The Media. It is everywhere. Assailed by multiple forms, media can be felt, heard, seen, tasted, and even smelled. Television. Radio. Billboards. Fast food. Promotional giveaways. We are surrounded, it’s true. In a society that is so saturated with media, be it in forms of entertainment or news, it is almost impossible to avoid disagreement and controversy. This can come in many different forms, from taking sides and voting for one contestant or the other on American Idol, to a radio broadcaster or news reporter using offensive language on the air. Regarding the latter, Don Imus and the recent uproar is a fitting example. A long time radio personality, Imus is known for having a fiery mouth. Equipped with strong opinions and the ability to not leave anyone out of his ring of jokes and insults, be they serious or playful, his most recent comments have undoubtedly become his most notorious. Geared towards the players on the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, some of his comments raised more than just a few eyebrows.
“That’s some rough girls from Rutgers…Man, they got tattoos…”
OK…
“That’s some nappy-headed hos there.”
Really? Really?!
Aside from the fact that Imus genuinely knows how to butcher the English language, and that he is generalizing that possibly any girl with a tattoo is rough, it seems a bit peculiar coming from a 66-year-old white male. Is this what he really thinks? Does he believe that black female basketball players are nappy-headed hos? Does he even know what that means? Do you or I even know what a nappy-headed ho is? I can’t say for sure I understand the connotation, as slang words can have several different meanings. But why did he call them “rough” and “nappy-headed hos”? Does he associate all black women with what he sees on rap videos and hears in popular music?
A-ha.
Here is a possibility: In a situation of age reversal, Don Imus became a child when he nonchalantly, maybe unknowingly spoke those words. It is entirely feasible that he had no clue what he was saying. Like a toddler imitating his parents or schoolmates and proudly displaying knowledge of one (or several) curse words that only “grown ups” are allowed to say, it could be that Imus was merely observing his surroundings and concluding that, since there have been relatively few uproars about the way women are depicted in the popular media (be it African American culture or not), it would be OK for him to say something like that. Heck, all the kids are saying it, right?
But this thought brings attention to a much more real possibility. There is the possibility that the content of music, specifically rap and hip-hop, has a profound influence on our culture and significantly blurs the line between what is acceptable and what is not. Here is a striking example of this conundrum, brought to you by none other than multiple award-winning rapper Eminem:
“Now I don't wanna hit no women when this chick's got it coming
Someone better get this bitch before she gets kicked in the stomach
And she's pregnant, but she's egging me on, begging me to throw her
Off the steps on this porch, my only weapon is force”
Not enough? Here is a less violent, equally disturbing display:
“Girl, you looks good, won't you back that ass up
You's a fine motherf-----, won't you back that ass up
Call me big daddy when you back that ass up
Ho, who is you playing with back that ass up”
Provided by the rapper Juvenile, these lyrics blatantly represent women, or a certain girl, as nothing more than objects that men use for their pleasure. Though this phrase is not in context with the rest of the song, if it were put into context this point would only be reinforced. To see or hear for yourself, the song is called “Back That Ass Up” by Juvenile. This music is heard all over the airwaves. I distinctly remember hearing this song and even seeing the music video on MTV during the day when I was in middle school. This media is exposed to anyone who has access to radio, television, or the Internet, ready to corrupt young malleable minds.
As a society, we embrace this type of music and even praise it. Dana Williams brings up a good point in her Tolerance.org (2/28/03) article:
“If [music] industry nods of approval like the Grammys are any indication, lyrics promoting hatred, objectification and exploitation of women are increasingly accepted as authentic forms of artistic expression – particularly in some rap and hip hop music.”
This is such a valid point. We absolutely love this stuff. How can we start to deal with the issue if we continue to encourage it? It is hard to preserve freedom of expression while ensuring that as few people as possible are offended. Going back to Imus, furthering this are words from Naomi C. Earp, chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
“The offensive remarks of Imus and McGuirk, the belated reaction of the networks and radio station, and Imus' defense of his comments by pointing to rap lyrics -- as if two wrongs make a right -- indicate the need for a clear and unambiguous dialogue about racism in America.”
She indicates that rap lyrics are in the wrong. Why, then, is there more of a concerted effort to lash out against Don Imus when he makes a mistake then to lash out at the music industry as a whole, particularly the rap and hip hop sector? It only makes sense that in order to create a “clear and unambiguous” dialogue about racism there must be equal effort in reaching out to those who prominently put forth racist and misogynistic ideals for all to see (artists) and those who make mistakes due in part to confusion of what is OK to say and what is not (Imus). Thanks to television, radio and the music industry, many get the impression that it is acceptable to call women “bitches” and “hos”.
If Ludacris is saying it why can’t I? It’s on TV, so it’s OK, right?
This may be the train of thought for many people. Though it may seem childish, (remember your mother asking you if you’d jump off a bridge if so-and-so did?) it is how corporate America works. If it sells and makes money, then there is considerably less thought about morals and the possible consequences of such behavior. If there is going to be dialogue, the record companies that produce this music and push these videos must come into agreement with those that are hurt by the lyrics and images.
How can we come to a consensus that music containing these lyrics is hurtful if our country promotes it? By promoting it, I mean to say that Americans are buying it. We are in love with rap and hip-hop. Listen to a Top 40 radio station and odds are in favor of the majority of the songs being played are rap or hip-hop. For example, I just checked the KIIS FM Los Angeles radio station website to see the last 10 played songs. They include: “Irreplaceable” by Beyonce; “The Sweet Escape” by Gwen Stefani; “Because of You” by Ne-Yo; “Impacto” by Daddy Yankee featuring Fergie; and “I Wanna Luv U” by Akon. Four of the first five songs fall into the rap/hip hop/R&B category, with Gwen Stefani on the borderline. People love the beat. They love the aggressive nature and sexy content. It just makes one want to dance. Something so prevalent in our society should not be such a problem, but it is.
Luckily the issue of rap lyrics has long been in the minds music executives and social leaders alike. In fact, just recently the hip-hop icon Russell Simmons called a meeting for top-level music executives to discuss the use of offensive lyrics in music (Daniel Trotta, Reuters.com 4/23/07). Simmons called for “voluntary restrictions” on words such as “bitch,” “nigger,” and “ho.” He said that these words should be considered as obscene as the ‘extreme curse words’ that are bleeped out for television and radio. Of course he has a point, and it is admirable that those in charge of releasing this content are at least talking about it. We live in a free country. America is the land of the free. We say it is, and so do others. Though the current administration may be a little more Big Brother-ish than others, I find it hard to believe that we will begin to censor music lyrics. Russell Simmons thinks so too, which is why he is calling for voluntary restrictions. This leaves it up to the artist’s themselves to make the decision. Sometimes, though, it’s all about making the cash, and being sexual and vulgar is what’s hot right now. Probably always will be, but that’s a different story. James Poniewozik makes a great point in his Time Magazine article (4/23/07):
“…we also live in a culture in which racially and sexually edgy material is often--legitimately--considered brilliant comment, even art.”
If albums sales and Grammy awards presentations are any indication, then this statement is true. We really enjoy making fun of and degrading each other, as long as we aren’t the ones being made fun of or degraded. It seems that we aren’t secure enough with ourselves to take the heat, so we’ll just bash others in order to feel better about ourselves. This can happen in many forms and rap music is one of them (along with other forms of music, of course). It’s about power. The alpha male. Misogynistic values incorporated into lyrics and video. And yet, women participate. This is another issue: Women volunteering themselves into this position.
Here’s an interesting thought: Even though it may seem outrageous that women would want to be a part of overtly degrading, sexual videos, can it possibly be equally empowering? For without the female and her body, what would the man have to talk (sing, rap) about? It’s like the video vixens are doing the job they want to be doing, collecting the cash, and laughing all the way to the bank about how pathetic it looks for someone to surround themselves with dozens of beautiful women knowing that in reality it would never happen. Sigh, we all need therapy.
While the problem of objectifying women through music does not adhere specifically to the United States, it seems less of a problem in some other countries. Take Brazil for instance. A program started in 2003 by Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian government’s minister of culture, is all about hip-hop and teaching its aspects to the country’s lower-class youth (Larry Rohter, New York Times 3/14/07). By giving monetary grants to community groups throughout the country, this program is teaching the arts of hip-hop to eager students. This art includes graffiti, emceeing (rapping), DJing, break dancing, and recording music. In America, teaching this to our youth would be looked down upon by countless eyes. We associate hip-hop and rap with gang violence and sexual promiscuity and surely don’t want our kids to fall under these influences. But in other countries like Brazil, hip-hop is regarded as more of an art form. Rappers that flaunt excess jewelry and women are looked down upon, while those with socially conscious lyrics are hailed. The goal is to cultivate creativity in poorer sections of the country and spread the positivity that hip-hop can inspire. Sign me up, Mr. Gil!
At the basis of all of this lies the definition of what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, there really is no general consensus as to what is permissible and what is not. Every person has their own set of morals and beliefs. While some may think that degrading lyrics are offensive to women and should be abolished, others take it with a grain of salt. Of course, lying within this is the issue of personal restraint. In most cases, individuals have the right and means to see and hear only what they want. Especially with children, I feel that it is up to the parent to do their best to control what the child is exposed to. A parent cannot be with a child at all times, but especially at home television and music can be filtered judging by what a parent feels is appropriate for the child. There are no specific guidelines for each person has a different set of values, but I wouldn’t let my 10-year-old (if I had one) watch “Tip Drill” by Nelly.
As a country, we may never come to an agreement about this issue. That is a given; there will always be people who disagree, sometimes just for the sake of disagreeing. While the lyrics in some music can be offensive, it is important to have the mindset, “To each his own.” For every despicable act and unimaginable thought to you, there is at least one person who thinks the exact opposite. What we must learn to do as individuals and as citizens united by our country and by the world is to think before we act. We must realize that we all have our own mind and that some opinions will differ from others. We cannot be influenced by rap lyrics and videos to the point that we begin to say genuinely hurtful things. It’s not OK just because someone else is doing it. Adhere to your own set of values. Believe in your own morals and form your own opinions. If they happen to be offensive to some, then so be it. Don’t change for others, but don’t deliberately hurt them either. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and it must be realized that it is up to every single one of us to deal with our surroundings. Sometimes those surroundings are dark and scary. Sometimes they are hurtful and mean, deliberately lewd. But sometimes they are beautiful. Keep in mind that there exists a balance in everything: With evil, there must be good. Determine how you will react and your attitude will be shaped from that determination. Make a conscious effort to see the good, and things just might start to clear up. There is not just one answer that can solve this problem, but we are all in it together and if we are open and understanding then we can accomplish great things.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Facebook And Its Promotional Possibilities
Facebook.com, an online social gathering space that was once reserved only for college students, has become a legitimate contender in the arena of online promotion. Comparable to other social networking sites like MySpace and countless others, Facebook was once unique in the fact that it was open only for college students. Now, however, Facebook is available for anyone to join, much to the chagrin of many college students. While the decision to become non-exclusive may have upset the feeling of belonging to something small and intimate, connected to similar college people with similar college interests, it has opened the door for wide scale promotion.
Members of the site are designated to certain networks. As stated on the main page of the site, "Facebook is made up of many networks, each based around a workplace, region, high school or college." For instance, each college is its own network, so my Facebook profile would be in the USC network. This used to be a hassle, even as recent as last year, because not every college in the country was represented by Facebook, so some students could not participate in the fun. Now, every major city has its own network, as well as colleges, and even those without networks can join. Everyone can get involved.
Also stated on the main page is the purpose of the service:
"You can use Facebook to:
-Share information with people you know.
-See what's going on with your friends.
-Look up people around you."
While this may sound like the description of a feeding ground for stalkers and socially awkward gossipers (I'm not judging), and it very well may be, there also lies the possibility of mass marketing and word-of-mouth promotion.
Facebook has advertising features. Once the user is logged in, on the left side of the page is a proportionately small rectangle space for advertisements. Called "flyers," these ads are unique to each user's network. What is cool about the flyers is that anyone can create one. The price to pay is $5 per 10,000 views, which is relatively cheap considering how many eyes could possibly see it. A new flyer will show with each new page view, however all of the flyers (advertisements) for a network are posted on a page called the flyerboard. One can find flyers ranging from students looking for other students to sublease a room and people trying to sell extra concert tickets, to major corporations promoting new campaigns. This can be taken advantage of by bands looking to promote live shows or CD releases, for example. Another perk to this system is that flyers can be posted to other networks the user doesn't belong to. It's like a hip online classified section.
Another useful tool lies within Facebook's digital walls: Events. An event can be created for any type of social gathering, be it a party or study session, and invitations can be sent out to the people of choice by the user that created the event. All of the necessary information is included in the event description and on the event page is displayed a guest list of those invited, those who declined or accepted invitations (as well as those who opted to RSVP "Maybe Attending"), an area to post photographs, and a "wall" for people to comment on. This is essential for gauging just how many people might show up to one's event.
What are the implications of this? For one, we may soon see the death of small paper flyers. You know, the ones that are handed to you whenever you walk out of a concert or down the boardwalk at Venice Beach? Those annoying scraps of colorful laminated paper that inevitably (and usually immediately) get tossed to the ground? Yeah, those are the ones. Online promotion almost eliminates the need for street teaming altogether. For one, it would help reduce the amount of litter in popular flyer-handing-out spots. Of course litter is a ridiculously large problem, but every little bit helps, right? While billboards, bus stop bench ads, and posters on community flyerboards are still effective, there seems to be little use left for the little handouts. A much more effective way to attract attention is to do so online where the person doesn't have to deal with physical clutter. Surfing the Internet, one knows that the Web is full of clutter, so a little more won't really hurt. Digital litter isn't quite the same as physical, Earthbound trash. Also, advertisements and promotional campaigns can be targeted to more specific demographics online on services such as Facebook, MySpace, and music social networks like Last.fm and MOG.com.
The power of social networking is huge. If utilized correctly these online communities can draw countless new fans and create revenue for artists and bands. As paper flyers are analogous to the analogue age, online promotion is obviously the digital way. Digital, the Internet, is the future. As more and more people worldwide become connected and involved in social networking communities, the possibilities for advertising and promotion grow exponentially.
Members of the site are designated to certain networks. As stated on the main page of the site, "Facebook is made up of many networks, each based around a workplace, region, high school or college." For instance, each college is its own network, so my Facebook profile would be in the USC network. This used to be a hassle, even as recent as last year, because not every college in the country was represented by Facebook, so some students could not participate in the fun. Now, every major city has its own network, as well as colleges, and even those without networks can join. Everyone can get involved.
Also stated on the main page is the purpose of the service:
"You can use Facebook to:
-Share information with people you know.
-See what's going on with your friends.
-Look up people around you."
While this may sound like the description of a feeding ground for stalkers and socially awkward gossipers (I'm not judging), and it very well may be, there also lies the possibility of mass marketing and word-of-mouth promotion.
Facebook has advertising features. Once the user is logged in, on the left side of the page is a proportionately small rectangle space for advertisements. Called "flyers," these ads are unique to each user's network. What is cool about the flyers is that anyone can create one. The price to pay is $5 per 10,000 views, which is relatively cheap considering how many eyes could possibly see it. A new flyer will show with each new page view, however all of the flyers (advertisements) for a network are posted on a page called the flyerboard. One can find flyers ranging from students looking for other students to sublease a room and people trying to sell extra concert tickets, to major corporations promoting new campaigns. This can be taken advantage of by bands looking to promote live shows or CD releases, for example. Another perk to this system is that flyers can be posted to other networks the user doesn't belong to. It's like a hip online classified section.
Another useful tool lies within Facebook's digital walls: Events. An event can be created for any type of social gathering, be it a party or study session, and invitations can be sent out to the people of choice by the user that created the event. All of the necessary information is included in the event description and on the event page is displayed a guest list of those invited, those who declined or accepted invitations (as well as those who opted to RSVP "Maybe Attending"), an area to post photographs, and a "wall" for people to comment on. This is essential for gauging just how many people might show up to one's event.
What are the implications of this? For one, we may soon see the death of small paper flyers. You know, the ones that are handed to you whenever you walk out of a concert or down the boardwalk at Venice Beach? Those annoying scraps of colorful laminated paper that inevitably (and usually immediately) get tossed to the ground? Yeah, those are the ones. Online promotion almost eliminates the need for street teaming altogether. For one, it would help reduce the amount of litter in popular flyer-handing-out spots. Of course litter is a ridiculously large problem, but every little bit helps, right? While billboards, bus stop bench ads, and posters on community flyerboards are still effective, there seems to be little use left for the little handouts. A much more effective way to attract attention is to do so online where the person doesn't have to deal with physical clutter. Surfing the Internet, one knows that the Web is full of clutter, so a little more won't really hurt. Digital litter isn't quite the same as physical, Earthbound trash. Also, advertisements and promotional campaigns can be targeted to more specific demographics online on services such as Facebook, MySpace, and music social networks like Last.fm and MOG.com.
The power of social networking is huge. If utilized correctly these online communities can draw countless new fans and create revenue for artists and bands. As paper flyers are analogous to the analogue age, online promotion is obviously the digital way. Digital, the Internet, is the future. As more and more people worldwide become connected and involved in social networking communities, the possibilities for advertising and promotion grow exponentially.
Monday, April 16, 2007
ChoiceStream and Personalized Internet
Before I start writing about music industry-related subject matter, I want to take a little time to pray for those people affected by the unthinkable killings that occurred on the Virgina Tech campus today in Blacksburg. This is a stark reminder of how prevalent senseless violence is in our world. Though this is an unnecessary tragedy, this happens every day. Think about Iraq and every corner of the globe where innocent people deal with widespread death on a daily basis. Now think about how many experiences you have with murder. Correct me if I'm wrong but the majority of us Americans, assuming you haven't served in a war or police department, do not deal with this regularly. Take some time to realize that everything we have, everything we've all worked for can be gone in a single second, with one squeeze of the trigger or one slip down the stairs. We truly are blessed to be alive. Think about those who may not be so lucky, who may not have as many conveniences as we do. Life is a gift! Send some love to those you care about!
Now, on to the news!
Almost every day there are new happenings that suggest the world is ready to firmly set foot in the digital empire. CD sales are dropping, record labels are losing money and struggling to adapt, etc. You know the drill. What is the latest development? Well, it may not be huge, but it is something. ChoiceStream has recently received $25.79 million in investment money, following an earlier $13.1 million check, according to Digital Music News.
What is ChoiceStream? Why does this matter? Why should I care?
ChoiceStream is a Cambridge, Massachusetts based company that caters to online service companies. They provide personalization features on websites, especially online stores. For instance, look at Amazon or Overstock.com. You will notice at least one recommendation feature, especially if you are logged into the site as a member. This exists even upon visiting the site for the first time. These "recommendations" can be similar products based on what you have previously purchased, or other products that people who have purchased a product you have also purchased have ordered. That was a mouthful. Or, eyeful. Sorry. The bottom line is that it is, sometimes in a creepy way, personalized to you, tailored to you by your shopping habits and your personal information. Big Brother is watching you! Or, is he watching out for you? Apparently, people (and companies) with money have been noticing the positive effects that this can have on customers. They are excited about it and investing money into developing this. While it may seem like certain websites may be infringing too much on your sensitive personal information, the service has not been shunned by online shoppers (if it had, firms would not be investing millions of dollars into ChoiceStream and other personalization companies).
This is all well and good for your run-of-the-mill Wal-Mart type online stores, but what about the music, man?! Oh, it's there too. One such digital venue this can be found is on the ever present iTunes music store. If you have ever purchased music from the service, there will undoubtedly be a "For You" section, based on similar artists. Along the same lines, when browsing music on iTunes there is a section off to the side that is titled "Listeners Also Bought" that lists albums from similar sounding artists. While just browsing for music, possibly looking to buy music from an unknown (to you) artist, this can be an extremely helpful tool. I actually utilized this not 20 minutes ago. While searching for certain music (the new Norah Jones) to buy with a newly acquired gift card, I decided to check out other artists using this feature. It led me to put several albums into my "shopping cart," notably the bands Great Lake Swimmers, Explosions In The Sky, and This Will Destroy You. Interesting that their names are similarly atypical...Regardless, I will probably buy a few albums from such bands whom I have had no previous contact with, namely due to the personalized recommendation feature.
Outside of iTunes and online stores, this comes in the form of social music networks like Last.fm and Pandora, to name the most prominent. These websites, as discussed in previous posts, create personal online radio stations and introduce users to new music. Very, very hip. In my opinion, that is.
This all may be applicable only to the "young folks" that are as attached to their computers as politicians are to their lies, but it may in fact be transcending generations. While physical music sales across the world are slipping; the Australian Recording Industry Association recently released figures for 2006 sales, confirming a 3% decline in revenue; digital sales are soaring, if not at least holding ground, which is much better than CDs can say (if they could talk). More and more music connoisseurs are looking to the Internet to purchase their music, including older generations. My father is one of those. Belonging to the Baby Boomers generation, he is and has always been an avid music collector and lover. His cassette, LP, and CD collection is both voluminous and varied. With the advent of file-sharing and online sales, however, he has become a hybrid buyer. He still purchases CDs, but frequents iTunes does not hesitate to use the gift cards his wonderful children buy him for his birthday. This type of consumer may be an exception within an older generation, but it seems that humans of almost all ages are spending more time on the Internet, especially to find music.
The Internet is becoming, nay, has become an integral part in the lives of Americans and citizens of other developed countries. With new developments like ChoiceStream's personalization programs not just for music but for all forms of media, the connected world is in full transition. Just like the music recording industry's transition from analogue to digital, with this change brings good and bad. The pros and cons can not be standardized at this point, but one thing is for sure: We've got options. Variety. Everything is at our fingertips, and it is amazing.
Now, on to the news!
Almost every day there are new happenings that suggest the world is ready to firmly set foot in the digital empire. CD sales are dropping, record labels are losing money and struggling to adapt, etc. You know the drill. What is the latest development? Well, it may not be huge, but it is something. ChoiceStream has recently received $25.79 million in investment money, following an earlier $13.1 million check, according to Digital Music News.
What is ChoiceStream? Why does this matter? Why should I care?
ChoiceStream is a Cambridge, Massachusetts based company that caters to online service companies. They provide personalization features on websites, especially online stores. For instance, look at Amazon or Overstock.com. You will notice at least one recommendation feature, especially if you are logged into the site as a member. This exists even upon visiting the site for the first time. These "recommendations" can be similar products based on what you have previously purchased, or other products that people who have purchased a product you have also purchased have ordered. That was a mouthful. Or, eyeful. Sorry. The bottom line is that it is, sometimes in a creepy way, personalized to you, tailored to you by your shopping habits and your personal information. Big Brother is watching you! Or, is he watching out for you? Apparently, people (and companies) with money have been noticing the positive effects that this can have on customers. They are excited about it and investing money into developing this. While it may seem like certain websites may be infringing too much on your sensitive personal information, the service has not been shunned by online shoppers (if it had, firms would not be investing millions of dollars into ChoiceStream and other personalization companies).
This is all well and good for your run-of-the-mill Wal-Mart type online stores, but what about the music, man?! Oh, it's there too. One such digital venue this can be found is on the ever present iTunes music store. If you have ever purchased music from the service, there will undoubtedly be a "For You" section, based on similar artists. Along the same lines, when browsing music on iTunes there is a section off to the side that is titled "Listeners Also Bought" that lists albums from similar sounding artists. While just browsing for music, possibly looking to buy music from an unknown (to you) artist, this can be an extremely helpful tool. I actually utilized this not 20 minutes ago. While searching for certain music (the new Norah Jones) to buy with a newly acquired gift card, I decided to check out other artists using this feature. It led me to put several albums into my "shopping cart," notably the bands Great Lake Swimmers, Explosions In The Sky, and This Will Destroy You. Interesting that their names are similarly atypical...Regardless, I will probably buy a few albums from such bands whom I have had no previous contact with, namely due to the personalized recommendation feature.
Outside of iTunes and online stores, this comes in the form of social music networks like Last.fm and Pandora, to name the most prominent. These websites, as discussed in previous posts, create personal online radio stations and introduce users to new music. Very, very hip. In my opinion, that is.
This all may be applicable only to the "young folks" that are as attached to their computers as politicians are to their lies, but it may in fact be transcending generations. While physical music sales across the world are slipping; the Australian Recording Industry Association recently released figures for 2006 sales, confirming a 3% decline in revenue; digital sales are soaring, if not at least holding ground, which is much better than CDs can say (if they could talk). More and more music connoisseurs are looking to the Internet to purchase their music, including older generations. My father is one of those. Belonging to the Baby Boomers generation, he is and has always been an avid music collector and lover. His cassette, LP, and CD collection is both voluminous and varied. With the advent of file-sharing and online sales, however, he has become a hybrid buyer. He still purchases CDs, but frequents iTunes does not hesitate to use the gift cards his wonderful children buy him for his birthday. This type of consumer may be an exception within an older generation, but it seems that humans of almost all ages are spending more time on the Internet, especially to find music.
The Internet is becoming, nay, has become an integral part in the lives of Americans and citizens of other developed countries. With new developments like ChoiceStream's personalization programs not just for music but for all forms of media, the connected world is in full transition. Just like the music recording industry's transition from analogue to digital, with this change brings good and bad. The pros and cons can not be standardized at this point, but one thing is for sure: We've got options. Variety. Everything is at our fingertips, and it is amazing.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
CD Sales Drop, Digital Sales Falter
As reported by the The Wall Street Journal on March 21 (three weeks ago, sorry for being behind the ball), CD sales for the first quarter of 2007 were down an alarming 20% compared to the same time one year ago. Digital sales of songs (I repeat: songs, not albums) have not fallen as sharply as CDs as far as raw statistics are concerned, but their sales haven't exactly picked up the slack left by the endangered species known as CDs. According to Nielsen SoundScan, online digital song sales are actually up 54% from a year ago to 173.4 million units so far in 2007, but that is still not enough to make up for the lost revenue. Overall, music sales are down 10% from last year.
We've seen this before. It's been happening for the past seven years or so. Should this news be shocking? While it is encouraging to see that digital sales are at least holding steady and still growing, executives are unhappy with the rate of growth. Sales just aren't meeting expectations.
Record stores are closing left and right. Tower Records, once a powerhouse in the music sales market, has gone bankrupt and closed down. Altogether, 800 stores shut their doors in 2006. This is appalling and unbelievable to the avid record buyer, but not so much to people of my generation. Not to say that Generation Y, the "always on" generation, doesn't buy records...Just not in the volume that the record industry is used to. Ever since the Internet became popular and file-sharing was introduced, however, this should have been forseeable. But no one really wanted to believe that the death of the CD was possible. Record companies failed to embrace the digital age and come up with back up plans just in case something like this actually happened. The big box retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy that have gouged smaller music-focused stores are noticing the downfall and are devoting less and less floor space to music. There are fewer and fewer places to sell CDs anymore. A falling demand means a falling supply, and it seems very likely that the CD will soon become an antique.
Digital music was supposed to be the answer. iTunes was going to save the record industry. Not the music industry, but the business of selling records. That's what record labels do. Artists are their business, but their business is not succeeding anymore. Money is no longer made by selling records. No, revenue is now generated by live shows and merchandise, among other things. Artists used to be able to leave the record label out of this part in their contracts; in other words, artists used to keep a solid percentage of what they generated from ticket and merchandise sales. Now that CDs aren't making any money and frankly cost more to produce than what they recoup in most cases, contracts are being written to take away more and more from the artists in terms of touring and merchandise profits. They are becoming desperate and are looking for other ways to scrape some cash, unfortunately usually from their artists. The problem is that they have been slow to develop other ways to make money. Ringtones looked promising but those sales have begun to slow down as well.
But why is it that stealing music is so popular? After all, it is stealing. Theft. Not a whole lot of people would have the guts to illegally take products straight from a store's shelves, but millions are willing to do it electronically in the safety of their homes. Is it any different just because there is comparably little risk of getting caught? This has been the issue. Is it that people just don't realize that it is stealing? Perhaps becuase so many people do it makes it a little easier for others to. Peer pressure, in a sense. It dumbfounds me. It is so easy to become absorbed in ourselves and not think of the consequences stealing music can have for the artists. Not to say that I have never illegally downloaded music. Oh, I have. But there has been a great deal of hesitation and I do think about my actions. But still! It's just so easy! We live in a world of convenience, and we expect to get music for free even if by illegal means.
Consider the other side of the argument, one that could be made by proponents of file-sharing: If CDs are at a point where they hardly generate any money, why is it so bad to just download the songs for free that aren't making the artists any money anyway? And, isn't file-sharing a form of promtion, especially for small-time artists trying to get their name out?
Hmmm. Good point.
As long as there is a debate there will at least be two sides, and there will never be a consensus. This is where the industry, the music loving world, makes a decision. It must be decided that:
1) Yes, CDs are dead. There is no longer money to be made in the record business, and music should turn into an unprotected public utility, available in unlimited quantity as long as a monthly fee is paid (that's just an idea).
2) Or, NO! CDs are not dead, and we are going to find our way through this!! There will be a federally-backed shutdown of all file-sharing sites domestic and international, and digital music will be dripping with DRM.
The recent trend is moving towards a DRM-free world, but that doesn't mean much right now. The future is still up in arms. I have a hard time believing that the major labels will accept "defeat" and realize that they can't make the money the way they used to. Anything is possible though.
So where does this leave the Internet, more specifically, social networking sites? Well, if the industry shifts into a "music-like-water" plan where music is abundant and cheap and easily distributable, then the Internet will continue to be the Godsend that many think it is. MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and every other social network will be a means of promotion like it is now, but without any restrictions. This will definitely be beneficial for bands trying to spread the word. If the industry falters and does little to change, though, the Internet will be caught in between much like it is now, constantly walking the fence. Until everyone can get on board with one idea and fully commit, there will always be disagreement.
Social networking promises to be a tool that can be utillized by all players, both artists and labels, to promote new music and inform people of tour dates and other venues that can produce income. It is as much a part of the upcoming generations (including my own) as producing offspring was for the Greatest Generation. While CD sales continue to plummet, it may be time to embrace this and reinvent the music industry.
We've seen this before. It's been happening for the past seven years or so. Should this news be shocking? While it is encouraging to see that digital sales are at least holding steady and still growing, executives are unhappy with the rate of growth. Sales just aren't meeting expectations.
Record stores are closing left and right. Tower Records, once a powerhouse in the music sales market, has gone bankrupt and closed down. Altogether, 800 stores shut their doors in 2006. This is appalling and unbelievable to the avid record buyer, but not so much to people of my generation. Not to say that Generation Y, the "always on" generation, doesn't buy records...Just not in the volume that the record industry is used to. Ever since the Internet became popular and file-sharing was introduced, however, this should have been forseeable. But no one really wanted to believe that the death of the CD was possible. Record companies failed to embrace the digital age and come up with back up plans just in case something like this actually happened. The big box retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy that have gouged smaller music-focused stores are noticing the downfall and are devoting less and less floor space to music. There are fewer and fewer places to sell CDs anymore. A falling demand means a falling supply, and it seems very likely that the CD will soon become an antique.
Digital music was supposed to be the answer. iTunes was going to save the record industry. Not the music industry, but the business of selling records. That's what record labels do. Artists are their business, but their business is not succeeding anymore. Money is no longer made by selling records. No, revenue is now generated by live shows and merchandise, among other things. Artists used to be able to leave the record label out of this part in their contracts; in other words, artists used to keep a solid percentage of what they generated from ticket and merchandise sales. Now that CDs aren't making any money and frankly cost more to produce than what they recoup in most cases, contracts are being written to take away more and more from the artists in terms of touring and merchandise profits. They are becoming desperate and are looking for other ways to scrape some cash, unfortunately usually from their artists. The problem is that they have been slow to develop other ways to make money. Ringtones looked promising but those sales have begun to slow down as well.
But why is it that stealing music is so popular? After all, it is stealing. Theft. Not a whole lot of people would have the guts to illegally take products straight from a store's shelves, but millions are willing to do it electronically in the safety of their homes. Is it any different just because there is comparably little risk of getting caught? This has been the issue. Is it that people just don't realize that it is stealing? Perhaps becuase so many people do it makes it a little easier for others to. Peer pressure, in a sense. It dumbfounds me. It is so easy to become absorbed in ourselves and not think of the consequences stealing music can have for the artists. Not to say that I have never illegally downloaded music. Oh, I have. But there has been a great deal of hesitation and I do think about my actions. But still! It's just so easy! We live in a world of convenience, and we expect to get music for free even if by illegal means.
Consider the other side of the argument, one that could be made by proponents of file-sharing: If CDs are at a point where they hardly generate any money, why is it so bad to just download the songs for free that aren't making the artists any money anyway? And, isn't file-sharing a form of promtion, especially for small-time artists trying to get their name out?
Hmmm. Good point.
As long as there is a debate there will at least be two sides, and there will never be a consensus. This is where the industry, the music loving world, makes a decision. It must be decided that:
1) Yes, CDs are dead. There is no longer money to be made in the record business, and music should turn into an unprotected public utility, available in unlimited quantity as long as a monthly fee is paid (that's just an idea).
2) Or, NO! CDs are not dead, and we are going to find our way through this!! There will be a federally-backed shutdown of all file-sharing sites domestic and international, and digital music will be dripping with DRM.
The recent trend is moving towards a DRM-free world, but that doesn't mean much right now. The future is still up in arms. I have a hard time believing that the major labels will accept "defeat" and realize that they can't make the money the way they used to. Anything is possible though.
So where does this leave the Internet, more specifically, social networking sites? Well, if the industry shifts into a "music-like-water" plan where music is abundant and cheap and easily distributable, then the Internet will continue to be the Godsend that many think it is. MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and every other social network will be a means of promotion like it is now, but without any restrictions. This will definitely be beneficial for bands trying to spread the word. If the industry falters and does little to change, though, the Internet will be caught in between much like it is now, constantly walking the fence. Until everyone can get on board with one idea and fully commit, there will always be disagreement.
Social networking promises to be a tool that can be utillized by all players, both artists and labels, to promote new music and inform people of tour dates and other venues that can produce income. It is as much a part of the upcoming generations (including my own) as producing offspring was for the Greatest Generation. While CD sales continue to plummet, it may be time to embrace this and reinvent the music industry.
Monday, April 2, 2007
It Has Begun
Steve Jobs and the major record label EMI have agreed to release almost the entire EMI music catalogue on iTunes free of DRM (Digital Rights Management). As of today, the digital music world has shifted. There is , in essence, a revolution that is just beginning; a revolution against conventional corporate thought and the way traditional record companies have been run for decades. This is a landmark deal that goes against the very foundation of what the major record companies have established for their digital music: protected files. Mainly due to the rampant illegal downloading that has characterized online music, record labels have been extremely opposed to releasing unprotected music (even though CDs have always been unprotected). They wanted to ensure that it would be as difficult as possible to download and share music for free, although most of us know how easy it is to download almost anything we want...for free. So what does this mean for the record industry, and the music industry as a whole?
For one, pertaining to iTunes, customers that download from the music store will be able to play the downloaded unprotected files on any MP3 player, not just an iPod. This could spur the popularity of iTunes, though the point of the music store is not to sell music, but rather to sell iPods. Nonetheless, it gives music consumers one more outlet from which to buy music. Furthermore, the unprotected files will be of a higher quality than most MP3 files on iTunes (LA Times). This benefit, however, could have one of two effects: in a world where the iPod w/earbuds is king, audio fidelity is of little concern. This may not be a major selling point for a lot of people. On the other hand, people may realize that music CAN actually sound good. This may spark a demand for high quality headphones and computer/home loudspeakers, and perhaps a shift back to buying CDs until a better sounding format is adopted, creating a growth in CD sales, causing label execs to wipe their brow in relief and revert to their old, stubborn thinking. Like the McDonald's commercials, it could happen. Right? I digress.
Probably the most important point to this whole adventure is the ability to share. While DRM severely limited sharing of purchased online music, the EMI catalogue (minus The Beatles, who have not allowed any of their music to be sold online to date) will now be free for the consumer to do anything and everything with. One can purchase a track and give it to the whole family if one so chooses with no limit. Ever have trouble with e-mailing a certain song to someone, only to have it not work because it needs a password? I know I have. It is a great thing to share music that you love with people who have never heard it, and this makes it that much easier to do (and more legal).
However, all of this goodness comes at a price. This will all be available at the figure of $1.29, or one can update previously downloaded EMI songs for 30 cents. This may seem high, but dig this: albums of this unprotected, higher quality content still cost the standard $9.99! I like!! It seems like this may be a subtle gesture back to the album. It has been a singles world since the beginning of online music, and this pricing option may push buyers into purchasing full-length albums again. While $1.29 per single track may seem expensive, $9.99 for a full album does not. And, I predict that soon enough the price for higher quality, unprotected tracks will fall in line with the standard 99 cent rate.
What is exciting to me is that, quoting my Music Industry professor Jerry Del Colliano, "Leaders in the record industry follow." Of course this wasn't sound advice aimed at an eager and aspiring young lad like myself, rather a bleak but true analysis of how the record industry has always worked. They are reluctant to change, reluctant to fix a system that, to them, wasn't broken. Well it's broken for a little while now and EMI has taken one of the first steps towards repair. Now that they have taken the leap of faith the other majors will follow. Pretty soon, all online music will be DRM-free. We all expected this to happen, but maybe not as fast as it did. Only two months after Steve Job's infamous "Thoughts On Music" and the music world is already starting to change. He is running the digital music show. Do you think that he had this deal with EMI worked out long ago, and released that statement as a ploy? Sneaky. Very sneaky. Enticement for all other labels to follow suit is that sharing music can lead to buying it. There is evidence of this being true. When someone introduces me to an artist by playing a song or two and I like it, there is a strong probability that I will do further research on said artist and more than likely buy some music, whether it be at a record store or on iTunes (usually on iTunes for me). Especially coupled with same-price albums for higher quality files, this could mean a major spike legal downloading.
What does this mean for music promotion? It means that songs can be passed around like hot potatoes. Word of mouth. Of course this exists with illegal file sharing, but this is legal, and people love obeying the law! On top of that, the high audio quality is attractive, and those interested will be prompted to buy the whole album and share that with others as well. This type of grass-roots promotion can be huge for bands. Take 311 for instance. There is a good chance you have not heard of them, for they have had little mainstream success, but they have been around since the late 80s and possess a massive grassroots network of fans. A huge, loyal, rabid following. They make enough money to live comfortably, pursue entrepreneurial enterprises, and tour nationally every summer. Watch the following video to gauge the crowd response and see how big bands that receive little spotlight can be.
311 - "Freak Out" live in New Orleans on 311 Day
While the decimation of DRM may be frightening to some, it is inevitable. As Dale Carnegie wisely suggested, cooperate with the inevitable. Music without DRM is inevitable. It is the future, and resisting change and worrying about what could happen will only debilitate the chances of success. Props to Steve Jobs and EMI. Let's hope this deal sparks a fire under everyone else!
For one, pertaining to iTunes, customers that download from the music store will be able to play the downloaded unprotected files on any MP3 player, not just an iPod. This could spur the popularity of iTunes, though the point of the music store is not to sell music, but rather to sell iPods. Nonetheless, it gives music consumers one more outlet from which to buy music. Furthermore, the unprotected files will be of a higher quality than most MP3 files on iTunes (LA Times). This benefit, however, could have one of two effects: in a world where the iPod w/earbuds is king, audio fidelity is of little concern. This may not be a major selling point for a lot of people. On the other hand, people may realize that music CAN actually sound good. This may spark a demand for high quality headphones and computer/home loudspeakers, and perhaps a shift back to buying CDs until a better sounding format is adopted, creating a growth in CD sales, causing label execs to wipe their brow in relief and revert to their old, stubborn thinking. Like the McDonald's commercials, it could happen. Right? I digress.
Probably the most important point to this whole adventure is the ability to share. While DRM severely limited sharing of purchased online music, the EMI catalogue (minus The Beatles, who have not allowed any of their music to be sold online to date) will now be free for the consumer to do anything and everything with. One can purchase a track and give it to the whole family if one so chooses with no limit. Ever have trouble with e-mailing a certain song to someone, only to have it not work because it needs a password? I know I have. It is a great thing to share music that you love with people who have never heard it, and this makes it that much easier to do (and more legal).
However, all of this goodness comes at a price. This will all be available at the figure of $1.29, or one can update previously downloaded EMI songs for 30 cents. This may seem high, but dig this: albums of this unprotected, higher quality content still cost the standard $9.99! I like!! It seems like this may be a subtle gesture back to the album. It has been a singles world since the beginning of online music, and this pricing option may push buyers into purchasing full-length albums again. While $1.29 per single track may seem expensive, $9.99 for a full album does not. And, I predict that soon enough the price for higher quality, unprotected tracks will fall in line with the standard 99 cent rate.
What is exciting to me is that, quoting my Music Industry professor Jerry Del Colliano, "Leaders in the record industry follow." Of course this wasn't sound advice aimed at an eager and aspiring young lad like myself, rather a bleak but true analysis of how the record industry has always worked. They are reluctant to change, reluctant to fix a system that, to them, wasn't broken. Well it's broken for a little while now and EMI has taken one of the first steps towards repair. Now that they have taken the leap of faith the other majors will follow. Pretty soon, all online music will be DRM-free. We all expected this to happen, but maybe not as fast as it did. Only two months after Steve Job's infamous "Thoughts On Music" and the music world is already starting to change. He is running the digital music show. Do you think that he had this deal with EMI worked out long ago, and released that statement as a ploy? Sneaky. Very sneaky. Enticement for all other labels to follow suit is that sharing music can lead to buying it. There is evidence of this being true. When someone introduces me to an artist by playing a song or two and I like it, there is a strong probability that I will do further research on said artist and more than likely buy some music, whether it be at a record store or on iTunes (usually on iTunes for me). Especially coupled with same-price albums for higher quality files, this could mean a major spike legal downloading.
What does this mean for music promotion? It means that songs can be passed around like hot potatoes. Word of mouth. Of course this exists with illegal file sharing, but this is legal, and people love obeying the law! On top of that, the high audio quality is attractive, and those interested will be prompted to buy the whole album and share that with others as well. This type of grass-roots promotion can be huge for bands. Take 311 for instance. There is a good chance you have not heard of them, for they have had little mainstream success, but they have been around since the late 80s and possess a massive grassroots network of fans. A huge, loyal, rabid following. They make enough money to live comfortably, pursue entrepreneurial enterprises, and tour nationally every summer. Watch the following video to gauge the crowd response and see how big bands that receive little spotlight can be.
311 - "Freak Out" live in New Orleans on 311 Day
While the decimation of DRM may be frightening to some, it is inevitable. As Dale Carnegie wisely suggested, cooperate with the inevitable. Music without DRM is inevitable. It is the future, and resisting change and worrying about what could happen will only debilitate the chances of success. Props to Steve Jobs and EMI. Let's hope this deal sparks a fire under everyone else!
Friday, March 30, 2007
The So-Called YouTube Rival
Last Thursday, March 22, NBC and News Corp. officially announced their plans to unveil a new online video service aimed at rivaling the ever-popular YouTube. Since its inception, YouTube has put corporate media companies on edge with the rampant unapproved use of copyrighted material so often found on the video sharing website. While some have decided to freak out about it (Viacom is currently suing YouTube and Google for $1 Billion, citing copyright infringement-MSNBC), others have decided to embrace the technology and make deals (read: Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and CBS-News.com). Bucking the trend, joint coordinators News Corp. and NBC have decided to create their own online video website.
How original.
The goal of this project can be summed up in a quote, taken from this New York Times article. Peter A. Chernin, COO of News Corp., says, "We’ll have access to just about the entire U.S. Internet audience at launch. And for the first time, consumers will get what they want — professionally produced video delivered on the sites where they live."Let's dissect this statement. The claim of having access to "just about" every American on the Internet is quite possibly true, as such sites as Yahoo!, AOL and MSN are under the NBC/News Corp. umbrella. As far as claiming to know what consumers want...Well, that's another argument. It seems like a careless assumption made by a money-mongering COO. And you all know what assuming does! (...it makes an ass out of you and me...excuse my English).
There is a reason why YouTube is so popular, and it is not because of professionally produced videos. No, it is because of amateur, user-generated content. YouTube makes it possible for the most untalented of filmmakers to become an Internet superstar, almost based solely on content, not the quality of the video. After all, the slogan you see under the YouTube logo at the top of the site's homepage is "Broadcast Yourself", not "A Place To Watch Professionally Produced Videos". While the most popular content is unprofessional video, are the head thinkers at NBC and the News Corporation really thinking? Well, of course they are. About themselves. But that is a given, right? In fact, according to this article by Kevin Kelleher on TheStreet.com, there was little talk between Jeff Zucker (CEO of NBC) and Peter Chernin about the consumers when the idea was being formed. Rather, the buzz to them was all about the advertisers and copyright holders. Why? Because advertisers make them money and providing only licensed, copyrighted material will keep them out of harm's way and in the good graces of the law. Because if they can help it, there is no way the average citizen will view their content without going through them.
Then again, there must be a reason why they believe this idea will work, and possibly pose a serious threat to YouTube's popularity. What leads them to believe this is that people are willing to watch a TV show on NBC.com with all of the advertisements. Apparently if one misses a favorite show, little will stop that person from catching up on what was missed, even if it means laboring through numerous ads and watching it on a computer screen. All of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) allow free viewing of their major shows online after the show has aired on realtime television, with marked success. But how big is the audience that actually watches network shows online? I'm going to guess that it is not as large as the number of people who spend time on YouTube every day both uploading their own and watching other videos.
The questions to ask are as follows:
-Do people want to see professional video, or homemade?
-What is special about professionally done video?
-Isn't the draw of YouTube the user-generated content and freedom of distribution?
The whole Internet world knows that YouTube is awesome because it is for the user, by the user. When Google bought YouTube there was some thinking that the introduction of a major corporation would commercialize and de-personalize the service, but so far that has not been the case. So is there reason to worry, or even care about this new thing from NBC/News Corp.? I think not. I predict that the site will be used to view network shows that aren't available on YouTube, and YouTube won't be affected much at all, in terms of site hits. So, go for it! It may or may not be the success that Peter Chernin and Jeff Zucker think it can be, but either way YouTube will remain the number one video site on the Internet (unless MySpace catches up).
All of this leads to another thought, however: Is it appaling to anyone that so much attention and money is being focused on such a trivial issue such as online video, minor copyright infringement, and what coroporation is winning or losing these money battles? The amount of money and effort expended in the altogether silly and contemptible entertainment industry could probably clothe and feed our nation's homeless and educate those unable to receive ample education. And of course to help clean up the mess that Katrina left. But I suppose that's not what is important here. No, instead of focusing on ways to better ourselves to in turn better others and create an environment/culture that stimulates love and compassion, we are more concerned with ourselves and how to watch that missed episode of Grey's Anatomy. What a world we live in. But I have hope!
"And I broke down at the break of dawn and saw looming in the clouds above the Pentagon (as real as the Holocaust, as strong as the Parthenon) visions of Sudan, Iraq, and Vietnam. And I stood silent upon a flooded levee and stared at the ruins of a merchant city and the president who came to dine with the noble elite. He didn't do a thing. I saw three ships come sailing in through the passage of the Caribbean. I saw children coming home in coffins; Millions marching on Washington. And I asked, when is the revolution?" -Brett Dennen, "I Asked When"
How original.
The goal of this project can be summed up in a quote, taken from this New York Times article. Peter A. Chernin, COO of News Corp., says, "We’ll have access to just about the entire U.S. Internet audience at launch. And for the first time, consumers will get what they want — professionally produced video delivered on the sites where they live."Let's dissect this statement. The claim of having access to "just about" every American on the Internet is quite possibly true, as such sites as Yahoo!, AOL and MSN are under the NBC/News Corp. umbrella. As far as claiming to know what consumers want...Well, that's another argument. It seems like a careless assumption made by a money-mongering COO. And you all know what assuming does! (...it makes an ass out of you and me...excuse my English).
There is a reason why YouTube is so popular, and it is not because of professionally produced videos. No, it is because of amateur, user-generated content. YouTube makes it possible for the most untalented of filmmakers to become an Internet superstar, almost based solely on content, not the quality of the video. After all, the slogan you see under the YouTube logo at the top of the site's homepage is "Broadcast Yourself", not "A Place To Watch Professionally Produced Videos". While the most popular content is unprofessional video, are the head thinkers at NBC and the News Corporation really thinking? Well, of course they are. About themselves. But that is a given, right? In fact, according to this article by Kevin Kelleher on TheStreet.com, there was little talk between Jeff Zucker (CEO of NBC) and Peter Chernin about the consumers when the idea was being formed. Rather, the buzz to them was all about the advertisers and copyright holders. Why? Because advertisers make them money and providing only licensed, copyrighted material will keep them out of harm's way and in the good graces of the law. Because if they can help it, there is no way the average citizen will view their content without going through them.
Then again, there must be a reason why they believe this idea will work, and possibly pose a serious threat to YouTube's popularity. What leads them to believe this is that people are willing to watch a TV show on NBC.com with all of the advertisements. Apparently if one misses a favorite show, little will stop that person from catching up on what was missed, even if it means laboring through numerous ads and watching it on a computer screen. All of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) allow free viewing of their major shows online after the show has aired on realtime television, with marked success. But how big is the audience that actually watches network shows online? I'm going to guess that it is not as large as the number of people who spend time on YouTube every day both uploading their own and watching other videos.
The questions to ask are as follows:
-Do people want to see professional video, or homemade?
-What is special about professionally done video?
-Isn't the draw of YouTube the user-generated content and freedom of distribution?
The whole Internet world knows that YouTube is awesome because it is for the user, by the user. When Google bought YouTube there was some thinking that the introduction of a major corporation would commercialize and de-personalize the service, but so far that has not been the case. So is there reason to worry, or even care about this new thing from NBC/News Corp.? I think not. I predict that the site will be used to view network shows that aren't available on YouTube, and YouTube won't be affected much at all, in terms of site hits. So, go for it! It may or may not be the success that Peter Chernin and Jeff Zucker think it can be, but either way YouTube will remain the number one video site on the Internet (unless MySpace catches up).
All of this leads to another thought, however: Is it appaling to anyone that so much attention and money is being focused on such a trivial issue such as online video, minor copyright infringement, and what coroporation is winning or losing these money battles? The amount of money and effort expended in the altogether silly and contemptible entertainment industry could probably clothe and feed our nation's homeless and educate those unable to receive ample education. And of course to help clean up the mess that Katrina left. But I suppose that's not what is important here. No, instead of focusing on ways to better ourselves to in turn better others and create an environment/culture that stimulates love and compassion, we are more concerned with ourselves and how to watch that missed episode of Grey's Anatomy. What a world we live in. But I have hope!
"And I broke down at the break of dawn and saw looming in the clouds above the Pentagon (as real as the Holocaust, as strong as the Parthenon) visions of Sudan, Iraq, and Vietnam. And I stood silent upon a flooded levee and stared at the ruins of a merchant city and the president who came to dine with the noble elite. He didn't do a thing. I saw three ships come sailing in through the passage of the Caribbean. I saw children coming home in coffins; Millions marching on Washington. And I asked, when is the revolution?" -Brett Dennen, "I Asked When"
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Fame by MySpace
If you are a member of MySpace, or have ever visited their music site, then it is probable that you've heard of Tila Tequila. If the name does not sound familiar, you must not be hip to the MySpace community. She supposedly has the most "friends" on the online social community, with the count somewhere in the range of 1,745,000. As the often labeled "Queen of MySpace," her online stardom must be spreading beyond computer screens and into the real world, right? Well, in her own right, she has done many of things that your typical celebrity does, such as gracing the covers of various national magazines and becoming involved in various business ventures (her full bio and list of accomplishments can be found on her MySpace page as well as on her official website. This Internet superstar as gained that adoration of millions of (mostly male) mainstream media addicts. Recently, she has begun her transition into the music industry. Most notably a model, she has as of late created some stir with the release of her first hit single, "I Love U." That's not a typo...apparently it is hip to shorten three letter words down to one.
This raises the question: Can Internet personalities, and primarily MySpace stars, become big-time celebrities and platinum-record selling artists?
According to a recent article on the Digital Music News website, so far, the answer is a resounding maybe. While it is too early to tell with Tila Tequila, her single was launched on iTunes only in late February, the response thus far as been modest. Since its release, the single has failed to crack the Top 50 most downloaded tracks on iTunes, though it peaked at #52. Sales of the single were not pinpointed, but labeled as "in the thousands" in the Digital Music News article. These numbers would be very encouraging for a small-time artist just cracking the scene, but for a million-plus friend holder on MySpace with interviews, event appearances and photo spreads across the country? Not so hot. So wherein lies the problem?
Since Tequila already possessed a solid fan base before she released her first single, which was produced by the infamous Lil Jon, it would not be impossible to imagine that the track could have sold at least 100,000 copies by now. It's been out for roughly a month now, she has one and three quarter million online friends, and the track was released digitally. If one does the math, that sales figure does not seem like a stretch. The problem must be a combination of a few things: sub-par music, or a reluctance to purchase music.
Seeing as how her fan base is seemingly well involved with the Internet and its inner workings, it makes sense to assume that many of those fans are familiar with purchasing music online, especially on iTunes. And considering that the single costs only 99 cents, it seems that her sales thus far should, or at least could, be much higher. Therefore, I do not believe it is the unwillingness to purchase music, especially when we are talking about a 99 cent track.
I believe it has to do with the quality of the music. Of course this is just my personal opinion so don't take it like it is the final word. That being said, "I Love U" is darn near awful. OK that was a little biased, seeing as how the type of music she produces is not my favorite. I'll rephrase. The single "I Love U" by Tila Tequila does not have what it takes to be a hit, and it is no surprise that its sales figures and popularity so far have not met expectations. The only song on her page that isn't offensive to the senses is "Paralyze." The others, including "I Love U," are unnecessarily lewd and profane, with far too many references to MySpace. In the world of Rap and popular music it is acceptable, nay, expected, to be a bit crude and on the edge. However, this sounds like an insecure teenager attempting to rap to overused beats. That may have been harsh. I apologize. I have the utmost respect for Tila Tequila for her work ethic and the way she has risen to stardom and gotten her name known. I just don't hear or see a future for her in music.
I think it all depends on the quality of the music. If Tila's music was interesting, then she would be selling millions. But it's not. MySpace and the Internet are great ways to launch yourself, but you must be legit in order to be successful for the long run. It is possible, but the fickle nature of MySpace and the Internet definitely make it a difficult task. Though it may seem like the Internet can serve as a shortcut to fame, it is deceptive in the fact that it usually produces one hit wonders and short-lived phenomena.
This raises the question: Can Internet personalities, and primarily MySpace stars, become big-time celebrities and platinum-record selling artists?
According to a recent article on the Digital Music News website, so far, the answer is a resounding maybe. While it is too early to tell with Tila Tequila, her single was launched on iTunes only in late February, the response thus far as been modest. Since its release, the single has failed to crack the Top 50 most downloaded tracks on iTunes, though it peaked at #52. Sales of the single were not pinpointed, but labeled as "in the thousands" in the Digital Music News article. These numbers would be very encouraging for a small-time artist just cracking the scene, but for a million-plus friend holder on MySpace with interviews, event appearances and photo spreads across the country? Not so hot. So wherein lies the problem?
Since Tequila already possessed a solid fan base before she released her first single, which was produced by the infamous Lil Jon, it would not be impossible to imagine that the track could have sold at least 100,000 copies by now. It's been out for roughly a month now, she has one and three quarter million online friends, and the track was released digitally. If one does the math, that sales figure does not seem like a stretch. The problem must be a combination of a few things: sub-par music, or a reluctance to purchase music.
Seeing as how her fan base is seemingly well involved with the Internet and its inner workings, it makes sense to assume that many of those fans are familiar with purchasing music online, especially on iTunes. And considering that the single costs only 99 cents, it seems that her sales thus far should, or at least could, be much higher. Therefore, I do not believe it is the unwillingness to purchase music, especially when we are talking about a 99 cent track.
I believe it has to do with the quality of the music. Of course this is just my personal opinion so don't take it like it is the final word. That being said, "I Love U" is darn near awful. OK that was a little biased, seeing as how the type of music she produces is not my favorite. I'll rephrase. The single "I Love U" by Tila Tequila does not have what it takes to be a hit, and it is no surprise that its sales figures and popularity so far have not met expectations. The only song on her page that isn't offensive to the senses is "Paralyze." The others, including "I Love U," are unnecessarily lewd and profane, with far too many references to MySpace. In the world of Rap and popular music it is acceptable, nay, expected, to be a bit crude and on the edge. However, this sounds like an insecure teenager attempting to rap to overused beats. That may have been harsh. I apologize. I have the utmost respect for Tila Tequila for her work ethic and the way she has risen to stardom and gotten her name known. I just don't hear or see a future for her in music.
I think it all depends on the quality of the music. If Tila's music was interesting, then she would be selling millions. But it's not. MySpace and the Internet are great ways to launch yourself, but you must be legit in order to be successful for the long run. It is possible, but the fickle nature of MySpace and the Internet definitely make it a difficult task. Though it may seem like the Internet can serve as a shortcut to fame, it is deceptive in the fact that it usually produces one hit wonders and short-lived phenomena.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Wait a minute: Internet Radio = Dead?
So. It always happens this way, doesn't it? As soon as something really exciting begins to blossom and gain large amounts of support, the powers that be whip out their axes and chop down the budding branch of opportunity. If you have read some of my previous postings, you might have gotten the sense that I was an advocate for Internet radio. Well, I am, along with many other listeners, musicians both amateur and professional, artists both signed and unsigned, and even some record labels. But not the Copyright Royalty Board. They want to make it nearly impossible for small-time Internet radio stations to stay afloat and flood the Internet air waves with music. No, let's take away something positive and leave more room for sex, violence, hate, and everything else that pollutes computer screens across our great country.
How are they trying to kill Internet radio? In short, by increasing licensing fees for webcasters. Every time a song is played over the air it is called a performance. For every performance there is a fee that must be paid to the record company, performing rights society, publisher, artist, etc. so the record labels and recording artists can receive the appropriate performance royalties.
Why are they doing this? Of course the goal of this fee hike is not to wipe out Internet radio, but that may indeed be the reciprocal effect. Money is the issue, obviously. Apparently, even with the amount of Internet radio stations and webcasters in existence, the CRB feels that there is a need to increase licensing fees. Of course this is encouraging for recording artists, but where will we hear their music if Internet radio stations have to shut down? Terrestial radio? Ha. Don't get me wrong, I understand that Internet radio may not be the most popular way to listen to and find new music, but it sure is a viable and convenient option. And it is an extremely valuable tool for up-and-coming artists to get their music to ears outside of their family and friends. We are fully immersed in the digital age; that is not debatable anymore. And as technology will only progress and the Internet becomes a more integral part of everyone's daily routine, it doesn't make sense for measure to be proposed to possibly limit the spread of music via Internet radio. What happened to terrestrial radio could be echoed on the Internet, i.e. consolidation. Only the major players with the most money will be left standing. Then where is the variety? Luckily, however, this is not the same situation and something as dire as that is unlikely to happen. It just feels that way.
Something that is so good for artists and record labels alike needs to be stimulated, helped to grow and develop. If the artists and labels felt that they were not receiving their fair share from online radio play, is it fair to assume that they would have made some noise about it, or even endorse this move? I think so. Artists are all for promoting their music by any and all means, and the record labels enjoy having so much exposure to such a wide variety of people at little to no cost. So if no one is complaining (I don't think people have been complaining about Internet radio, except for maybe the suits at the CRB and other corporations, but of course I could be wrong) then why raise the rates (again!)? Of course prices go up with almost everything as long as the clock on the wall keeps ticking, but this move will have significant effects on many webcasters and possibly force them out of business, or at least force them to institute a subscription-type service for their online radio. If that happens, what's the difference between Internet radio and satellite radio? Exactly. Which is why Internet radio is so attractive: it is free and has a certain cool factor that other types of radio do not have right now. We live in a "me first" world and people enjoy having control, so please, don't take the remote (or keyboard, mouse, trackpad) out of our hands. Leave us some territory to explore before it becomes eaten alive and sucked lifeless by big money companies!
On the other hand. I could be rambling about something I am not fully, 100% educated on. Which is why I am going to read this article by Doc Searls on the Linux Journal again. Extremely informative and helpful on this hot topic. Thank you!
So say a prayer, cast a spell, wish upon a shooting star. Send positive vibrations to the CRB to try and sway them the other direction and help Internet radio bloom!
How are they trying to kill Internet radio? In short, by increasing licensing fees for webcasters. Every time a song is played over the air it is called a performance. For every performance there is a fee that must be paid to the record company, performing rights society, publisher, artist, etc. so the record labels and recording artists can receive the appropriate performance royalties.
Why are they doing this? Of course the goal of this fee hike is not to wipe out Internet radio, but that may indeed be the reciprocal effect. Money is the issue, obviously. Apparently, even with the amount of Internet radio stations and webcasters in existence, the CRB feels that there is a need to increase licensing fees. Of course this is encouraging for recording artists, but where will we hear their music if Internet radio stations have to shut down? Terrestial radio? Ha. Don't get me wrong, I understand that Internet radio may not be the most popular way to listen to and find new music, but it sure is a viable and convenient option. And it is an extremely valuable tool for up-and-coming artists to get their music to ears outside of their family and friends. We are fully immersed in the digital age; that is not debatable anymore. And as technology will only progress and the Internet becomes a more integral part of everyone's daily routine, it doesn't make sense for measure to be proposed to possibly limit the spread of music via Internet radio. What happened to terrestrial radio could be echoed on the Internet, i.e. consolidation. Only the major players with the most money will be left standing. Then where is the variety? Luckily, however, this is not the same situation and something as dire as that is unlikely to happen. It just feels that way.
Something that is so good for artists and record labels alike needs to be stimulated, helped to grow and develop. If the artists and labels felt that they were not receiving their fair share from online radio play, is it fair to assume that they would have made some noise about it, or even endorse this move? I think so. Artists are all for promoting their music by any and all means, and the record labels enjoy having so much exposure to such a wide variety of people at little to no cost. So if no one is complaining (I don't think people have been complaining about Internet radio, except for maybe the suits at the CRB and other corporations, but of course I could be wrong) then why raise the rates (again!)? Of course prices go up with almost everything as long as the clock on the wall keeps ticking, but this move will have significant effects on many webcasters and possibly force them out of business, or at least force them to institute a subscription-type service for their online radio. If that happens, what's the difference between Internet radio and satellite radio? Exactly. Which is why Internet radio is so attractive: it is free and has a certain cool factor that other types of radio do not have right now. We live in a "me first" world and people enjoy having control, so please, don't take the remote (or keyboard, mouse, trackpad) out of our hands. Leave us some territory to explore before it becomes eaten alive and sucked lifeless by big money companies!
On the other hand. I could be rambling about something I am not fully, 100% educated on. Which is why I am going to read this article by Doc Searls on the Linux Journal again. Extremely informative and helpful on this hot topic. Thank you!
So say a prayer, cast a spell, wish upon a shooting star. Send positive vibrations to the CRB to try and sway them the other direction and help Internet radio bloom!
Friday, March 9, 2007
Want new music?
Well, it seems that there are more and more music social network sites popping up on the Internet. As mentioned in a previous blog, Last.fm and Pandora are front runners when it comes to personalizing radio stations and finding new songs. But there certainly are others, and the number of people using these sites is constantly growing. Take for instance these three online music communities: MOG, URGE, and iLike. Of these, what most intrigues me is MOG.
A social music community dedicated to music lovers who mainly listen to their music on their computer or iPod, MOG is similar to Last.fm in that it displays what each user is listening to. What is cool about the MOG technology is that it updates music stats in real time without the listener/user having to do anything. It keeps track of how many times each song is played in iTunes, or almost any other media player. This might be a little unnerving and creepy, but these days it is second nature to realize that we are constantly being watched by someone. Plus, the user makes a choice to display these personal music-listening habits. The benefits of this are for other people, as they can begin to grasp who each user is in a musical sense and possibly sample new artists they have never heard of.
MOG also utilizes blogging. This is where it gets cool, because it allows for audio and video embedding. So if a person is blogging about a certain song or artist or music video, it is possible to embed the actual subject for all readers to view/listen. This aspect of the network interests me the most because it lets people really divulge to others their personal feelings about music, whether it be in general or for a certain song or artist. There are many "celebrity" artists that are members of MOG, and when I say celebrity I mean recognized artists. For instance, Matthew Caws, a personal hero, has a profile on MOG. The singer and guitarist for Nada Surf, he regularly updates his profile with blog posts and makes the music he is currently listening to visible (and listenable) to other users . This is really interesting, in my opinion, because it lets one see what their favorite artist is listening to and drawing inspiration from. It builds a closer connection with artists and fans than just the music. While assuredly some people think of music only as background noise to their life, there are those of us who want to learn more about the artists and become connected on a more personal level. MOG makes this possible while enhancing and broadening users' musical palettes.
Another site, Urge.com, is somewhat similar. Started by MTV Networks (a division of Viacom International Inc.), Urge enables users to create profiles and playlists, like MOG. There are 35 preset radio stations (included in the "free" package; 150 stations are available in the other paid subscription packages) to choose from, different from MOG (MOG's radio stations are personalized and not preset). However, Urge offers the option to download music. There are three models from which a person can choose: The free set-up, where the basics of the site can be had and music tracks can be downloaded for 99 cents; The Urge "All Access" option at $9.95/month or $99/year that allows for free, unlimited downloading but does not allow that subscribed music to be transferred to an MP3 device; And the "All Access To Go" option at $14.95/month or $149/year, with the main benefit of allowing the transfer of downloaded songs to be transferred to portable MP3 devices. That is cool! Considering the amount of money people spend on new music, assuming that there are SOME people that still buy music, that could equate to 10 or 15 new CDs (vinyl, cassettes, online tracks/albums, what have you). Considering that that amount of money spent ($149) would render only roughly 100-150 songs, this option is pretty attractive. On the other hand, one could just download for free. Illegally. The whole lure of this is the legal aspect, I think. People who are afraid that the big bad RIAA will sue them for illegally downloading music will probably like this, among other services like Napster, but I feel that a majority of the online-music-downloading population will turn their cheek(s) to this. Not only because it is run by MTV, but because of other reasons such as the music library. What good is an affordable download service if the tracks you want aren't available? It doesn't specify on the website how many songs are available other than "millions." That may seem like a large number but is a relatively small chunk of the recorded music that exists today. Another downside is that the provided radio stations are "Professionally Programmed," not user generated. Does that sound like fun? Take a look, or a listen, rather, at radio today and tell me that that is a smart move. Then again, there are still many, many people who enjoy radio just how it is, so perhaps this is a smart move by the suits at MTV.
I've got one more online social music community for you, and it is called iLike. According to iLike,
"The iLike service is designed to help consumers discover and share music together. A key part of the service is the "music by new artists". Most music lovers are eager to hear new music by new artists - radio has become boring, and the Internet is where people are going to find new music."I especially like the part about radio being boring! Jokes aside, this service is special because of its emphasis on new music. Honestly it is not much different than MOG or Last.fm, just another way to discover music through friends and other users' playlists, with an easier outlet for upcoming artists to get their music heard. But it is another option! And people love variety! Check it out.
So, are the days of listening to radio and going to the record store to find new music over? Not completely. People still listen to radio and discover new music, people still go to the record store to randomly chance upon something new, and people still listen to radio and then go to the record store to purchase said new music. However, it is hardly debatable anymore that there has been a paradigm shift, that is still in transition, to the Internet. Thanks, mostly to my generation, for upsetting the means of doing music business throughout the last century! No longer can record companies and radio programmers (consolidators) rely on traditional methods to generate revenue and make people happy. It is a time of creation, so let's start thinking!
A social music community dedicated to music lovers who mainly listen to their music on their computer or iPod, MOG is similar to Last.fm in that it displays what each user is listening to. What is cool about the MOG technology is that it updates music stats in real time without the listener/user having to do anything. It keeps track of how many times each song is played in iTunes, or almost any other media player. This might be a little unnerving and creepy, but these days it is second nature to realize that we are constantly being watched by someone. Plus, the user makes a choice to display these personal music-listening habits. The benefits of this are for other people, as they can begin to grasp who each user is in a musical sense and possibly sample new artists they have never heard of.
MOG also utilizes blogging. This is where it gets cool, because it allows for audio and video embedding. So if a person is blogging about a certain song or artist or music video, it is possible to embed the actual subject for all readers to view/listen. This aspect of the network interests me the most because it lets people really divulge to others their personal feelings about music, whether it be in general or for a certain song or artist. There are many "celebrity" artists that are members of MOG, and when I say celebrity I mean recognized artists. For instance, Matthew Caws, a personal hero, has a profile on MOG. The singer and guitarist for Nada Surf, he regularly updates his profile with blog posts and makes the music he is currently listening to visible (and listenable) to other users . This is really interesting, in my opinion, because it lets one see what their favorite artist is listening to and drawing inspiration from. It builds a closer connection with artists and fans than just the music. While assuredly some people think of music only as background noise to their life, there are those of us who want to learn more about the artists and become connected on a more personal level. MOG makes this possible while enhancing and broadening users' musical palettes.
Another site, Urge.com, is somewhat similar. Started by MTV Networks (a division of Viacom International Inc.), Urge enables users to create profiles and playlists, like MOG. There are 35 preset radio stations (included in the "free" package; 150 stations are available in the other paid subscription packages) to choose from, different from MOG (MOG's radio stations are personalized and not preset). However, Urge offers the option to download music. There are three models from which a person can choose: The free set-up, where the basics of the site can be had and music tracks can be downloaded for 99 cents; The Urge "All Access" option at $9.95/month or $99/year that allows for free, unlimited downloading but does not allow that subscribed music to be transferred to an MP3 device; And the "All Access To Go" option at $14.95/month or $149/year, with the main benefit of allowing the transfer of downloaded songs to be transferred to portable MP3 devices. That is cool! Considering the amount of money people spend on new music, assuming that there are SOME people that still buy music, that could equate to 10 or 15 new CDs (vinyl, cassettes, online tracks/albums, what have you). Considering that that amount of money spent ($149) would render only roughly 100-150 songs, this option is pretty attractive. On the other hand, one could just download for free. Illegally. The whole lure of this is the legal aspect, I think. People who are afraid that the big bad RIAA will sue them for illegally downloading music will probably like this, among other services like Napster, but I feel that a majority of the online-music-downloading population will turn their cheek(s) to this. Not only because it is run by MTV, but because of other reasons such as the music library. What good is an affordable download service if the tracks you want aren't available? It doesn't specify on the website how many songs are available other than "millions." That may seem like a large number but is a relatively small chunk of the recorded music that exists today. Another downside is that the provided radio stations are "Professionally Programmed," not user generated. Does that sound like fun? Take a look, or a listen, rather, at radio today and tell me that that is a smart move. Then again, there are still many, many people who enjoy radio just how it is, so perhaps this is a smart move by the suits at MTV.
I've got one more online social music community for you, and it is called iLike. According to iLike,
"The iLike service is designed to help consumers discover and share music together. A key part of the service is the "music by new artists". Most music lovers are eager to hear new music by new artists - radio has become boring, and the Internet is where people are going to find new music."I especially like the part about radio being boring! Jokes aside, this service is special because of its emphasis on new music. Honestly it is not much different than MOG or Last.fm, just another way to discover music through friends and other users' playlists, with an easier outlet for upcoming artists to get their music heard. But it is another option! And people love variety! Check it out.
So, are the days of listening to radio and going to the record store to find new music over? Not completely. People still listen to radio and discover new music, people still go to the record store to randomly chance upon something new, and people still listen to radio and then go to the record store to purchase said new music. However, it is hardly debatable anymore that there has been a paradigm shift, that is still in transition, to the Internet. Thanks, mostly to my generation, for upsetting the means of doing music business throughout the last century! No longer can record companies and radio programmers (consolidators) rely on traditional methods to generate revenue and make people happy. It is a time of creation, so let's start thinking!
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Tempting The Giants
Google, parent of YouTube, is far along on its trek to make partnerships with as many media companies as possible. The goal is to ensure that the content on YouTube is copyrighted and licensed so as to avoid future debacles like the one between Google and Viacom. The only problem is convincing the larger media companies (like Viacom) that giving up some control of their content by putting it on YouTube will be beneficial for both marketing and monetary reasons. Most large studios have been reluctant to cut a deal with Google and YouTube, though there has been marked success with smaller companies.
With each partnership, YouTube has created a designated channel for each company. For example, PBS has its own channel, which can be found in the "Partners" section of the "Channels" menu on the YouTube website. Other partners' channels include sports associations such as the NBA and NHL, along with MTV and Cartoon Network's 'Adult Swim' program. This is a great way of exposing each network's content and gathering an online fan base.
How can companies monetize the content they license to YouTube? According to Google, ad revenues will be split between the content provider and Google/YouTube. While at this time the revenue from ads is relatively small, undoubtedly turning off some possible partners from signing deals, the time of pre-rolled advertisements is probably not too far away. Unless users are absolutely turned off by the idea of scowling through a 5 to 15, or even 30 second advertisement before a video, there is a strong probability that decent money can be made through splitting ad revenue.
But how do they convince viewers that watching commercials is worth it? Well, for one, make the ads funny. There area numerous commercials that I enjoy, such as this Sierra Mist ad:
I find that hilarious, and I feel that if pre-running commercials are funny, and much shorter than 30 seconds, there won't be much of a problem for YouTube addicts. Also, unless a legitimate competitor to YouTube arises with equally attractive content and zero commercials, Google doesn't have much to worry about and they can start trying to make back some of the ridiculous amount of dollars they spent on acquiring YouTube.
Another possibility is to run commercials only on major studio content (like NBC, CBS, Viacom, etc.). All user-generated content could be commercial free, unless the user is affiliated with a studio or publisher, then the terms would be stipulated in the contract. Though this may stem users to broadcast the ad-laden content themselves, thus infringing copyright, a fail safe filter could be developed to prevent anyone but the licensed company from running the video, thus forcing viewers to see the commercial. This is just a thought.
So while Google is busy trying to get everyone on board with YouTube, is it safe to say that we are diving into an even deeper pool of advertisements? Will there eventually be an Oscar's Award Show for commercials? We are so saturated with advertisements that anything seems possible at this point. Here is another idea: Create competitions for YouTube users to generate their own commercials to be run before videos, much like what Doritos did for the Super Bowl.
The promotional possibilities of YouTube are frighteningly endless. These days the Internet is such a huge player in marketing that it is downright silly to not take advantage of every possible outlet. It is only a matter of time before we see every major network willingly partnering up with YouTube and other online media companies.
With each partnership, YouTube has created a designated channel for each company. For example, PBS has its own channel, which can be found in the "Partners" section of the "Channels" menu on the YouTube website. Other partners' channels include sports associations such as the NBA and NHL, along with MTV and Cartoon Network's 'Adult Swim' program. This is a great way of exposing each network's content and gathering an online fan base.
How can companies monetize the content they license to YouTube? According to Google, ad revenues will be split between the content provider and Google/YouTube. While at this time the revenue from ads is relatively small, undoubtedly turning off some possible partners from signing deals, the time of pre-rolled advertisements is probably not too far away. Unless users are absolutely turned off by the idea of scowling through a 5 to 15, or even 30 second advertisement before a video, there is a strong probability that decent money can be made through splitting ad revenue.
But how do they convince viewers that watching commercials is worth it? Well, for one, make the ads funny. There area numerous commercials that I enjoy, such as this Sierra Mist ad:
I find that hilarious, and I feel that if pre-running commercials are funny, and much shorter than 30 seconds, there won't be much of a problem for YouTube addicts. Also, unless a legitimate competitor to YouTube arises with equally attractive content and zero commercials, Google doesn't have much to worry about and they can start trying to make back some of the ridiculous amount of dollars they spent on acquiring YouTube.
Another possibility is to run commercials only on major studio content (like NBC, CBS, Viacom, etc.). All user-generated content could be commercial free, unless the user is affiliated with a studio or publisher, then the terms would be stipulated in the contract. Though this may stem users to broadcast the ad-laden content themselves, thus infringing copyright, a fail safe filter could be developed to prevent anyone but the licensed company from running the video, thus forcing viewers to see the commercial. This is just a thought.
So while Google is busy trying to get everyone on board with YouTube, is it safe to say that we are diving into an even deeper pool of advertisements? Will there eventually be an Oscar's Award Show for commercials? We are so saturated with advertisements that anything seems possible at this point. Here is another idea: Create competitions for YouTube users to generate their own commercials to be run before videos, much like what Doritos did for the Super Bowl.
The promotional possibilities of YouTube are frighteningly endless. These days the Internet is such a huge player in marketing that it is downright silly to not take advantage of every possible outlet. It is only a matter of time before we see every major network willingly partnering up with YouTube and other online media companies.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Restricting the flow of art, or saving money?
As if illegal file-sharing wasn't a big enough burden to deal with, it seems the naysayers of free distribution of art have decided to tackle another issue. No, the RIAA is not involved in this one. No, the MPA (Music Publishers' Association) and NMPA (National Music Publishers' Association) are the main attackers in this extension of online music war. Their main complaint concerns the production and sharing of guitar tablature and online sheet music. They insist that such user-based websites infringe on copyrights and take away revenue from published guitar tablature books and sheet music. Such targeted sites include TabCrawler.com, which has not been shut down yet, whereas Guitar Tab Universe has obviously been contacted and prompted to make changes.
As a guitarist, I have personal experience with such guitar tab sites. Before I realized I didn't need literature to teach me how to play a song, I would occasionally visit such websites and find tablature to the desired song and try to play it. The thing is, these websites are user-contributed. They aren't the official transcripts of what was recorded by the artist on the album. This has its pros and cons: It encourages music listeners and players to become more involved with the music and write out how they think it sounds to post on such websites for others to see and tweak, but it also leads to numerous inaccuracies in the music and, in some eyes, illegal acts of copyright infringement.
These websites are designed to give interested players a general overview of how a song is thought to be played, with much of the performance left up to personal interpretation. Depending on the intricacy of the song the tab can be really close to how the actual song sounds, or perilously wrong. If one wants to know how the song was actually played, then published, artist endorsed tablature books can be purchased. Personally, while I dabbled in tab websites, I also bought several published books by artists including Incubus, Led Zeppelin, Weezer (from the Blue Album), and Jimi Hendrix. When I purchased these books, it wasn't because I was concerned about the possible legal ramifications of getting tablature from an unofficial online source. No, it was because I wanted an accurate representation of the music and I wanted to know exactly how it was played. When you are in the early stages of playing an instrument like the guitar, at least in my case, there is great thrill in learning how to play music from your favorite artists and personal heroes (I was so stoked on learning how to play, or at least try to play, Jimmy Page's solos). While the pleasure derived from playing other artists' music has significantly declined since my early playing days, I still have a blast rocking out to other music that I didn't personally create. It's just fun playing along to music that you love to listen to!
It seems that the argument resides here: Are open forums in which people converse with others about how to correctly played a recorded artist's songs illegal? Should it be considered copyright infringement and should it be stopped? There are legitimate concerns on both ends of the argument. For example, according to an article in The Independent, sheet music publishing in Britain is a £50 million a year industry. The question is, are these websites cutting into profit and seriously hurting sales? As of now there are no solid figures, which makes me question why this is an arising issue. Tab sites have been around since the Internet became popular. The last time I visited any guitar tab website was at least four years ago, back when there was seemingly no problem at all. If it is a real problem, why did they wait so long to address it and take action?
I fully understand that the sales taken away from these websites could hurt many people financially. However, I fail to see what the fuss is about. Sheet music publishing will be fine when it is all said and done, because serious musicians intent on learning songs will go to the official, certified source, not some amateur guitar tab website. Please note that this issue does not deal with only guitar tablature but classical music and all other kinds as well. It seems that guitar tab websites are the most targeted right now because, well, everyone plays guitar. That's a given.
This issue sounds eerily familiar to the RIAA's quest to sue everyone with a computer that has music on it, and it may be getting a little redundant. Will we always live in a world of legal battles concerning music and copyright, or will universal access become the wave of future? I sure hope the latter wins the fight.
As a guitarist, I have personal experience with such guitar tab sites. Before I realized I didn't need literature to teach me how to play a song, I would occasionally visit such websites and find tablature to the desired song and try to play it. The thing is, these websites are user-contributed. They aren't the official transcripts of what was recorded by the artist on the album. This has its pros and cons: It encourages music listeners and players to become more involved with the music and write out how they think it sounds to post on such websites for others to see and tweak, but it also leads to numerous inaccuracies in the music and, in some eyes, illegal acts of copyright infringement.
These websites are designed to give interested players a general overview of how a song is thought to be played, with much of the performance left up to personal interpretation. Depending on the intricacy of the song the tab can be really close to how the actual song sounds, or perilously wrong. If one wants to know how the song was actually played, then published, artist endorsed tablature books can be purchased. Personally, while I dabbled in tab websites, I also bought several published books by artists including Incubus, Led Zeppelin, Weezer (from the Blue Album), and Jimi Hendrix. When I purchased these books, it wasn't because I was concerned about the possible legal ramifications of getting tablature from an unofficial online source. No, it was because I wanted an accurate representation of the music and I wanted to know exactly how it was played. When you are in the early stages of playing an instrument like the guitar, at least in my case, there is great thrill in learning how to play music from your favorite artists and personal heroes (I was so stoked on learning how to play, or at least try to play, Jimmy Page's solos). While the pleasure derived from playing other artists' music has significantly declined since my early playing days, I still have a blast rocking out to other music that I didn't personally create. It's just fun playing along to music that you love to listen to!
It seems that the argument resides here: Are open forums in which people converse with others about how to correctly played a recorded artist's songs illegal? Should it be considered copyright infringement and should it be stopped? There are legitimate concerns on both ends of the argument. For example, according to an article in The Independent, sheet music publishing in Britain is a £50 million a year industry. The question is, are these websites cutting into profit and seriously hurting sales? As of now there are no solid figures, which makes me question why this is an arising issue. Tab sites have been around since the Internet became popular. The last time I visited any guitar tab website was at least four years ago, back when there was seemingly no problem at all. If it is a real problem, why did they wait so long to address it and take action?
I fully understand that the sales taken away from these websites could hurt many people financially. However, I fail to see what the fuss is about. Sheet music publishing will be fine when it is all said and done, because serious musicians intent on learning songs will go to the official, certified source, not some amateur guitar tab website. Please note that this issue does not deal with only guitar tablature but classical music and all other kinds as well. It seems that guitar tab websites are the most targeted right now because, well, everyone plays guitar. That's a given.
This issue sounds eerily familiar to the RIAA's quest to sue everyone with a computer that has music on it, and it may be getting a little redundant. Will we always live in a world of legal battles concerning music and copyright, or will universal access become the wave of future? I sure hope the latter wins the fight.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Internet Radio and the Social Music Revolution
Last.fm, an Internet radio station, is the self-proclaimed social music revolution. Their reasoning for such a grandiose title? It blends features from other networking sites like MySpace with Internet radio (similar to Pandora), while allowing its users to share music with other users. This is made possible by each users' individual profile, dedicated solely to music listening, that is created by listening to personal music collections or the radio service on the website. Music charts are created according to the number of plays of each song and artist, and these charts are made viewable to all users. Primarily used as a way to discover new music by browsing other users' profiles and listening to the Last.fm personalized radio, which is similar to Pandora's in the sense that it creates a station of similar sounding artists based around one artist, this social network is a great way for music lovers to discover new artists and for artists and labels to promote their products. It may not be THE social music revolution, but it is certainly a part of it. It is a great music recommendation tool and, undoubtedly, previously unknown artists are discovered everyday. But there are other means of finding music.
The aforementioned Pandora online radio service is a similar online device. What is lacking is the ability to create profiles and interact with other users. The goal of the Pandora service, according to the website, is "To help you discover new music you'll love." That is a noble mission. It is impossible to imagine a world without music, even a day without one's ears being tickled by melodic or percussive patterns, arousing emotions from the very depths of our being. I am listening to Pandora right now, as I have created several different radio stations based on some of my favorite artists, including: Coheed and Cambria, Ben Harper, Matt Pond PA, 311, and Death Cab for Cutie. It is on the Death Cab station right now and just played a song by Wolf Colonel, an artist I have never heard of before. It wasn't a bad song and it had qualities reminiscent of Death Cab, though it wasn't a rip-off of their sound. This is what Pandora aims to do: Analyze musical qualities of songs and artist and find similar artists. While this may not seem like an intelligent way to branch out and find new music, it really can be. If one is interested in hearing new music from a certain musical genre, then a station created from a prominent band or artist representing the sound of that genre can be created and alike artists and bands will be heard.
Of course, there are limitations to Pandora's radio service. One being the presentation of bad music. Not all new music will be liked by the listener, and I have experienced this on many occasions. Luckily, one is allowed to skip to the next song in the lineup, however, only six song skips are allowed per hour. This is not surprising given the amount of legal restrictions surrounding the service. Ah! As I am writing this they are playing a song that, so far, I really don't like. It is by a band called El Toro. Check them out, you may like them. I may too if I hear other songs. That is one of the great things of this type of music service. If I like a song, or even if I dislike a song, I can quickly find a link to one of the artist's websites and listen to more of their music to get a more solidified opinion and form a coherent judgment. Wonderful! Don't you just love the Internet? I do! It is amazing how easy it is to discover new things.
Supported by advertisements, Last.fm and Pandora are free services. However, there are optional fee-based subscriptions that subsequently get rid of the advertisements. So if these seemingly sophisticated and hip music recommendation networks and personalized radios are free to the public to take advantage of, what is the point in listening to terrestrial radio or even satellite radio? While there certainly are limitations to these online music listening services, I feel that the possibilities and ease of finding new music outweigh the limitations and restrictions that may be encountered. While there may be the occasional great song that is played on terrestrial or satellite radio, it seems far more likely that the frequency of good music played will be heard on personalized online radio stations and music social networking sites. Whether the music is discovered through personalized radio or recommended by another user who may be thousands of miles from your location does not really matter. What matters is that there are multiple ways to find new material and enrich one's musical palette. It sure beats having to put up with annoying radio personalities and mainstream repetition. Can radio survive? We shall soon see. As discussed by my professor's most recent blog, probably not once WiFi connectivity is universal, as people may opt to listen to radio online.
It is easy to predict that Internet radio and music social networks will trump other forms of radio but only time will tell. It is possible that Internet radio will remain a luxury side item but what is most important here is that the option exists. Variety, among other things, helps make the world a sometimes, actually very rarely but seemingly normal, functioning place. For now I take comfort in knowing that there are many different ways to find new music. As Michael Franti said,
"I don't know if music can change the world overnight but I know music can help us make it through a difficult night. Sometimes that's all any of us need, to make it into tomorrow."
How true it is. Music is so important to everyone's life, and life in general. It is necessary to realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what the source for new music is, but that one is able to find new music at all.
The aforementioned Pandora online radio service is a similar online device. What is lacking is the ability to create profiles and interact with other users. The goal of the Pandora service, according to the website, is "To help you discover new music you'll love." That is a noble mission. It is impossible to imagine a world without music, even a day without one's ears being tickled by melodic or percussive patterns, arousing emotions from the very depths of our being. I am listening to Pandora right now, as I have created several different radio stations based on some of my favorite artists, including: Coheed and Cambria, Ben Harper, Matt Pond PA, 311, and Death Cab for Cutie. It is on the Death Cab station right now and just played a song by Wolf Colonel, an artist I have never heard of before. It wasn't a bad song and it had qualities reminiscent of Death Cab, though it wasn't a rip-off of their sound. This is what Pandora aims to do: Analyze musical qualities of songs and artist and find similar artists. While this may not seem like an intelligent way to branch out and find new music, it really can be. If one is interested in hearing new music from a certain musical genre, then a station created from a prominent band or artist representing the sound of that genre can be created and alike artists and bands will be heard.
Of course, there are limitations to Pandora's radio service. One being the presentation of bad music. Not all new music will be liked by the listener, and I have experienced this on many occasions. Luckily, one is allowed to skip to the next song in the lineup, however, only six song skips are allowed per hour. This is not surprising given the amount of legal restrictions surrounding the service. Ah! As I am writing this they are playing a song that, so far, I really don't like. It is by a band called El Toro. Check them out, you may like them. I may too if I hear other songs. That is one of the great things of this type of music service. If I like a song, or even if I dislike a song, I can quickly find a link to one of the artist's websites and listen to more of their music to get a more solidified opinion and form a coherent judgment. Wonderful! Don't you just love the Internet? I do! It is amazing how easy it is to discover new things.
Supported by advertisements, Last.fm and Pandora are free services. However, there are optional fee-based subscriptions that subsequently get rid of the advertisements. So if these seemingly sophisticated and hip music recommendation networks and personalized radios are free to the public to take advantage of, what is the point in listening to terrestrial radio or even satellite radio? While there certainly are limitations to these online music listening services, I feel that the possibilities and ease of finding new music outweigh the limitations and restrictions that may be encountered. While there may be the occasional great song that is played on terrestrial or satellite radio, it seems far more likely that the frequency of good music played will be heard on personalized online radio stations and music social networking sites. Whether the music is discovered through personalized radio or recommended by another user who may be thousands of miles from your location does not really matter. What matters is that there are multiple ways to find new material and enrich one's musical palette. It sure beats having to put up with annoying radio personalities and mainstream repetition. Can radio survive? We shall soon see. As discussed by my professor's most recent blog, probably not once WiFi connectivity is universal, as people may opt to listen to radio online.
It is easy to predict that Internet radio and music social networks will trump other forms of radio but only time will tell. It is possible that Internet radio will remain a luxury side item but what is most important here is that the option exists. Variety, among other things, helps make the world a sometimes, actually very rarely but seemingly normal, functioning place. For now I take comfort in knowing that there are many different ways to find new music. As Michael Franti said,
"I don't know if music can change the world overnight but I know music can help us make it through a difficult night. Sometimes that's all any of us need, to make it into tomorrow."
How true it is. Music is so important to everyone's life, and life in general. It is necessary to realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what the source for new music is, but that one is able to find new music at all.
Friday, February 23, 2007
RIAA = Big Brother
Though it has been happening for years, every time news is reported about the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) it just gets more and more ludicrous. Supposedly the RIAA is increasing its crackdown on illegal file-sharing, specifically within college campus networks. According to an Associated Press article by Ted Bridis, "the music industry is sending thousands more copyright complaints to universities this school year than last." Obviously it is not giving up its fight to curb illegal downloading. And, obviously, the RIAA is not thinking of more effective ways to get people to stop stealing music.
What gets to me the most is that this "crackdown" is aimed specifically at college students. I of course have a bias because I happen to be a college student, but that is not why I am outraged. Well, thinking about it I am not necessarily outraged. As I sit here writing this, eating a bowl of recently prepared pasta and pondering the goings on of the music industry, I find myself slightly annoyed and highly entertained at this specific situation. What irks me is that the RIAA has the nerve to target the literal future leaders of this country. How can I back this opinion up? Take a gander at the penalties becoming popular by many universities:
- First time offenders usually receive a warning via e-mail. Usually this is enough to discourage violators to cease and desist all illegal action.
- Second time offenders may be called into the principal's office and forced to watch anti-piracy videos provided graciously by the RIAA.
- Third timers may, get this, be suspended for an entire semester. (!)
Threatening e-mails, mind-numbing videos, suspension of Internet connection AND from enrolled classes...it just doesn't make much sense. College students have enough on their plate without having to deal with laughable threats and lawsuits. Not all college students fit the stereotype of 24/7 partying accompanied by 24/7 piracy and sleeping in late. Though I myself fit into one of those stereotypes...I love some good shut-eye...However, there are many, MANY hardworking, dedicated students of academia simply do not have the time to deal with the RIAA acting like they know what they are doing. While there are undoubtedly some individuals who deserve to be "disciplined" for downloading a huge volume of pirated content, there are many who may have been singled out for only downloading or sharing one file. ONE. I know it may be difficult to distinguish between a big-time repeat downloader and a small-time peer-to-peer dabbler, but I do not think that is fair.
While the debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing is large and multi-sided, and the point of this post is not to debate whether it is good or bad, I have to bring up a success story brought on by Napster. The band Dispatch attributes most of its success to file-sharing and illegal downloading. This isn't debatable, as even the manager of the band, Steve Bursky, agrees, "Whenever anyone asks me how the Dispatch phenomenon happened, I'd attribute a huge portion to the early days of Napster." In fact, when Napster was going through the mess of lawsuits they experienced in 2000, Dispatch was there to support Napster and even threw a benefit concert on behalf of Napster.
While illegal downloading can in fact make a legitimate impact in an album's sales, it can also be a huge promotional tool. Dispatch had one television appearance in their eight year history and virtually no radio play. However, they are a music phenomenon and drew roughly 100,000 fans to their last show. Amazing.
Is the RIAA and the recording industry in general doing the right thing by suing people, and especially by targeting college students and pressuring universities to spend time and resources to punish students who download? The business is what it is and it sometimes doesn't look like it will change, but I believe that everyone will realize, eventually, that file-sharing is necessary and can be used to benefit the artist and the label for promotional purposes. The CD is on its last legs and record sales, including online sales, are dismal. It is time to stop fighting the inevitable and learn to adapt to change and make change work for you.
Dispatch information taken from this article.
What gets to me the most is that this "crackdown" is aimed specifically at college students. I of course have a bias because I happen to be a college student, but that is not why I am outraged. Well, thinking about it I am not necessarily outraged. As I sit here writing this, eating a bowl of recently prepared pasta and pondering the goings on of the music industry, I find myself slightly annoyed and highly entertained at this specific situation. What irks me is that the RIAA has the nerve to target the literal future leaders of this country. How can I back this opinion up? Take a gander at the penalties becoming popular by many universities:
- First time offenders usually receive a warning via e-mail. Usually this is enough to discourage violators to cease and desist all illegal action.
- Second time offenders may be called into the principal's office and forced to watch anti-piracy videos provided graciously by the RIAA.
- Third timers may, get this, be suspended for an entire semester. (!)
Threatening e-mails, mind-numbing videos, suspension of Internet connection AND from enrolled classes...it just doesn't make much sense. College students have enough on their plate without having to deal with laughable threats and lawsuits. Not all college students fit the stereotype of 24/7 partying accompanied by 24/7 piracy and sleeping in late. Though I myself fit into one of those stereotypes...I love some good shut-eye...However, there are many, MANY hardworking, dedicated students of academia simply do not have the time to deal with the RIAA acting like they know what they are doing. While there are undoubtedly some individuals who deserve to be "disciplined" for downloading a huge volume of pirated content, there are many who may have been singled out for only downloading or sharing one file. ONE. I know it may be difficult to distinguish between a big-time repeat downloader and a small-time peer-to-peer dabbler, but I do not think that is fair.
While the debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing is large and multi-sided, and the point of this post is not to debate whether it is good or bad, I have to bring up a success story brought on by Napster. The band Dispatch attributes most of its success to file-sharing and illegal downloading. This isn't debatable, as even the manager of the band, Steve Bursky, agrees, "Whenever anyone asks me how the Dispatch phenomenon happened, I'd attribute a huge portion to the early days of Napster." In fact, when Napster was going through the mess of lawsuits they experienced in 2000, Dispatch was there to support Napster and even threw a benefit concert on behalf of Napster.
While illegal downloading can in fact make a legitimate impact in an album's sales, it can also be a huge promotional tool. Dispatch had one television appearance in their eight year history and virtually no radio play. However, they are a music phenomenon and drew roughly 100,000 fans to their last show. Amazing.
Is the RIAA and the recording industry in general doing the right thing by suing people, and especially by targeting college students and pressuring universities to spend time and resources to punish students who download? The business is what it is and it sometimes doesn't look like it will change, but I believe that everyone will realize, eventually, that file-sharing is necessary and can be used to benefit the artist and the label for promotional purposes. The CD is on its last legs and record sales, including online sales, are dismal. It is time to stop fighting the inevitable and learn to adapt to change and make change work for you.
Dispatch information taken from this article.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Smart marketing, or just annoying?
In a recent New York Times article, it was reported that record labels are beginning to toy with the idea of getting rid of digital rights management, or DRM, on their music and video files released online. Specifically, music videos from popular bands signed to Suretone Records, including Weezer, will be released to unspecified online file-sharing networks completely unprotected; no trace of DRM.
What?! Are you serious?!?! I don't know what surprises me more, that they are releasing DRM-free content, or that they are releasing music videos. This is just so great!
But wait! There's more! Actually, there is a catch: The files released are not complete. More like half of the actual file will be available to view. Why? Once half the video is played, the viewer will be directed to the label's website to watch the entire video. If the user isn't annoyed enough at being duped by a record label's marketing department (for shame!) to not continue to the website, then the video can be viewed with the accompaniment of advertisements. Awesome. Such is the nature of the corporate beast: Think of long-winded, often ridiculous ways to make a buck.
I have a proposal: Instead of planting incomplete files on file sharing networks, just run advertisement banners on the most popular file sharing and music websites that notify the user of free video viewing on the label's website. Why not plant incomplete files? Because the user will find another way to download the desired file, be it audio or video, and downloading this half-file marketing ploy will most likely leave the user annoyed and laughing at the record label's feeble attempt at being sneaky, cool, smart, or whatever the labels think they are. Furthermore, at this point I don't even think it matters if DRM stays or goes. There will always be ways to illegally download the desired content. It's just reality. If DRM was thrown away, people will still find music for free. If DRM remains, people will find ways around it like they have been doing since its inception. Either way, the time will come when the record industry has to realize that music needs to flow like water, like a public utility. Once we all get past this "online revolution" roadblock and realize that there is no destination, just a never-ending journey to (hopefully) bigger and better things, all sides of the music world will be much more productive.
Honestly though, it is encouraging that people are at least thinking and acting instead of fighting the inevitable. Of course, now that Suretone Records has tentatively dipped its toes in uncharted waters, others will follow suit. Let's hope that this probable snowball effect will lead to something big, a compromise where both the recording industry and consumers are happy. Other major sources of revenue will have to open up and CDs will most likely have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until new age thinking catches up with new age technology it will always be one step forward, two steps back. But I have hope.
Since this post started out focused on videos, here are some examples of music videos I wouldn't mind putting up with advertisements to watch:
OK Go - Here It Goes Again
Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
What?! Are you serious?!?! I don't know what surprises me more, that they are releasing DRM-free content, or that they are releasing music videos. This is just so great!
But wait! There's more! Actually, there is a catch: The files released are not complete. More like half of the actual file will be available to view. Why? Once half the video is played, the viewer will be directed to the label's website to watch the entire video. If the user isn't annoyed enough at being duped by a record label's marketing department (for shame!) to not continue to the website, then the video can be viewed with the accompaniment of advertisements. Awesome. Such is the nature of the corporate beast: Think of long-winded, often ridiculous ways to make a buck.
I have a proposal: Instead of planting incomplete files on file sharing networks, just run advertisement banners on the most popular file sharing and music websites that notify the user of free video viewing on the label's website. Why not plant incomplete files? Because the user will find another way to download the desired file, be it audio or video, and downloading this half-file marketing ploy will most likely leave the user annoyed and laughing at the record label's feeble attempt at being sneaky, cool, smart, or whatever the labels think they are. Furthermore, at this point I don't even think it matters if DRM stays or goes. There will always be ways to illegally download the desired content. It's just reality. If DRM was thrown away, people will still find music for free. If DRM remains, people will find ways around it like they have been doing since its inception. Either way, the time will come when the record industry has to realize that music needs to flow like water, like a public utility. Once we all get past this "online revolution" roadblock and realize that there is no destination, just a never-ending journey to (hopefully) bigger and better things, all sides of the music world will be much more productive.
Honestly though, it is encouraging that people are at least thinking and acting instead of fighting the inevitable. Of course, now that Suretone Records has tentatively dipped its toes in uncharted waters, others will follow suit. Let's hope that this probable snowball effect will lead to something big, a compromise where both the recording industry and consumers are happy. Other major sources of revenue will have to open up and CDs will most likely have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until new age thinking catches up with new age technology it will always be one step forward, two steps back. But I have hope.
Since this post started out focused on videos, here are some examples of music videos I wouldn't mind putting up with advertisements to watch:
OK Go - Here It Goes Again
Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Almost Famous
So you've got a band and you live in L.A. You sound pretty good and have aspirations of making a living off of it. You've acquired a small but loyal following and play regularly at small clubs across the region. Money is made, but nowhere near enough to sustain a decent living. How does a band start to make legitimate money, especially in a city with thousands of aspiring musicians? The short answer: Get signed by a major label. Well my friends, the chances of succeeding at becoming signed to a major and then being successful on the label are very slim.
Enter the Internet.
As musician Sebu Simonian attested in a recent Los Angeles Times article, "Most musicians, when they start out, think you've got to get signed in order to succeed. But now that the Internet has developed to become a really powerful tool to sell yourself, it's not as necessary." How true it is. According to my professor Jerry Del Colliano, labels are spending less and less money on developing new artists and spending more and more on their already established acts, milking the most out of the artists they already have. This makes it even harder for an up-and-coming group or artist to stoke the interest of a financially capable record label.
So how can an unknown artist "make it"?
Obviously, as far as the Internet is concerned, MySpace is the instinctive choice. It has become absolutely necessary for bands big and small to sustain a MySpace page. Aside from marketing and promoting to find new fans, music can be sold on the site. It's an all-in-one paradise for musicians and music lovers alike. Along with MySpace, there are other social networking sites for music, like purevolume.com. According to its directory, there are at least 30,034 listings for artists in the state of California alone, not to mention every other state and country the site represents. Though not as popular as MySpace, it does possess at least 408,719 "listeners," or people who have created a profile (similar to MySpace but solely for music purposes). The website allows artists to post songs, announcements, blogs, photos, and upcoming shows on their page. Though the capability to sell music on PureVolume does not exist, there is ample room for artists to promote their music and where to buy it. For example, here is the profile for the band Underoath. PureVolume is a great site to promote music and garner support. But are there more options to sell music online besides iTunes and MySpace? Yes.
CD Baby, a small online record store based in Portland, Oregon, is an attractive alternative. According to cdbaby.com, artists can make $6 to $12 per CD sold. That is a substantial increase from the CD royalty rates on most record contracts. What is great about CD Baby is that it is geared to the independent-minded "Do-It-Yourself" artist, as it does not accept CDs from distributors, only directly from the artist. Of course the opportunity cost here is the price of pressing a significant amount of CDs and shipping them to the warehouse, but this can be recouped by the high return on sold CDs and the amount of CDs sold. Because this is an online record store, regional distribution is not a problem as literally anyone in the world can order a CD from the site and have it delivered. This is the beauty of the digital age.
So is the tide beginning to change, or has it finally changed? It is apparent that artists are aware that there are numerous ways to make money that doesn't involve being signed to a record label. Of course, however, it is next to impossible for an unsigned band to stage a cross-country tour in support of their recently released on CDBaby.com EP, but it is not impossible to make a decent amount of cash to use to record, make merchandise, and do small scale tours. While there are benefits that only the money of a major record label can provide, the ingredients exist for a serious power shift from the corporate business to the amateur entrepreneur.
It is an exciting time in the music world and it should be interesting to see how the labels will react when they realize they are not as needed as they used to be!
Enter the Internet.
As musician Sebu Simonian attested in a recent Los Angeles Times article, "Most musicians, when they start out, think you've got to get signed in order to succeed. But now that the Internet has developed to become a really powerful tool to sell yourself, it's not as necessary." How true it is. According to my professor Jerry Del Colliano, labels are spending less and less money on developing new artists and spending more and more on their already established acts, milking the most out of the artists they already have. This makes it even harder for an up-and-coming group or artist to stoke the interest of a financially capable record label.
So how can an unknown artist "make it"?
Obviously, as far as the Internet is concerned, MySpace is the instinctive choice. It has become absolutely necessary for bands big and small to sustain a MySpace page. Aside from marketing and promoting to find new fans, music can be sold on the site. It's an all-in-one paradise for musicians and music lovers alike. Along with MySpace, there are other social networking sites for music, like purevolume.com. According to its directory, there are at least 30,034 listings for artists in the state of California alone, not to mention every other state and country the site represents. Though not as popular as MySpace, it does possess at least 408,719 "listeners," or people who have created a profile (similar to MySpace but solely for music purposes). The website allows artists to post songs, announcements, blogs, photos, and upcoming shows on their page. Though the capability to sell music on PureVolume does not exist, there is ample room for artists to promote their music and where to buy it. For example, here is the profile for the band Underoath. PureVolume is a great site to promote music and garner support. But are there more options to sell music online besides iTunes and MySpace? Yes.
CD Baby, a small online record store based in Portland, Oregon, is an attractive alternative. According to cdbaby.com, artists can make $6 to $12 per CD sold. That is a substantial increase from the CD royalty rates on most record contracts. What is great about CD Baby is that it is geared to the independent-minded "Do-It-Yourself" artist, as it does not accept CDs from distributors, only directly from the artist. Of course the opportunity cost here is the price of pressing a significant amount of CDs and shipping them to the warehouse, but this can be recouped by the high return on sold CDs and the amount of CDs sold. Because this is an online record store, regional distribution is not a problem as literally anyone in the world can order a CD from the site and have it delivered. This is the beauty of the digital age.
So is the tide beginning to change, or has it finally changed? It is apparent that artists are aware that there are numerous ways to make money that doesn't involve being signed to a record label. Of course, however, it is next to impossible for an unsigned band to stage a cross-country tour in support of their recently released on CDBaby.com EP, but it is not impossible to make a decent amount of cash to use to record, make merchandise, and do small scale tours. While there are benefits that only the money of a major record label can provide, the ingredients exist for a serious power shift from the corporate business to the amateur entrepreneur.
It is an exciting time in the music world and it should be interesting to see how the labels will react when they realize they are not as needed as they used to be!
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
MySpace Madness
So, I was just perusing the MySpace Music front page and happened onto something fascinating. In the middle of the page was an ad for none other than Snoop Dogg. What was it titled? Snoop Dogg Distribution. It stated that one should stay tuned for the "fresh tracks" that will be available every week. Upon clicking the small feature I was directed to Snoop's profile, where I noticed the somewhat new MySpace music store. He is selling select tracks for $0.83.
That is awesome.
Please excuse my lack of exclamation, I actually am really excited about this! Hey there it is. This "online music store" concept is very familiar to us by now. When implemented on MySpace, however, it looks much more exciting. Why? You get to set your own prices. Also, basically anyone who records their own original music can have the opportunity to make a little money off of it. Of course music is not about making money, but think about the struggling small-time bands who are striving to make a living off of their art. This is huge! Although an unknown band is not bound to make loads of cash off of this, the collections from selling songs could at least pay for (some) gas or food if the band is, say, touring. Small things like that can really make a difference. I love it!
Of course, this service is not free. I did not find specific details, but upon looking at the FAQ page on the site it did specify that the artist will not receive money until he or she reaches a $20 threshold. That may not seem like a lot but on top of the possible other charges it could be hard to overcome, especially if no one knows about you. But hey, this is MySpace! Shameless self promotion! I am fascinated by this. Being in a band myself, (we're called Dayplayer, you should check us out) this really encourages me and everyone else with the "Do It Yourself" spirit. So why is Snoop Dogg doing it? Well, why not. He gets to showcase his producing skills while promoting his proteges. Perfect!
I'm sure I will be able to come up with a solid counterargument to this once I learn more about it. For now though, I am excited!
That is awesome.
Please excuse my lack of exclamation, I actually am really excited about this! Hey there it is. This "online music store" concept is very familiar to us by now. When implemented on MySpace, however, it looks much more exciting. Why? You get to set your own prices. Also, basically anyone who records their own original music can have the opportunity to make a little money off of it. Of course music is not about making money, but think about the struggling small-time bands who are striving to make a living off of their art. This is huge! Although an unknown band is not bound to make loads of cash off of this, the collections from selling songs could at least pay for (some) gas or food if the band is, say, touring. Small things like that can really make a difference. I love it!
Of course, this service is not free. I did not find specific details, but upon looking at the FAQ page on the site it did specify that the artist will not receive money until he or she reaches a $20 threshold. That may not seem like a lot but on top of the possible other charges it could be hard to overcome, especially if no one knows about you. But hey, this is MySpace! Shameless self promotion! I am fascinated by this. Being in a band myself, (we're called Dayplayer, you should check us out) this really encourages me and everyone else with the "Do It Yourself" spirit. So why is Snoop Dogg doing it? Well, why not. He gets to showcase his producing skills while promoting his proteges. Perfect!
I'm sure I will be able to come up with a solid counterargument to this once I learn more about it. For now though, I am excited!
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Viacom Against YouTube
Last week Viacom demanded that online video sharing site YouTube pull more than 100,000 of its video clips, which includes content from such networks as MTV and BET. According to one source, there have been over 1 billion video streams of the media giant's content.
So the questions arise: Is this a smart move for Viacom? Or does it even matter?
Removing videos from YouTube, if anything, diminishes promotional possibilities. As the majority of content viewed on YouTube is relatively short in length, generally speaking, the "pirated" video clips only serve as teasers. They are incentive for the viewer to watch/pay for the real thing. If the reason for the demand of the removal of these video clips is money, then YouTube may be a good place to start but rest assured it is not the only source of pirated Viacom video clips. While Google is in the process of developing "fingerprinting" technology and ways to share revenue with the rightful recipients, if money was really a concern then Viacom would have taken serious action long ago. Instead of pulling their video clips they should just wait a little longer and enjoy the perks of being exposed to millions of online viewers until they can monetize it even further. YouTube should be viewed as a promotional tool, not just another source of revenue.
However, like other media companies, Viacom may be preparing to negotiate a partnership with YouTube. This seems likely to occur, but I'm not so sure that removing 100,000 video clips is necessary. Albeit Viacom claims that Google and YouTube have not complied with previous requests to remove video clips, which would be unprofessional on Google's part, I can't imagine that the unauthorized video clips on YouTube really made a dent in Viacom's revenue. Is this a matter of money or of clout? Other large corporations have formed partnerships with YouTube after threatening action, like Universal Music did last year. YouTube has become over-saturated with corporate entities, especially since Google purchased it for an unspeakable amount of money ($1.65 billion. Really?). What once was a generally harmless way of sharing mainly user-generated videos has become the target for parasitic media corporations.
But does anyone really care? We can still watch our favorite video clips. I can still watch "Hard-Hitting Questions" by Liam Sullivan or learn how to play one of my favorite Nada Surf songs (both of which can be viewed below) without Viacom or anyone else but my Internet provider and self-discipline getting in the way. Personally, I spend time on YouTube to check out user-generated content, not TV or movie clips. I'm more interested in what unspoilt minds are creating. But that's just me.
Viacom should hop on the train already and cut a deal and put the videos back up on the site for those people that actually want to see them, if there are any.
Liam Sullivan - Hard-Hitting Questions
Nada Surf - Blizzard of '77
Information gratefully taken from Kenneth Li's article.
So the questions arise: Is this a smart move for Viacom? Or does it even matter?
Removing videos from YouTube, if anything, diminishes promotional possibilities. As the majority of content viewed on YouTube is relatively short in length, generally speaking, the "pirated" video clips only serve as teasers. They are incentive for the viewer to watch/pay for the real thing. If the reason for the demand of the removal of these video clips is money, then YouTube may be a good place to start but rest assured it is not the only source of pirated Viacom video clips. While Google is in the process of developing "fingerprinting" technology and ways to share revenue with the rightful recipients, if money was really a concern then Viacom would have taken serious action long ago. Instead of pulling their video clips they should just wait a little longer and enjoy the perks of being exposed to millions of online viewers until they can monetize it even further. YouTube should be viewed as a promotional tool, not just another source of revenue.
However, like other media companies, Viacom may be preparing to negotiate a partnership with YouTube. This seems likely to occur, but I'm not so sure that removing 100,000 video clips is necessary. Albeit Viacom claims that Google and YouTube have not complied with previous requests to remove video clips, which would be unprofessional on Google's part, I can't imagine that the unauthorized video clips on YouTube really made a dent in Viacom's revenue. Is this a matter of money or of clout? Other large corporations have formed partnerships with YouTube after threatening action, like Universal Music did last year. YouTube has become over-saturated with corporate entities, especially since Google purchased it for an unspeakable amount of money ($1.65 billion. Really?). What once was a generally harmless way of sharing mainly user-generated videos has become the target for parasitic media corporations.
But does anyone really care? We can still watch our favorite video clips. I can still watch "Hard-Hitting Questions" by Liam Sullivan or learn how to play one of my favorite Nada Surf songs (both of which can be viewed below) without Viacom or anyone else but my Internet provider and self-discipline getting in the way. Personally, I spend time on YouTube to check out user-generated content, not TV or movie clips. I'm more interested in what unspoilt minds are creating. But that's just me.
Viacom should hop on the train already and cut a deal and put the videos back up on the site for those people that actually want to see them, if there are any.
Liam Sullivan - Hard-Hitting Questions
Nada Surf - Blizzard of '77
Information gratefully taken from Kenneth Li's article.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Why "Future Music?"
This blog aims to explore current topics involving all things online. Popular social networks like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube are only a few of the online entities that will be discussed, debated, and anticipated throughout the lifespan of this blog. The means of accessing music have changed and continue to change at a frantic pace. Gone are the days when the local record store was the best way to purchase that new CD, and we all know that CDs aren't even the preferred medium of listening to recorded music anymore.
What is the newest craze? Where is the industry going from here? As Bob Dylan so eloquently observed, "the times they are a-changin'," and I hope you will enjoy reading my opinions and offering yours throughout the journey this blog will take!
What is the newest craze? Where is the industry going from here? As Bob Dylan so eloquently observed, "the times they are a-changin'," and I hope you will enjoy reading my opinions and offering yours throughout the journey this blog will take!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
