backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by elpresidente20.. on Jan 21 at 12:53 PM

Steal this blog; then the film

When Radiohead announced that it was going release its latest album, “In Rainbows,” directly, without DRM, and with a unique name-your-own-price scheme, people took notice. Ultimately, the actual release showed only mixed results, and to this date observers and critics are still scratching their heads on whether to write the album off as a failure or a success.

Fast forward a few months and it appears that someone at The League of Noble Peers, using a little bit of clever psychology, may have found a way to make the “donationware” model work: Steal This Film II, the group's “suggested donation” documentary on intellectual property issues, met with resounding success immediately following its release at the end of 2007, amassing more than 150,000 downloads and $5,000 in donations within the first four days. The movie’s web site claims that Steal This Film II, so far, has at least 4.86 million viewers, with close to 2.7 million downloads across a multitude of networks, spearheaded by the site’s official torrents.

Writing in his blog, Steal This Film II director and producer Jamie King attributes the movie’s success to adjustments made to the donation request since the first Steal This Film, which asked for $1 donations to the creators’ Paypal account: “[We] received thousands of them,” wrote King. “PayPal took around about 30 cents [per transaction], and after the cost of transferring to our bank account, [there wasn’t much left] of the generous donations to work with.” In Steal This Film II, the donation request was adjusted to suggest – but not require – a minimum donation of $5, with a “mystery gift” given to all those who donate $15 or more.

The League of Noble Peers quickly learned that, in King’s words, “people want that gift.” The “overwhelming proportion” of donations received ranged between $15 and $40, which indicated that those that chose to donate did so willingly, paying significantly more than they would have “for a DVD or a cinema ticket.” More notable is the proportion of people who choose to donate, which King roughly estimates is around one in thousand viewers – a number closer to spammer’s odds as opposed to a viable way of recouping production costs.

In a brief e-mail interview with DailyTech, King was quick to separate Steal This Film from Radiohead’s similar forays. “For us at STF,” he said, “the expectations are much lower.” Radiohead was “looking for a model that can answer the old question of ‘how do we get media creators paid an obscene amount?’ We’re asking, ‘can we work towards a point where we could be able to continue to make [movies] while exploring this new model?’”

Meanwhile, TorrentFreak attributes Steal This Film II’s success to the creators’ wise avoidance of psychological reactance, which states that people are inclined to respond in a manner opposite of the rules when it inhibits behavioral freedom, much like how many are inclined to pirate a given piece of media as opposed to purchasing it encumbered with DRM.

While King doesn’t have any updated statistics on the film’s progress – he is currently travelling and has limited internet access – he maintains that donations and support are pouring in “apace, if not at the same level of the first few days.”

Production costs totaled almost $40,000, with pay costing even more. At this rate, Steal This Film II could easily recoup its costs, and even turn a tidy profit for the League’s next project – something it struggled with for the first Steal This Film.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: hmm...
By oralpain on 1/17/2008 5:15:30 PM , Rating: 3
You wouldn't get 2.7 million people willing to pay $1 (or any ammount) out of 2.7 million potential downloaders.

It would be a hassle for some people to pay at all, and fees (as is the case with paypal) would likely eat a sizable portion of potential profits.

I don't have a paypal account, and I'm not willing to get one, nor am I willing to create a new one shot account with access to my credit card information, to spend one dollar on a movie. I am however willing to watch something that might be good, for free, and then recommend it to others, and maybe even chip in a few bucks for a donation.


RE: hmm...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2008 5:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed...some sort of new, eminently convenient micropayment service needs to develop, to handle things like this.

If people could securely pay, say 25 cents, without having to expend any real time on the transaction, it would be a real boon to such business models.


RE: hmm...
By MatthiasF on 1/18/2008 3:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
They've already been developed as micro as they're going to get. You'll never see a payment service without fees, because they are at every point in the transaction. From the central bank's charge for the money to go between banks, to each bank's charge to bring the money in and out, or the credit card group's fee in between.

The easiest method would be to just hold a credit on your account at your favorite music store, but somehow I doubt anyone making these sort of grandiose arguments would be willing to have a few bucks sitting in "the enemy's" pockets before you've decided on what you want to buy.

Why bother when you can just make excuse after excuse to not buy anything and steal it instead without guilt using the ol' Robin Hood mantra?

I can't wait until Radiohead announce's their official sales numbers and the first experiment by an artist into the medium gets played out in the press with accurate figures.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki