I've grown a facsination with the service YouTube. Those that read this blog probably know this already. Well part of what Youtube allows someone like me to do is to find content that I want to see without searching a million websites and without worry that it won't run on my mac.
This past weekend Saturday Night Live ran a great digital short that was essentially a Natalie Portman rap video. It was up for a little on Youtube and then taken down due to copyright infringement. Apparently NBC says that users can go to the NBC.com site to view the video. This is true as long as you're on Windows - their videos don't run on anything but Explorer Windows.
What makes this such a bad decision is that they call this the "viral video of the week" - without truly understanding what viral marketing is. If you truly release something virally, it works best when it can be distributed freely. That way it reaches more people. As it stands now the only way to access this video is to go to NBC.com. Problem is who would? Doesn't NBC suck outside of The Office and My Name is Earl? If you asked anyone on Sunday morning if they saw SNL last night, they probably would say no; why? Because it sucks. So all that said, wouldn't it make sense to put a popular video in as many places as possible? Wouldn't people see it and say "Hmm, maybe SNL doesn't suck anymore." Don't you think they reaped the benefits of the Lazy Sunday video being passed all around the internet?
This is the problem with the media conglomerates of today - they want to take advantage of today's users, but are unwilling to do it on terms that todays users will agree to. There are a ton of funny videos out there being provided by people who get it.
If I can't view yours, I can move onto another.