!"
"Facebook?? Pick up the fokking phone!!!!!!"
(I actually think someone should stick her on BBC News and get her to comment on tech trends. It would be priceless viewing.)
So when I was told the next day that Channel 4 wanted it removed from YouTube, I wanted to know why.
* Why, when I'm promoting your TV show, would you want my promotion deleted?
* Why would you wind me up so much by telling me via email, using a 'no reply' email address so I can't engage in a dialogue?
* Why would you risk turning a fan into a hater?
Couldn't you just ask me to paste a link to your show?
* Why couldn't you see this as an endorsement, and nowhere near a content rip-off?
Then I thought, playing devil's advocate, maybe Channel 4 is right.
* Maybe they want people only to see Big Brother content that has adverts on it. My clip didn't.
* Maybe they want to control the online content, so that they get lots of hits?
But it just makes no sense. It was just a one minute clip that promotes Big Brother. In fact, when I got the cease and desist email off YouTube and told Twitter, people actually said that my video was the only reason they watched on the following night.
The fact is that a number of organisations employ colleagues and industry peers of mine to inspire precisely this kind of coverage. Create such buzz and advocacy that someone would video, blog and Tweet about you - that's utopia. But Channel 4? They aspire to achieve the exact opposite. Smart move. Kill a few more viewers.
And if you want to see the vid? Sorry. It's been deleted.
Hi Drew,
I feel your pain but also understand this from the broadcaster side (I work for ITV). You are right that 'fandom' is the future of programme publicity (I am passionate about that very theme) and it is essential that fans of content feel appreciated - not castigated.
Once broadcasters and producers thrash out mutually beneficial terms with YouTube and other short form video sharing sites who love to showcase their often fairly expensively produced content, then people like yourself will be able to share away. Hopefully we're not too far from that point but as Richard said above, it's a journey. There are lots of twists and turns to navigate along the way.
Ben (ITV Online)
Posted by: Ben Ayers | January 15, 2009 at 06:59 AM
I've started to wonder if the likes of C4 and the BBC employ people to sit at a computer trawling online video sites simply to find and delete stuff. So quick to action and all-encompassing are the Beeb's cease-and-desist notices, I find the idea quite possible.
Posted by: Robin Brown | January 15, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Wow.
Meanwhile...
Shows, and writers, and performers, and producers are "letting-it-all-go" from the outset,
...and, happily, I link to these like-minded creative communities on my online drama blog here
http://storygas.blogspot.com
I have a funny feeling that time spent with the shows embedded there is time not spent watching the content belonging to legacy broadcasters. (great comment - thanks Richard!)
This is a great post which brought me to your blog -- and shows how poor the perception is of "value of content"
being rated higher than the "value of communities around the content stream".
In a few years time, will we find that rather quaint???
All the best
Neil
Posted by: StoryGas | January 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I think this is a hard one for the TV stations to get as they really should be pushing their content out to as many places as possible and should have been delighted by the fact that you had uploaded it and were basically advertising their product for them for free! They will all eventually get it but it will take time I guess
Posted by: Niall harbison | January 17, 2009 at 09:27 PM
Regardless of C4's lack of vision and failure to "get it" surely you had an arguable case of Fair Dealing? Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Sect 29 & 30 www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250249
Posted by: Eddy Maddix | January 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM