Apparently, MTV finally read the memo — the one that reads “we major media need to stop suing our customers for messing with our copyrighted materials and start encouraging…even begging!…them to do so.”
In a strategy to recapture audiences lost to MySpace and YouTube, MTV is heeding the call of control — by consumers, that is. See the pop-rock ’80s and garage-grunge ’90s have come and long gone, and MTV is just not the place where youth culture spends its time anymore.
So, in a new move, the network will build thousands of new Web sites in hopes to draw viewers by way of letting them watch, contribute and — gasp! — re-edit its television shows.
“Viewers will have a degree of control uncommon for media corporations,” said Mika Salmi, the new digital president of MTV Networks, a unit of Viacom Inc. According to Reuters, “MTV Networks’ new strategy is part of an effort by Viacom to reach a wider audience that is spending as much time on the Internet and on video games as watching television, and no longer cares when or where programming is shown.” It’s a bold move, but a bold move is exactly what MTV needs in order to capture more advertising dollars — especially given the company reportedly plans to roughly double its revenue from digital business to $500 million this year.
Ben McConnell, co-author of Citizen Marketers, writes, “This announcement is a significant breakthrough. The arbiter of cool cannot possibly run its pop-culture school the same way today as it did 20 years ago. The kids are in charge today, not some executive my age who’s trying to fit in with kids half his age.”
McConnell continues, “This is exactly how big media companies should fight the third-party sites; not with lawyers but with vast amounts of free content, tools to play with that content and vast new forms of particpation. To out-do YouTube, big media should be encouraging joint ownership of content. That’ll help build loyalty, discover trends and uncover new talent. Besides, there’s more important work to do than send hundreds of take-down notices to YouTube and MySpace every week.”
I concur. As the Reuters article reminds us, it’s “largely due to Lucasfilm Ltd.’s lax policies on letting fans post re-edited clips of Star Wars, which has helped sustain the franchise for years.” Conversely, take my favorite fan backlash over the studio-who-cried-copyright-infringement last year when ‘The Browncoats,” fans of the movie “Serenity,” self-organized to promote the film all over the blogosphere, only to have NBC-Universal (producer of the film) slap them with a $9,000 lawsuit over some silly t-shirts.
But in a savvy, saucy move — and one after this marketer’s own heart — the fan group wised up and slapped ‘em back with a $2.1 million-dollar bill for 28,030 collective hours’ worth of “marketing & promotion services rendered.” Billing at $75/hourly, I wrote the fan group and told them they weren’t charging nearly enough (given standard agency rates, I recommended doubling their fees). As it were, the studio dropped the suit. They never paid the Browncoats bill, but they did learn their lesson. Or perhaps they read the memo, too.
How will MTV fare? Time and teens will tell.
And while this is a big move by a major player, let’s keep encouraging those in power — or those under the illusion they still are — to empower their markets. As I tell my own clients, when consumers ‘mess’ with your content it actually means they’re engaging with your brand — isn’t that what we marketers spend a lot of budget and bandwidth hoping they’ll do? If not, perhaps I should retroactively bill graduate school for putting me through a battery of branding case studies to that effect, eh? Hmmm.
But control isn’t let go of easily. I advocate that companies do so of their own accord instead of waiting for customer attrition to force their hands (and thereby avoid pulling double duty in trying to woo customers back). Now if only the producers would just give me the greenlight to mess with old episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer… guess a girl can only hope that soon they, too, will read the memo.
I like the idea. The interface is still a little too cluttered for me, but perhaps their audience will feel differently.
CK,
Good post! MTV lost me when they became reality TV instead of music TV. But in regards to your point…
I left a long comment at Mack’s site yesterday suggesting we are scaring businesses, thus hurting our cause, when we suggest they give up control of their messaging. I think a better way to make our message stick is to say that businesses should engage their customers by sharing their media in ways that customers can play, too.
Giving up control is scary; sharing and engaging is what all businesses seek. Just a thought.
I want my CKTV.
That would have allowed Qwest to skip the more time-consuming process of striking franchise deals with individual municipalities. To know more about this–Franchise
Cam: We’ll see how it pans out for MTV; an uphill climb since they’ve lost interest among so much of their target audience…but the strategy is the right move.
.
Lewis: I read and appreciated the comment you left at Mack’s place. Stephen Denny also wrote a great post on this a few months ago. Let me better explain the difference here: When we hand over the entire marketing effort to consumers and don’t share in the experience then we aren’t guiding them and working with them…we’re just trying to be trendy and have them do the heavy-lifting (and scaring companies). But, in MTV’s case, we are sharing the experience as these assets (the film clips) are already made and we’re asking consumers to ‘play’ with the brand sans the legal woes of slapping a suit on them. So this is a case of share. Make sense? The message here is participation and expression. It serves to better promote our brand properties (like the Star Wars and Browncoats fans have done). But we give them the tools to do so and guide that effort. It’s different than handing over the entire effort to consumers and throwing our hands up. Make sense?
Ben: In time friend. At least I’ll have 1 viewer
This is especially interesting given the breakthrough (or overdue) announcement in the gaming industry by Sony for its Game 3.0 effort, enabling game players to actually develop and share their own games and experiences within existing video games online.
The silly thing is that this is what MTV actually used to survive upon. It fostered, ushered in, and promoted a wide much wider range of content from all over the place upon its launch, took risks from unsigned along with corporate promotional clips, devoted programming to bands that submitted their own homegrown videos, and has amassed an amazing library of content that has never seen the light of day. If they were ever to realize the value of that and actually promote the archives of what they’ve accumulated since 1981 in video footage of *every* video ever played and submitted (even the ones never aired), geez, I’d pay to have access to it online (and even told reps on numerous occasions pre-You Tube as much). I’d name names, but wont…
Let’s hope they get smart with what they have as much as what they seek.
[Sorry for posting again CK...]
Just checking my email and learned that C-SPAN apparently got the same memo. They’re *also* opening up more online video of government-sponsored events to the public:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6422525.html&referral=SUPP
It’ll only be all congressional hearings and press briefings, federal agency hearings, and presidential events at the White House– not C-SPAN in-studio productions, non-federal events, campaign coverage or political events.
Still, think of the mash-up possibilities…
CK,
I’ve been thinking about your post. (Why do you do this to me, girl?) So to share my thoughts with both you and Mack, here’s my take,which I just dropped off at Mack’s place:
Yes, companies are reluctant to change and often fear and resist it. I think you and I would agree that fearing change rather than embracing it ends up hurting the brand, business growth and profits. The exact opposite of what businesses are trying to achieve.
I also agree with David Reich: “Marketers can’t, and shouldn’t, give up control. They need to be willing to share control, as you say, but only to a degree.” By gradually testing the waters rather than diving into the deep end of the pool, we can adjust our strategies to meet our customers’ wants better and can assuage the fear tugging at the CFO’s purse strings.
But, as a marketer, I’m used to push back and have come to expect it. So, while we want the same result, I am trying to figure out how to frame the message so that it sells.
I don’t think we can use sites such as YouTube or MySpace or even CK’s excellent post about MTV as examples. I think we have to use apples to sell apples, and that means data and examples of traditional businesses that have taken the leap.
It’s hard work, my friend(s).
Yes, sharing is good.
MTV has lost much influence over music in the US for two reasons:
1) More non-music programming, and with the less airtime, more focus on “mainstream” artists.
2) The long tail effect.
MTV will always cater to “popular” music; these tools can help build and sustain interest in chosen artists for the aforementioned reasons. I hope the effort works out for them and some fans get to have fun.
Ryan: Interesting, MTV was riskier with its content in its heydday and they should leverage and return to that. Also…that C-Span article is very relevant. And I’m giggling to myself imagining the mash-ups
.
.
Mario: MTV has indeed lost its way for those reasons–I understood why they wanted ‘original’ programming but at the level they did it ran counter to their very value proposition (and hence I no longer wanted my MTV). They need to get back to their core and it’s going to require a bottom-up, fan-fueled effort…in which sharing is critical.
Lewis: I’m not saying that marketers should take themselves out of the process, they are key facilitators and directors–but for this type of content they need to share it and stop the copyright control because if they don’t they’re discouraging customers from engaging with their brands. I’m talking about already created content and marketers’ control over that. Sure, it’s scary. But the benefits outweigh the risk…and keep these companies relevant (and interesting).
Yes, we’ll get pushback but we may be able to use these types of examples to show what “pockets of opportunities” exist from sharing the content (and letting go of control over it). It is very hard work…but it does help when you mention “opportunity” to them or when you tell them you don’t want them becoming “obsolete” (I prefer the positive message but sometimes the fear one works
I’m really not sure what MTV should/can do now. I’m probably not in a position to judge, at my age, but I don’t think MTV is any arbiter of cool and hasn’t been for a while.
I think they, first of all, need to decide exactly what they want to be and exactly who they want to reach. Their programming seems to be all over the place and I don’t think it’s a center of anyone’s attention anymore, the way it was years ago. It’s become just another channjel with lots of reality shows and — oh yeah — a tiny, tiny bit of music here and there.
As Ryan said, up above, they have a treasure in their files. That could be the makings for another channel perhaps. But for their flagship channel, maybe the web idea CK describes will work. They have to try something different.
CK, you snuck a mention of Buffy into your post, I see. Did you know that this Saturday marks the 10th anniversary of the premiere of Buffy. (For real. I wouldn’t tease about something like Buffy.)
This is great news! Like you said, I always wondered why MTV (THE leading brand on teen-media related issues) had been slacking for so long in innovating and coming up with a brilliant idea like this one.
Seems like they finally got their head straight and decided to let the flow keep moving on.
On Mario’s comment, I think MTV has indeed lost much of its -power- due to the two reasons he states, however I think they’re still in a very good position to turn things around and re-gain the position they once had. However, it WON’T be only through TV, they will have to employ different mediums and technologies to get there.
Good post.
Ron E.
http://www.brandcurve.com
I really just can’t get worked up about this because, well, I’ve been to the mtv website. Cluttered with advertising, and they’ve made what basically amounts to interstitials when switching between pages. I have serious doubts that they’ll deliver much because they’ve largely proven themselves to be about as selfish as the girls of laguna beach. If they do allow for remixing, that’ll be great, if you can fight through the deluge of bad advertising. Or maybe I’m just getting old, and I’m more easily annoyed with loud music.
And, as for all those sites, wouldn’t it be easier if I could just go to youtube and find it?
David: Yep, they’ve long needed to figure out who they want to be. What Ryan suggested really resonates with me as it gets back to the core of the brand (and thanks for the Buffy heads-up
.
Ron: Thanks so much for chiming in. It is interesting how long they’ve waited to go this route, which leads me to…
Paul: Cam hit on the clunky interface, too. The reason they’re bombarding us with so many annoying ads is to hit that $500 mil revenue target (I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s why). What I am pleased with is that they’re laxing on the copyrights–that’s good news because this is exactly where co’s have needed to be and since MTV has taken the step it will encourage others (a la “follow the leader” mentality).
However…they’ve waited so darn long that they’re going to need to make all their “stuff” available on You Tube. Now, will they go that route? Not sure. I do think you’re right in that it will be a huge barrier if they don’t. Along with “share” they need to go with “open”. Just not sure if they’ll see it that way–and in time. Sort of speaks to the “steps” Lewis was speaking to in relenting control. What they’re doing right now with allowing re-edits is a huge step…but the question remains, is it huge enough? Like others, they are fighting for a model. But they’re also fighting for relevancy since they’ve lost so much ground. It’s a study in how to stick to your base while growing with the times/technologies.
I think the foundation of what MTV is trying to do is a great idea to capture the audience that they’ve lost to the Internet. They need to do something to put them back on the map, so they can relate to the young people, the way they used to when they first started out. As technology has evolved, their same old programming just doesn’t have the same appeal as it used to. I think the interface also seems a bit crowded, but hopefully they will be able to work it out, and build their prescence on the Internet to compete with myspace & YouTube.