One of my favorite funny guys of all time is Monty Python alum John Cleese. I find it odd , however, that he runs a website that demands people spend 50 bucks a year to even look at most of its content.
It's more than odd--considering the success Cleese has had from his million of fans, it smacks of greediness. Most celebrity websites are a good deal friendlier to fans and only sell things that you actually purchase and can get in the mail. The question is, why does John Cleese think his website alone is worth a 50 dollar subscription per year?
Maybe I'd buy a book of Cleese for 30 bucks or pay 50 dollars to see him in a comedy concert. But, as big a fan as I am of the guy, there is still no way in hell I'm shelling out for the pleasure of seeing the guy's home movies or his thirty year old commercials or whatever he's offering. It's a disappointment to me that the guy who gave us so many great characters in Python and "Fawlty Towers" and "A Fish Called Wanda" et al, can't have a website open to the public--without putting a meter on it.
So, figuratively speaking, here's that ridiculous face right back at ya, mate.
I imagine that John simply wants to pull some cash in to cover the bandwidth and development expenses (he did put in a small television studio) connected to producing the site. Most of the sites you're thinking of don't do such a media-intensive presentation.
ReplyDeleteBut, compare and contrast:
Eric Idle's site, GreedyBastard.com, requires that you commit $5,000 a minute to view, to be paid at some future time decided at whim by Eric Idle himself.
Michael Palin's site (Palin's Travels) can only be viewed once from any given site, requiring you to move at least 50 miles away before viewing it again, and you can never view it from the same place twice.
You practically have to kill yourself to view Graham Chapman's site.
The aggregate Python site (PythonOnline.com) not only requires you to become a divorce lawyer, perambulate via a silly walk, and spay or neuter a slug, it also requires you to view the site only while being, shall we say, "on the throne," which is quite a challenge for those of us that don't have wireless access points available. (Not only that, the wireless access point must be password-protected using one of the following words: "spam," "mrgumby," or "brian.")
I conclude that $50 annually is not so bad. Streaming video isn't cheap, having all the elaborate animations built isn't cheap, and I don't see any reason that John shouldn't seek to make it at least a break-even proposition. During this pitch he pointed out that he's going to be producing a show, of sorts, for the amusement of his fans, and he's not supporting it via ads. Why do you think he should be producing and "broadcasting" this on his own nickel?
After all, if you're happy with the free site, it's still free. The "insider" aspect of web sites is not uncommon. It's 14 cents a day, in round numbers, and that's far less than you pay for basic cable, and probably better than what you view on it, all things considered. Palin's travel site (for all my silliness about it earlier), appears to exist for the purpose of promoting his videos and books, and the cost of the web site can be written up as an advertising expense against earnings.
Cleese, on the other hand, is offering to do a show online. In a country which is characterized by $6.00 cups of coffee, I think 14 cents a day is pretty good, especially considering that you don't have to stand in line with self-absorbed jerks to get the product.
(Is it just me, or does there not seem to be anything on the site more current than 2005?)
Well, when you put it that way...better perhaps to have 50 dollars invested in Cleese than have Eric Idle's goons show up at my door demanding I put 5 grand in their greasy plams or out will come my liver.
ReplyDeleteI think there could be some happy medium. $50.00 a year seems to be pretty steep no matter how you attempt to justify it. I do not pretend know his finacial status. I would think he is getting some kind of royalties from the Monty Python Show and their movies. He has also done quite of bit of acting since Monty Python. He is also doing the Titleist commercials.
ReplyDeleteBut then again what do I know?
yes, He was great in fawlty towers, and I agree with you about his website. Most premium website don't charge that much.
ReplyDeleteI think mrprogguy's blog comment below is wonderfully Pythonesque in itself.
ReplyDeleteCrabbyman--I think Cleese is doing okay. In a fairly recent documentary he produced on the Discovery Channel called "The Human Face" he shows viewers he has two homes: one in a fashionable part of Santa Barbara and one in London.
Frank--Not being a "tech" person, nevetheless, it just strikes me as a lot of money to pay for access to one site. But I don't know what bandwidth is going for these days. (I can tell you a gallon of gas is 2.95).
But, hey folks, its Cleese's gig: all I can do is give my two cents worth. And for those of us who don't want to shell out a US Grant note, heck, we'll always have memories or Video/DVDs of the Ministry of Silly Walks and the adventures of the exasperated and often rude Basil Fawlty.