Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

After Monty Python Goes YouTube, Big Jump In DVD Sales

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the causation-may-have-something-to-do-with-correlation dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 281

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently it with the release of all of Monty Python's material on YouTube, their sales have blown through the roof on Amazon.com. It is too bad there isn't any proper news article about this, but I think it bodes well for those who champion free content. More importantly, it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths." Not every performer (or group of performers) has the decades-strong appeal of Monty Python, but this is a great thing to see. The linked article claims that the sales increase in the Python DVDs is 23,000 percent; there are probably some other ways to figure the numbers, but a big increase is easy to see.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Flawed theory (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595167)

it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.

No, for every Monty Python movie there's two dozen films the quality of "Glitter", "The Hottie and the Nottie" and "The Postman".

There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube. They're much better off with a thumbnail view of the clamshell case.

Re:Flawed theory (1)

jerep (794296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595191)

it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.

They should try removing their head from their asses first.

But yeah I agree with the article, it's far from the first time free stuff on the internet boosts sales on the shelves.

Re:Flawed theory (5, Funny)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595229)

it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.

They should try removing their head from their asses first.

I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.

Re:Flawed theory (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595341)

I'm trying to picture an MPAAer with foot in mouth and head in ass. It looks very painful.

It bears a strikingly similar appearance to the Minister of Silly Walks... or maybe a Mason.

Re:Flawed theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595355)

They're pining for the fjords!

I need to report child pr0n!!! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595389)

The every sperm is sacred video has naked children on it! Quick, someone censor it before another pedophile rapes someone due to the sex crazed rage they will be put in from wanking to this smut!

Re:Flawed theory (2, Funny)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595861)

4-dimensional inside-out Klein bottle Ouroboros ;-)

Re:Flawed theory (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595369)

A large percentage of media content (movies, tv, music) I purchase these days is the DIRECT RESULT of having come across the art for free online. I'd say that upwards of 50% of the media I buy is stuff I would have NEVER come across unless I'd found it on for ex youtube. I mean literally that if I didn't find the video while browsing youtube, I'd never even know your movie/tv show/song existed or interested me.

One example was the tv show The 4400. I had not seen a single episode of the show until I stumbled across a clip on youtube. Since then, I have purchased all 4 seasons on dvd. There's no question about it, those dvd sales would almost certainly never have happened without that youtube clip.

Any media product's success hinges on exposure. You should want as many people as possible to see your art. Giving it away for free is the ONLY way you will maximize potential paid sales. Get with the program.

Re:Flawed theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595733)

true. if you liked 4400 you should look at threshold

Watch movie once, MP wants endless views (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595745)

Monty Python, for one, doesn't make any sense. A movie, you watch once, and you say "I've seen that movie, too" and that's the end of it (unless there's a lot of titties). With MP, you watch it, watch it, watch it (still doesn't make sense so get real stoned), then it starts to be pretty damn funny. The Three Stooges are the same way. Or so it is as I remember back when getting stoned was like logging into slashdot (which you see, I am not doing -- haunts and so on).

Re:Flawed theory (2, Interesting)

prestomation (583502) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596079)

I agree completely. Places like the pirate bay allow me to "try" out music so I don't have to buy sound-unheard. If I find an album I like, I'll often buy it and stick the unopened CD in my collection; I'm supporting the artist and keeping a mint version of the original packaging

Re:Flawed theory (5, Insightful)

gravos (912628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595199)

It's quite logical, when you think about it ... the YouTube videos, while there are many, are just a taster. Even if many clips from an episode or a TV show are uploaded, you can't get the whole thing in its original form. It's true that the sketch show nature of Monty Python helps, but I think we can apply this thinking to a lot more stuff. Once you've had a taste and you like it, you inevitably want more.

Re:Flawed theory (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595551)

Once you've had a taste and you like it, you inevitably want more.

Not everything stamped with "Monty Python" is good. Especially not Black Sheep Brewery's Monty Python's Holy Grail Ail [blacksheepbrewery.com] . I'm a conaisseur of dark, bitter, full-flavored ale but Holy Grail Ail tastes as if they brewed it in a sceptic tank usingh water from Lake Erie and the Hudson river mixed with denatonium benzoate [wikipedia.org] , sprinkled with fish and duck shit. Don't buy it, it's not the liquid embodiment of Monty.

Re:Flawed theory (3, Funny)

bitrex (859228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596027)

You got something against denatonium benzoate?

Re:Flawed theory (2, Funny)

unTrainedUser (1428867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596101)

Actually, he said it tastes as if it uses water from the Hudson river. Anything after that can only be an improvement, denatonium benzoate and the sceptic tank included included.

Re:Flawed theory (5, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596149)

What's a "sceptic tank"? An armored military vehicle which insists that absolute knowledge of the truth is impossible?

Re:Flawed theory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595209)

it forces the MPAA's feet into their mouths.

No it doesn't!

for every Monty Python movie there's two dozen films the quality of "Glitter", "The Hottie and the Nottie" and "The Postman".

No there aren't!

There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube.

It would too!

They're much better off with a thumbnail view of the clamshell case.

They would most certainly not!

Re:Flawed theory (5, Funny)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595263)

Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction.

Re:Flawed theory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595271)

No it's not.

Re:Flawed theory (3, Insightful)

eam (192101) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595443)

Yes it is.

Re:Flawed theory (4, Funny)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595593)

You came here for an argument? I'm afraid this is abuse. Now go fuck yourself.

Re:Flawed theory (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595953)

Stupid git...

Re:Flawed theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595665)

*ring ring ring!*

Times up.

Re:Flawed theory (1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595677)

I told you once...

Re:Flawed theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595535)

funny in-joke. Even funnier it was initially modded "informative."

Re:Flawed theory (5, Insightful)

eof (33820) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595213)

Unfortunately, parent is correct. This isn't the first contradictory point to the *AA's claim that pirating affects their sales. They've ignored all of the other arguments, and I'm sure they'll ignore this one as well.

Re:Flawed theory (2, Interesting)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595255)

Their argument will probably be something along the lines of how it wasn't piracy that made the DVD sales go up, it was them shoving clips on youtube. Kind of like a computer user who remembers steps to open programs, but doesn't just figure out the basic underlying concept of the design.

Re:Flawed theory (2, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595307)

Don't underestimate the idiocy driving the MPAA's decisions. Free advertising is free advertising, but it doesn't mean they'll connect the dots. ...And now for something completely different: a man with three buttocks!

Re:Flawed theory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595497)

What was wrong with "The Postman?"

Did you watch "Waterworld" first?

Re:Flawed theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595619)

Yes. Waterworld was bad. The Postman was even worse. And now he's back with a movie now out on video doing it again, depicting an entire nation's election result riding solely on his shoulders. Unfortunately it doesn't look like he's going to get over himself anytime soon, and the self-worship movies will probably keep coming.

Re:Flawed theory (4, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595527)

"Mum? There's a dead record label on the landing!"
"Oh yeah? Whats his diocese?"
"I dunno, looked rather Warner Music Group to me..."

Re:Flawed theory (2, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596091)

No no, he's not dead, he's restin'! Remarkable record label, the Warner Music Group, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Re:Flawed theory (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595803)

There's no way it would improve their average sales to have those actual films previewable on YouTube.

I think that says more about their average quality than it does about YouTube.

It also would very likely force the MPAA's feet into their mouths, if they had to essentially make the argument that "Most of our movies suck so much that if people actually saw them first, no one would want to buy them. We make most of our money by selling people crap they don't really want."

Re:Flawed theory (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595825)

Not a flawed theory, but an incomplete one. It is absolutely true that content has to be of very good quality before people will be motivated to buy it after they have seen it. So to reflect this facet of the theory, they should limit such releases to the public to only the very best stuff, leaving the crap out of the program.

Re:Flawed theory (1)

santiagodraco (1254708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596207)

There's no way? So the fact that the example given proves you wrong doesn't bother you?

I think you should have made your case differently. Something like this:

For this to be true the content of the material has to be of good enough quality for the viewer to want to "keep it for future reviewing" and we know not all material falls into this category. So, some content will be worthy of purchase, some will not, and that will dictate the increase or not of shelf sales.

However for content of good quality the availability of "preview quality copies" on youtube may hold significant value in marketing the piece to the masses.

And now.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595189)

for something completely different.

Yes, yes, (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595201)

But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?

Re:Yes, yes, (1)

nwf (25607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595237)

You'd have to be the king to know for sure...

Re:Yes, yes, (4, Funny)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595377)

Unfortunately, everyone here has shit all over him

(if you don't get it, watch the movie. It's not a troll)

Re:Yes, yes, (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595775)

Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!

Re:Yes, yes, (1, Offtopic)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595929)

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

...I can't wait to get downmodded...

Re:Yes, yes, (2, Interesting)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595987)

Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Bloody peasant!

Re:Yes, yes, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595997)

Bloody peasant.

Re:Yes, yes, (1)

AsmordeanX (615669) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595277)

Laden or unladen?

Re:Yes, yes, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595445)

Does it matter? Nobody expects the youtube bump!

Re:Yes, yes, (1)

Zalbik (308903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595939)

But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?

I don't know that!!!! AAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Re:Yes, yes, (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595993)

But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?

African DVDs are non-migratory.

good...maybe we can all learn something (1, Redundant)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595211)

to bad warner music wont see the effect on their album sales like this because youtube busy using the content ID system to remove their content.

Now can we please live in a world where companies think of these websites as place to "preview" and not "pirate".

Not to be a naysayer.... (4, Informative)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595243)

... but couldn't at least some of that increase be from the fact that they had a big honkin' 21-disc box set released not so long ago? Sure it was just repackaging material already out on DVD (it's just the same discs from the old 16 disc box set along with the 5 single-disc "Personal Best" compilations thrown in), but it did get them a "new" release that people might stumble upon in reviews or on a new release chart.

Re:Not to be a naysayer.... (5, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595409)

And you think a single product release increased the sales of a well established and household brand by 23,000%?

Re:Not to be a naysayer.... (2, Funny)

htnmmo (1454573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595555)

The real reason is that these Monty Python videos from almost 40 years ago have the same production quality as the shaky cam crap people are putting up on youtube, except with better writing.

These people don't know what they're buying. They think they're buying some thumb typing monkey's home videos from last week.

Re:Not to be a naysayer.... (2, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595857)

Hmmm... now I think I understand why my brand new software would sell #DIV/0 times better this year than last year...

Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595321)

Now Terry Gilliam can even afford to finance his own movies. ...oh wait, what was I thinking?

Degraded Quality (5, Interesting)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595333)

As an IP rights holder and someone who's trying to figure out how to survive and thrive in the world of the web (see my book at http://www.elevatorpitchessentials.com/ [elevatorpi...ntials.com] ), I do find this story interesting and perhaps heartening. However, isn't the advantage in this case due to the fact that YouTube shows clips of either degraded quality or at least reduced size? If you want to view the skits in their original quality and size, and on a TV, you have to buy the DVDs. I'm not sure how this applies to all rights holders other than maybe music holders. I do find that Limewire plays much the same role for me when it comes to music. When it comes to the songs I like, I tend to find the typical compression artifacting annoying and end up buying the MP3 somewhere. How does this apply to authors and others whose work is a bit harder to degrade without blowing the secret?

Re:Degraded Quality (5, Funny)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595549)

Compared to the quality of most Monty Python releases (I'm looking at you Life of Brian in Particular) YouTube is a step up in compression, sound and packaging.

Re:Degraded Quality (2, Informative)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595671)

I know you're joking, but, Life of Brian is on Blu-Ray and it looks really good at 1080p. It works as a joke for them that the TV show and their films were made cheaply and with low quality film stock, but realistically they don't look *that* much worse than most other films from the period.

That said, I've seen Life of Brian and Holy Grail in theaters projected on film, and you don't gain much from the experience (in fact it's almost worse, because literally everyone in the theater says every line out loud along with the film...) The great thing about the less than great quality is that not much is lost in the transition from big-screen to TV.

Re:Degraded Quality (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596219)

Actually I wasn't joking. The VHS and DVD of Life of Brian is like watching a 20 year old VHS transfer underwater.

Re:Degraded Quality (2, Interesting)

Saysys (976276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596037)

blow the secret! I buy many more books after watching someone spend half an hour explaining the intricacies of the book, ala book TV on c-span, than I buy books off the shelf I've never heard of.

If you had just posted a link to a video of you giving a speech to 10-30 people for 15-30 min I'd be much more inclined to buy the book. Better yet I'd be much more likely to show a video than a text-filled link to other business school professors and make adoption of your book in our classes much easier.

As it is I don't know you from harry and your offer of a evaluation copy of the book isn't something that's differentiating yourself in the market place.

Re:Degraded Quality (1)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596045)

I don't buy things to get better quality. I buy them to have them, guaranteed, a year or five from now. To make sure I have it when I have that one song stuck in my head, or want to see movie X from year abcd, or need to know all about assembler programming on palm pilots. Its one of the things that ticks me off most about DRM- why should I tolerate the risk of having my media collection wiped when I could just rip a CD?

Re:Degraded Quality (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596227)

Out of interest, why does your book need to be sold as a printed copy? Can you not sell a PDF for say $5, instant download?

The YouTube model can work (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595343)

"Not every performer (or group of performers) has the decades-strong appeal of Monty Python, but this is a great thing to see."

The way Monty Python became popular was by putting their comedy on the air where millions of people could watch them for free(On TV). It's exactly the same business model as YouTube and to imply that dumping material on YouTube for the world to watch for free won't work today is just naive.

Re:The YouTube model can work (4, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595681)

Not quite accurate. When you put things on TV, you get paid. And you have to be very good to get something on TV. When you put things on YouTube, you aren't getting paid and you're throwing yourself into the mix with every idiot who thinks they're entertaining. Now, it may be easier for people to get discovered on YouTube than it used to be...or it might be harder, simply because of the mass. But the true problem here is monetizing it. It's great for guys like Monty Python, who are already famous and already have merchandise in production and have millions of fans. But it's not in any way a replacement for TV. Not until YouTube starts putting in ads or something and paying the content producers.

Re:The YouTube model can work (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595829)

It's great for guys like Monty Python, who are already famous and already have merchandise in production and have millions of fans.

I think the ponit is that if something like that was released today, and gained millions of fans on YouTube, that they would also be able to sell a few DVDs. Which is what Monty Python just did. It's not as if they were selling Dead Parrot Plushies -- it was just DVDs.

Not until YouTube starts putting in ads or something and paying the content producers.

Which they are, to some of them.

Re:The YouTube model can work (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595913)

I think the ponit is that if something like that was released today, and gained millions of fans on YouTube, that they would also be able to sell a few DVDs. Which is what Monty Python just did. It's not as if they were selling Dead Parrot Plushies -- it was just DVDs.

Well, they could also perhaps monetize it on their own site - great thing about the internet, damn near anyone could set up their own simple store. Or hell, burn their own DVDs and sell them on eBay. But still, the point I'm trying to make is that YouTube is no replacement to TV. You don't get paid (or at least not near as much), you don't get a contract, and you don't get the benefit of getting viewers simply because there's only so many channels people can watch. I mean, let's face it, if you're on TV at 9 at night, you're going to have a pretty large amount of viewers. Doesn't matter what your show is. Once you're on TV, you're already famous. There's no real comparison with sites like YouTube. Sure, you can say anyone that makes it on the top whatever list is famous...but how long does that usually last? A week? Maybe a month?

I think YouTube is a great thing, but it's in no way a replacement for what TV does. It's maybe good for getting people discovered and getting on TV (though I'm not sure if that's ever happened yet - has it?) It's also good for things like this - reminding people of their old favorites or helping things be rediscovered. But if Monty Python wasn't already famous, they probably wouldn't have made near as much money off this. If they hadn't already been on TV, there would have been no DVDs to buy in the first place. Popularity on YouTube is short-lived. It can't (in its current form) replace TV...though it can certainly aid it.

Re:The YouTube model can work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596029)

And you have to be very good to get something on TV.

LOL! You don't watch much TV, do you? Sturgeon's Law applies.

Re:The YouTube model can work (1)

bigsteve@dstc (140392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596069)

They wouldn't have been paid "star" salaries for the original BBC TV shows, and the movies weren't very profitable for them personally. Certainly, it is clear from the linked article that they thought that they had been ripped off ... and that is a large part of why they released everything on YouTube.

The point that the article is making is precisely that while artists do not get a cent from YouTube directly, indirectly it is driving sales. It is also probably true that the artist are getting more of the money than they would if the companies promoted the DVDs in the traditional way.

they do actually make money from YouTube (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596197)

When you put things on YouTube, you aren't getting paid

They are, actually---Google splits the ad revenue from ads shown on video pages with content providers.

Re:The YouTube model can work (4, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596209)

And you have to be very good to get something on TV.

Good Lord, man. Have you ever watched TV in your entire life?

Amazon has been selling the boxed set for cheap. (2, Interesting)

HouseOfMisterE (659953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595353)

There's been several incredible deals for the "Monty Python's Flying Circus" boxed set over the past few months. That probably boosted sales a bit.

Re:Amazon has been selling the boxed set for cheap (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595411)

I know I got one. I considered some of the earlier sets, but they seemed to do stupid things like not including the Dead Parrot sketch. Once I found the complete set, I asked for it for Christmas ;)

Re:Amazon has been selling the boxed set for cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595971)

yes, there was a deal of the day on it right before Christmas. Great deal, like $40 for 16 DVDs.

Love Amazon, have to though, because I work there ;)

Re:Amazon has been selling the boxed set for cheap (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596113)

20% == a bit

23,000% == a little bigger

sample quality? (1, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595365)

A bunch of people seeing old favorites in crappy streaming flash, I can understand, would remind people how fun a DVD-quality video of their favorites would be.

And when technology gets good enough to skip the "a dvd of this would be nice" phase, that business model will no longer work. Then look for artificial limitations (quality, advertisements) to create that differential

For now though, yes it does seem like a big fat ITYS for the content copyright holders who assumed that internets REDUCE sales.

Re:sample quality? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595451)

Was that pretentious acronym really necessary?

Re:sample quality? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595687)

IANAL, so YMMV, but AFAIK it was. HTH.

Re:sample quality? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596065)

I'm glad I'm not alone in not knowing these.

According do acronyms.thefreedictionary.com it means "I Told You So" to save a search.

There seems to be an acronyms for everything.

They don't really flow aloud like they used to. No thought put into them anymore.

the release of all of Monty Python's material (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595379)

the release of all of Monty Python's material on YouTube

Then why do I only see some 40+ video's of 2-4 minutes?

Prediction - eBay Monty Python sales spike (3, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595381)

There are some classic Monty Python bits, don't get me wrong. However, by and large, the bits you remember are it. There is a lot of mediocre fare, there.

I was a kid back when Monty Python was "live". The rare PBS (in USA) airing of their shows was risque fair, forbidden knowledge, if you will, for the American audience, back in the day. Hey, you might even see "full frontal nudity" if you were lucky.

Years later, out of nostalgia, I bought the boxed set of Monty Python at Costco. This was a few years ago, something like 13 DVDs, I don't recall exactly... watched the whole TV broadcast series over the course of a few weeks, much to the consternation of my wife.

Anyhow, my take-away was, yeah, there were some classic bits, but a lot of it was just tedious.

My copy went out on eBay with both the buyer and seller happy. They got a bit of a discount off retail, and I can say I have seen every episode.

I can't say it would break my heart if all the "good stuff" fell into the public domain, and the rest just faded away...

OK, so I just started V(iewing)TFTA (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595421)

And my points are (sortof) being made by persons more famous than I. But I cannot retract my post, I can only say, "never mind".

Being an established brand makes this (5, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595433)

The fact that they are an established brand doesn't make them the exception, it makes them even more impressive. Monty python has been around for a long time, you have to figure that their established fan base already owns their content. ANYTHING increasing the sales of a decades old brand like monty python by an astronomical figure like 23000% is simply amazing.

It's no different than companies, a young company increasing profits by 200% a quarter isn't that noteworthy, IBM managing to increase their sales by 200% in a single quarter would be amazing.

Bigger Jump In TPB (0)

biocute (936687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595541)

If we see 23,000% jump in retail sales, how much do you think it is for TPB downloads?

People like to own stuff (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595561)

Even if you can download stuff for free at any moment of the day, there are a ton of people that like to collect things, to have something physical.

This is exactly why even though use and sales for online video will grow, but there will always be a substantial market for physical media (currently DVD and Blu-Ray).

Start the spinning... (5, Funny)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595581)

The RIAA already said that people are buying the DVDs only to pirate them. Don't you see, more sales = more piracy.

If pirates couldn't buy the DVDs they couldn't pirate them or upload them to YouTube.

Stop all sales of DVDs. Stop production of DVDs. Stop breathing!!

Re:Start the spinning... (1)

crazycheetah (1416001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595909)

Well, they're correct. Because, apparently, making a copy of a product I bought to a private folder on my computer that only a hacker smart/stupid enough to hack into my computer and grab it from me could get, is nothing but piracy! Damn free use to hell!

Good! (1)

stoicio (710327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595603)

Oh, thank god!
I thought that was a penguin on my T.V..

And to the MPAA ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595651)

Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.

I viewed the show for fist time in youtube! (4, Interesting)

crazybit (918023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595723)

now I will like to buy their DVD's.

Many people from Latin American countries (like me)haven't ever watched this before, this kind of humor was rarely shown in latin-american television, because the "average Jose" wouldn't enjoy it if its translated into spanish. But times change...

last generations (people now in their 20's - 30's) learned english in schools (the "boom" of bilingual schools started in the 80's - lucky me), now they are getting on the internet and enjoying different flavors of humor (and many other cultural components) they find while surfing.

now that Latin America economy is growing (Peru -my country- is expected to grow 6% this year) this will surely open a new market not only for them but for whoever does a similar thing.

Re:I viewed the show for fist time in youtube! (1)

Earthquake Retrofit (1372207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595791)

now that Latin America economy is growing (Peru -my country- is expected to grow 6% this year) this will surely open a new market not only for them but for whoever does a similar thing.

Any jobs for laid-off IT workers down there?

Re:I viewed the show for fist time in youtube! (4, Interesting)

crazybit (918023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595943)

funny thing, I bet it wouldn't be hard for you to find an IT job over here, the catch is it will be a "peruvian salary" (much lower than US). On the other hand, you can buy a GOOD lunch (peruvian cuisine is one of the best in the world) at the center of our main commercial district for about US$ 7 (two dish meal + natural juice + fresh fruit - they are called "executive menu"). Not a bad deal if you live here.

a much better idea will be if you come here to start your own IT company - wouldn't be a huge investment and local University graduates will happily work for less than 1k$ a month. You can sell services overseas if you want.

when I was little I dreamed of living in the US, so I could go to Disney & Epcot every weekend. Right now I wouldn't live over there even if they payed me for doing it. Living in South America is not as bad as they want you to believe (except for .ve 'cause their president is nuts).

Seems obvious in hindsight... (4, Interesting)

Symbha (679466) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595773)

How do you reach the next generation?
This seems obvious... the next generation watches youtube. When I was introduced to Monty Python, it was tv.

I saw it, it was funny, sometimes I wanted to watch it when it wasn't on tv... so I might buy it.

Now it's youtube... they saw it, it was funny, they thought it'd be neat to watch it in the car... or at least, not at the computer.

This exposure and marketing thing is not that complicated. The problem seems to be IP holder's inability to really grasp how big the internet enabled marketplace is... a tiny percentages of sale conversions, in a freakin enormous marketplaces = lots of sales.

Thing is, you have to accept the idea that you might make MORE from your body of work, by recognizing that 'enough' might not be a sale from everyone that enjoyed your work, every time they did. You can't gain the benefits of the massive free exposure of the internet, if you are not willing to concede some of the sales as marketing.

Anecdotal? (5, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595819)

As much as I appreciate a try before I buy option, I'm not entirely sure that the success met here will translate into any kind of general result, data not being the plural of anecdote and all.

I tend to actually purchase more content now than I have in the past. Most of this has to do with actually having a decent paying job and disposable income, rather than being a poor high school or college student. Even now, however, I will tend to see if I can find a few episodes of a show available as a torrent or on some website that streams the show before I commit money towards it. Sometimes I find that I like the show and will go out and buy a season or so on DVD and other times I find out that I don't care anything for the show and won't purchase any of it.

Previously this was more legally grey but now that Hulu seems to offer popular shows a day or so after their original air date it's not that much of an issue. Then again, I don't use their service (It's not the advertisements, but mostly the fact that I need to register and completely resent having to do so), so I'm not overly knowledgeable about the variety of programming. In general, I think that the content providers are starting to realize that it's inevitable that the content is going to end up online, whether they like it or not and are starting to react to that.

In general though, I probably tend to purchase less than a third of what I preview online. Some of this is due to the fact that I can't purchase it even if I wanted to do so, but the vast majority of it isn't all that great or engaging. Personally I don't care whether or not people sample before making a purchase or time commitment. I do so all the time, but if you genuinely enjoy a TV show, music album, or movie, purchase it. The people who make that content require money from somewhere to continue to produce that content and I would feel dishonest consuming all of it without giving something back.

In short, exercise your freedoms but don't be a dick.

This only works if the content is good (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595833)

And hence does not apply to the RIAA and MPAA.

Try before you buy and poor video quality (5, Informative)

thered2001 (1257950) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595843)

A sample can create new customers. iTunes does it, Proctor & Gamble does it, the Python Group Ltd./Inc./IP Holdings appears to have done it quite nicely: let the consumer get a clue about what they're buying. Just don't give your product away.

Youtube presents me with a tiny window of video (or a big blotchy one) which is not as good as what I get on a DVD. If I really want to SEE the content, I'll buy it in a better format.

Hopefully, this will knock some sense into the big production companies.

RIAA Does Not Support This (5, Funny)

CyberSlammer (1459173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595863)

I am shocked an appalled by the malicious free capitalism that the Monty Python troupe has exhibited by making their skits free on YouTube without having consumers purchase them first. This is in clear violation of the principles of marketing and I will do everything within my power to see this effort is sacked.
Signed
Cary Sherman, President of RIAA (Mrs.)

Their secret weapon.. (1)

MisterMikeyG (1454529) | more than 5 years ago | (#26595905)

Two peanuts vhere vhalking down zee strada. Unt vhon vuz assaulted.... ... ... ... ... peanut.

Monty python is a genius! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595915)

It's cool that they started their own channel and uploaded better videos than everyone else, then suggested people to buy the dvds with better quality and extras.

l2sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26595949)

1. Create a series that can captivate the viewer (ex: heroes, LOST, 4400, whatever)
2. Release them on youtube/tv broadcast/etc weekly for free
3. Release the DVD with the _full_ season, 2 episodes from it ending.
4. ???
5. Profit

I can't believe they can't make such simple things as these. Some japanese anime producers make profit through the DVD sales by offering them with full uncensored content. You can't believe the amount of people who want to see drawn nipples.

Where's the data? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596015)

Seriously - can anyone point to the actual data (I am still hoping to find it)? I clicked through to the linked article, clicked from there to a few more pages, and just found a lot of self-promoting links to more of their own blog entries - no numbers at all. All I found was pretty typical poor-quality blog writing.

The Python's just released a big boxed set with additional bonus material - we bought the set for our daughter as a Christmas present. So...

- What was the date of the YouTube release (assuming it was all at once)?
- When did the sales spike occur, exactly?
- Was it perhaps more strongly correlated with the release of the box set?
- Was it perhaps more strongly correlated with some obscure buying holiday, such as Christmas?
- How have sales of Monty Python DVDs trended around previous Christmastimes?

I'd love to find out that this story is accurate; but lately it seems like there's an epidemic of bad "data analysis" going around.

Well It Certainly Helps... (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596109)

...that MP videos show up on search results for "Biggus Dickus".

Appropriate use of the "foot" humor icon... (3, Insightful)

Dr. Photo (640363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596133)

;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?