Sunday, October 15, 2006

GooTube

Old news, obviously, but what caught my eye was this exchange on Slashdot about Intel's painfully hip advertising drive for their new dual-core processor. One element of their smorgasbord of web technologies (italics for Giles's benefit) is YouTube video, and some way down the resulting Slashdot discussion is the following comment:

So what if Intel is making broad use of free publicity? Companies have been doing this for decades. If YouTube and other companies don't like being use for blatent publicity by third party companies they should adjust their business model and terms of service accordingly.

Er, well, according to YouTube's Terms and Conditions page, under section 5C, the user agrees not to:

(iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business

Hmm. So, either Intel has paid YouTube something to post its videos or they're breaking the T&Cs. Along with every other 'edgy' marketing company that has started posting ads to YouTube, of which there are a growing number.

This is something that interests me as I've been considering some kind of video advertising to market my book when it comes out: YouTube was the first thing I thought of (particularly as there are book trailers up there already) and I was pretty surprised to find it's not actually allowed. Or is it? After all, bands posting new music in an attempt to get noticed and signed are advertising their services. And what about the adverts posted by third parties because they're cool? The original advertisers don't usually demand they be pulled, because it's free publicity and this is worth more than sued-for damages.

Up until now there have been lots of grumbly questions asked about the legal ramifications of what YouTube does, particularly with regards to copyright, and these have only been thrown into sharper relief by the Google acquisition. The guys at YouTube have reassured users that they won't be charged for posting videos, which is nice, but given Google's tendency to saturate everything they touch with adverts to make a living (a sensible policy that has served them very well) it might be worth their while considering what on YouTube is advertising and what isn't. 'Tubers might like to think they'll stay edgy and amateur but history is not on their side.

Oh, and I'm considering AdWords too. Looks cheap. Cheap is good.

1 comment:

Giles Mcleod said...

Sarky bugger!!! I maintain I used it correctly!!!