SOPA vs. The Mash Up Generation

A piece ran in Slate the other day that proclaimed passing SOPA would lead to an economic and social disaster. Click here to read that post.

It’s a fantastic look at how the socia-economic sensibilities have changed considerably in the last decade and the movement of copyright infringement has helped to shape this brave new world. I disagree with the overly simplistic view that states that the entertainment industries revenue has not been offset from online piracy. It is a fact that the record sales are down 60% in the last decade. One might argue that’s a good thing – the scam of charging $18 for a full length record that’s only 20% good was akin to forcing you to go into Disneyland with only 2 or 3 of the rides working. Now, the consumer can choose to buy as much or as little of an album as they want. And there is direct proof that if the whole album is good, people will buy it. Quality rises to the top and people respond. Refer to Adelle or Mumford and Sons for evidence of that. Of course there’s another, somewhat more complicated, side. In today’s media savvy world there’s a whole generation that simply types in “Mediafire Mumford and Sons” into Google to acquire new music. Easy. Two or three clicks and it’s done.

Some experts say the psychological subtly that a music file is only a few megabytes and is so easily shared (stolen) that it really doesn’t amount to stealing in the first place. It’s just sharing your stuff with your friends. It’s the same as viewing a non authorized video on YouTube or borrowing a book like the Slate piece talks about. Most people under 25 would say this is true, digital music feels intangible thus it doesn’t hold any concrete place in the material world. It’s just a file that can be passed on over and over again. The thought doesn’t even occur to most kids that effort and money went into producing said file and thus it does actually hold monetary value. All true but I think it goes deeper than that.

If we look back at the previous few decades they all have a very concrete stamp on how they can be defined. The 60′s were a time of social unrest and revolution, the 70s were groovy and had disco, the 80s were the MTV generation and the 90s had grunge and the birth of the web. Each era can be very succinctly defined. Can the same be said of the 2000′s? Sort of but not really.

The 2000s saw the rise of the iPod, Facebook and YouTube. Those are certainly three pilars that this generation can be proud of and no doubt forever changed the way we live. However, take a look at the core value that each one of those three products has to offer. The iPod allows you to store tons of the aforementioned intangible digital files of music that inherently encourages you to just plug your iPod into a friends computer and go wild taking whatever you want. Facebook is a tool that has changed the way we communicate and stay in touch but it’s also largely a forum for people to share other peoples content that they love without thinking about it. How many times a week do I see a rare Pink Floyd clip posted over and over again? Lots. And then there’s YouTube – the mothership of them all. YouTube has essentially created a cultural conversation that is based on the mash-up. People taking others peoples work and slicing it up into new work. It’s a blender of cultural vernacular, music, iconic images, acting without any SAG card and all around power to the people creativity. That’s what the 2000′s was – it was the decade for mashing-up and sharing stuff that moves us. It’s defined this generation.

The 1990′s gave rise to this anarchic uncontrollable giant of the World Wide Web. It, accidentally, became the last free dimension where there is no police force and is completely egalitarian. SOPA would add a layer to this that is so contrary to it’s DNA that it would disrupt what can not be disrupted. Additionally, to me more importantly, it would change the cultural conversation that made the 2000s (and now the 2010′s) so great. Our favorite viral videos would be subject to government regulation. Blogs could not freely publish half of what they do. Girl Talk could not make his genius albums and most of all the kids could not simply share the stuff they love and make into their own cultural statement. SOPA would start a war with an entire generation that has made mash-ups and the appropriation of content into a unique voice all their own.

I understand that the entertainment business is scared of lost revenue and needs to react to that somehow. I don’t have a point of view on that. But I do know that the music business, particularly the musicians, are going to go through a radical shift in their place in society. A friend of mine and I often talk about how modern society will hold a place for the professional musician from here on out. We think that todays musician will go back to their roots of how it used to be. I don’t mean how it used to be in the 1950s. I mean how it used to be in the 1890s. The musician will once again become the village bard that expresses our core emotions simply because they have no choice. They will once again become the story tellers who are passing on myths of the generation simply because their dharma calls for it. Very few will now do it for the seductive draw of money and fame. Surely there will still be a few of those but mostly todays musician will contribute into the modern tech laden social mash-up because it’s a damn good thing to do. The economic model how to make it as a musician still needs some things answered but the sentiment of this modern world of free roaming content will be a good thing in the long run.

Wanna know why the music business is so complicated?

Look at the simplicity of the chart for 1980. You put out a record and maybe a cassette and call it a day. Easy if you had a good song.

Now look at the chart for 2010. Holy shit. No wonder everyone is running around mad trying to figure out how to monetize everything in sight. On one hand the music business has more touch points than ever before. On the other, it’s too fragmented – no one entity can control all of these revenue sources.

The complete post on DMM

Virtual living rooms, turn it up man!

Of all the random ideas aimed at creating new music business models on the web this feels like it makes the most sense. Take two already embraced consumer water holes, Facebook and Pandora, and tie them together. Duh.

Reprinted from DMM:

Remember when people used to sit around and listen to music together?  Of course, those moments still exist, but the digital music experience is often a private pleasure.

So how to reconnect?  Pandora is addressing that question by integrating itself into Facebook, a huge move towards networked listening.  At a top level, the integration allows friends to quickly share stations with their Facebook friends, part of a much broader “Open Graph” build-out for Facebook.  Pandora is a major component of that expansion, and was discussed prominently by Mark Zuckerberg during a keynote at the F8 Developer Conference on Wednesday.

The idea is delightfully simple and connected.  Pandora users can easily link their Facebook profiles and friends into their stations, or, opt-out to remain private.  But why not hold hands on this new discovery commune?  “I’ve been testing out the service while we were developing it and I have to say it really brings a wonderful new human dimension to the listening experience,” Pandora founder Tim Westergren relayed.

Read the post here

More MTV Reality

“These new series reflect Generation ‘Why Not?’ — living, working and playing on their own terms, ‘adventure capitalists’ if you will, pursuing a variety of thrill-seeking, 2.0, express-yourself enterprises,” says MTV entertainment president Brian Graden.

I’m not even sure what that means. I’d love someone to tell me. That sounds like lots of buzz words or one of those great marketing cliches that are spawned out of one of those DIY phrase generators. What is a 2.0 express yourself enterprise?

One one hand, I’m glad MTV doesn’t matter much anymore. It’s pop culture relevancy has pretty much gone to shit with emphasis really being handed over to tweens. On the other hand, there was something cool about great videos having a centralized viewing location. I guess that belongs to YouTube now?

Read more on Rolling Stone

EMI.com launches in beta

EMI.com

It looks like the new EMI.com has launched. At least in BETA form. I work with a couple of EMI acts so it’s safe to say that I’ll tone down my rhetoric and try my best to look at this from all sides.

I WANT EMI.com to succeed, I really do. I want labels to get it right, to find new ways to engage with their consumer. I want them to make it fun to discover their artists like it used to be. There’s only one problem – EMI is NOT THE BRAND. EMI should be a like a utility company, it just provides services to those want said services. They should be transparent. No consumer gives a damn about major labels and the ones that do tend to not think favorably of them.

The band is the brand! I think EMI should take a more active role in finding new ways to make the bands websites better. Work with management and artists to make them great. Most artist sites that I see are kitchen sink cluster fucks that lack a creative idea. That needs fixing. I think EMI should use the web as a tool for affinity marketing, behavioral targeting – use it as the vast organism that it is. If EMI spent the same amount of money as they did on this site on a deep dive psychographic/audience behavior study, I think it would have been money better spent.

For all I know maybe they did spend some money on research and the results told them that music fans want a site like this from EMI. I doubt it though. Why would I go to this site and discover only EMI acts when I can go to a myriad of better sites and discover artists from all labels? Which makes me go back to the point of working with others. I think EMI should work closer with Best Buy, Target, iMeem, MySpace and iLike to make their acts more accessible on those sites.

Maybe I’m over thinking this – it’s actually a great corporate site, much better than what they had. I just hope it’s not being thought of as a destination site!

Visit EMI.com

A singles business, Part 2

A short follow up to yesterdays story…

I’m of the opinion that you should embrace audience behavior. You should cater to how audiences are interacting with media, go to where the people are, make their overall experience better. At this moment in time that means going wide on your release. There are only a few anomalies where the opposite is true – AC/DC and The Eagles most notably. Those acts are so big and so dominant that they can manipulate contracts and buys ins to work in their favor financially. But, can either band REALLY say that they won new fans with Wal Mart exclusive CD only deals? I say no fucking way. Furthermore it is certain that they left money on the table by not going digital.

New music fans are all over the web, doing all sorts of things. Trust me when I say trying to figure out where they are and what they are doing is a full time job. We do know, however, that the low hanging fruit (i hate that phrase) is iTunes. It’s easy, it’s practically ubiquitous and its fun to use. I 100% wish it wasn’t the only option. It just so happens that no one has come along and done it better. It’s so funny to me when people get on an anti iTunes rant or talk about how Steve is bullying the music business. Steve’s POV is really simply – i’ve made the best product. so I’m going to run it the way I want. If someone comes along and makes a better product they will have leverage and currency to spend. It’s that simple. Take the Kid Rock example – he went CD only for most of his campaign, then gave the digital rights exclusively to Rhapsody which then went on to sell a whopping 3000 pieces. Reason being: Rhapsody sucks.

I’m not sure what the moral of the story is. I know this, anyone who says that they have the current state of the music business figured out is lying. It’s a brave new world. A wide open frontier. Yes, sales will shrink but we still have to find ways to create that passion for music consumption that fans once displayed. It’s still out there. Forcing them to go to Wal Mart isn’t the answer. Selling exclusively on iTunes isn’t the answer either. Finding out what your fan really wants and expects is the answer – how that manifests is anybody’s guess.


Click here to read more on this story via Reuters

Is it a singles business?

This has been flying around for the past couple of days: the Smashing Pumpkins aren’t going to make any more albums. Corgan saying “There is no point. People don’t even listen to it all. They put it on their iPod, they drag over the two singles and skip over the rest.”

There are some case studies to support this attitude and there are some that don’t. First, let’s talk about the ones that don’t. I’ve been listening to TV On the Radios “Dear Science” non fucking stop and I’m not the only one. This is one hell of an album. It flows beautifully. It’s full of soul, electro pop, great guitars, new wave meets the digital age and you can even dance to it. If the Pumpkins last album was even in the same ballpark as “Dear Science” I think Corgan wouldn’t be spouting off trying to place blame,on off all things, iTunes. Why is he blaming iTunes? The a la carte model is such a short sighted and obvious mechanism to place the blame on. So what if it’s new school and flies in the face of the classic album model? The fact is that while today’s audience does have a shorter attention span there are still some music fans out there that will listen to your whole creative statement if it’s good enough. Yes, it is true you will sell exponentially more singles than complete albums, but so what? The Smashing Pumpkins built a pretty substantial legacy with the likes of Gish, Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie. Those are some of the great albums of that generation. Giving up now and blaming the audience (and Apple) for doing so is sad.

Robert Plant and Allison Krauss, Ryan Adams, Fleet Foxes are doing it…hey even Axl Rose gave it his best shot. I hope Billy Corgan reconsiders.

To be fair and to look at the pure economics of it – yes, it is a singles business. The emphasis being put on “business.” Coldplay gave away “Violet Hill” to the tune of over a million free downloads yet they sold over 100,000 copies of the single on iTunes. Amazing. An artist can learn more about their audience and how they spend time online by giving away a free track using Top Spin than they can anywhere else. Small little digestible bits of art is where audience mentality as a whole lies, but that does not mean that a great album goes unrecognized.