This “Sorry” image is what you see on YouTube when you’re prevented from viewing a video because the uploader decided not to make their content available in your country.
In this case, the video was a seven minute news clip from 1970.
I understand how allowing a viewer in another country to see 43 year old content of historical interest would seriously undermine that organization’s ability to sell advertising, much less how it would damage their credibility in the news market.
I wonder if the decision to limit this company’s news footage to their home country was considered long and hard in policy meetings and with legal. Was much discussion dedicated to finding reasons to limit access? How about efforts to find reasons to not to?
Was the cost of making that decision higher than the cost of letting anyone in any country view the video?
It reminds me of people who put more effort into controlling the public’s perception of their company than they do into taking actions that actually impact the company’s public image. The irony is that attempts at perception control tend to damage their employer’s image more than the truth would have.
We often ask the wrong questions.
Every day that you look the other way in your business when faced with perception vs. reality issues, your business becomes less personal, easier to hate and easier to replace.
Is that really what you want?