The only good reason (that I can think of) for NG's restrictions on showing it have to do with fund-raising. Most organizations have different levels of donors and the "elite" donors provide a substantial amount of money. To encourage donors reaching (or remaining) at that level, an organization will often provide some kind of perks. Being "let in" to see stuff like this (or receive reports or white papers) while the general public is (for the time being) left in the dark, might be one way to do that.
Otherwise, I would not automatically conclude that NG is being "smart". Take a look at this:
The Battle at Kruger
Toward the end of the video, you can hear a fellow traveler remark, “You could sell that video!” After returning home, David Budzinski, the tourist from Texas who had recorded the stunning scene, did try to sell it, but National Geographic and Animal Planet weren’t interested. Only after the battle, which is alternately horrifying and inspiring, became one of the most popular videos in YouTube’s history did the buyers come calling. Last summer The National Geographic Channel purchased the television rights to the video, and on Sunday night, May 11th, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, it will devote an entire hour to a documentary that deconstructs this thrilling wildlife drama. Caught on Safari: Battle at Kruger is believed to be the first hour-long documentary to be inspired by a YouTube video.
Budzinski's video had
intrinsic human interest, but an organization as "smart" as NG couldn't
see that
until it had received millions of views and was being forwarded via email all around the world. THEN they decided that maybe they were interested in it and built and hour-long special around it. Had Budzinski NOT released it on YouTube, I'm sure his bank account would be a lot smaller.
That's what bugs me about the arrangement with Tim Samaras. By doing researchers a favor (partially funding their research) should they also be able to
handcuff them? I'm sure this is pretty standard stuff and NG is being no worse than other organizations, but I don't see how either the interests in the advancement of science, of inspiring others to take a greater interest in this area, or the scientist's best interests are
really being promoted by such a policy —
particularly if it doesn't have a limit to it (say 12 months after scientific publication).
Also, I don't think things "get played out" on YouTube. We tend to assume that once
we see something that it is "old hat", but there is a rather huge percentage of the population that gets cable and watches a particular station (like Nat'l Geog. or Animal Planet) who has never seen that particular YouTube video (if they are even aware of YouTube at all). I think outlets that are "savvy" are seeing things like YouTube as being their "pointer dogs" towards things that will also resonate with their audiences. Internet forums (and YouTube view statistics, as a big example) are like free Focus Groups for these savvy organizations. Others just don't quite "get it" yet. Believe it or not, there are a heck of a lot of people who have no idea what getting Rick-Rolled is.
