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"
Friday, March 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
