Warner Music Goes To Kickstarter

If you've never read music insider Bob Lefsetz' newsletter, then you really should. Love him or hate him (he gets equal parts of both), he comes up with both an interesting global perspective of the music world as well as some breaking news or commentary on breaking news.

One of the bigger stories that he's let us in on is the fact that Warner Music has just tied in with Kickstarter to offer a recording contract to any act that raises $100,000 or more, or if they get 1,000 people or more to contribute.

First of all, I don't know why anyone would want such a deal under those circumstances, since if you've raised that amount or have that many fans willing to support you, you probably don't need a major label, at least under their terms.

What this offer does go to show you is how well an old adage really applies. It goes something like this - "A record label doesn't sign you for your music, they sign you for your audience." This means that they generally don't give a crap about you or your songs, but if you have a line around the block waiting to see you when you gig, they're interested big time.

Another Lefsetz piece of news is that Warners has also hired Amanda Palmer to teach their acts how to self-promote. I don't know much about her music, but I do know that she's great at getting people to passionately care about her, so this is probably a good thing. Will her methods translate to other artists? I don't think we can be sure, since she has such a strong personality, which is part of her allure with her fans.

If all this is true (and there's no reason to think it's not), you have to hand it to Warners for at least trying to stay relevant and trying something new. It's long been held that they've been the major label leaders when it came to understanding our new digital world, now they're trying harder than ever to prove it.

PLEASE NOTE: This news might be a product of April Fools day. I'm still checking out the validity. It's not like Lefsetz to do this sort of thing, but you never know.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

No, You Can't Resell Your Digital Media

What if used digital songs or albums could be resold like CDs or vinyl records? After all, you bought it so you own it, right? Apparently not, according to a federal judge in New York who just ruled that doing so infringes upon copyrights controlled by record labels.

In 2011 a company called ReDigi opened an online platform for reselling digital songs bought from iTunes, Amazon and the like, but record labels (Capitol in particular) and book publishers responded with the suit that took issue with the premise.

ReDigi felt it had a case because of what's known as the "first sale doctrine" that buyers of physical goods abide by. This is interpreted to mean that once you buy something, you own it and are free to resell it if you wish without having to pay a royalty to the manufacturer that made it.

The same does not apply to digital goods, according to the judge's ruling. I would've thought that the ruling went in favor of Capitol because you don't buy the song but merely pay for a license to use it (which seems like a simple way around it, and is what software companies do), but that's not the case. You purchase the digital media, but you're not free to resell it, at least on a platform like Redigi, says the judge.

The ruling has major implications that cut both ways. First of all, it helps content creators in that being able to sell a digital file that has no degradation from the original would undermine the market value of the original content. On the other hand, reselling digital goods to libraries would make the content more widely available.

For what it's worth, ReDigi has retooled into version 2.0, which they claim does not violate the terms of the ruling (why this is the case is not explained), so this is not over. What's your take?

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

EDM By The Numbers

I've been meaning to post this for quite a while now, and although it's a little late, I think the numbers still hold up. These are some of the results from the International Music Summit 2012 Consumer Report about the EDM audience. This was done in conjunction with EMI Music in an effort to understand the EDM consumer better. Some of the more interesting conclusions outlined by the report are:

"● In the US, dance / electronic music has only half the passion that Rock music does, even for young people. It has a similar level of passion to Urban music. It is rivaled / beaten by Country music, even for young people. 

● The US has little passion for dance (16th of 17), but it has the most people who are passionate (1st of 17). A small increase in passion would make a big difference in the number of people who are passionate. Is that what we’ve seen in recent years: just a small change in passion that meant a big new audience?

● In the UK, passion for Dance / Electronic music rivals that for Rock music up to age 25. It’s consistently more loved than Urban music. It has no rivals beyond Rock, Pop and Urban.

● In the US, the most passionate age group (16-24) are only half as passionate (57%) about dance / electronic music as they are about the biggest genre. In the UK they’re almost as passionate about dance as they are about the genre they’re most passionate about (87%).

● There is no evidence that dance is ‘older’ or ‘younger’ in the UK or the US. The pattern by age is similar in the UK and the US – it’s just proportionally bigger in the UK. 

● In the UK dance is pretty mainstream (less engaged consumers are about 75% as passionate about dance as the engaged consumers are) whereas in the US it’s not very mainstream at all (less-engaged consumers are only about 56% as passionate about dance as engaged consumers are).

● Passion for the different genres of dance music are similar in the US and the UK. Except for Drum n Bass, which is more popular in the UK. And except for Techno because the word is often used in the US to describe dance / electronic music overall.

● Passion grows from age 13 to age 24, and peaks between ages 16 and 24. There is a steady decline in passion from age 25.

● There is a language problem. The most popular dance genre amongst people passionate about dance /electronic music is … ‘dance’ – they don’t know how better to describe what they like.

● People passionate about dance / electronic music describe it as: Cool, Upbeat, Energetic and Edgy.

● People not passionate about it describe it as: Boring, Annoying, Intrusive, Superficial and Noisy. 

● The same artist is often described very differently in different countries. Always as ‘Energetic’, but sometimes as Edgy and Upbeat (France), sometimes Cool (Germany, UK), sometimes Catchy (UK)."

As you can see, a big problem for the genre has been identified in that it has a short lifespan with it's audience. Unlike other genres of music that stay with you beyond your formative years, that doesn't seem to be the case with EDM, which seems to max out at age 25 in terms of interest. Of course, another big problem is the lack of catalog, as you probably won't find yourself humming these songs to yourself a few years down the road. That said, you have to admire the fact that the industry is trying to understand more about its audience in order to provide a better experience for them, which is something that should be happening in other genres as well. 

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Is Music Discovery An Impossible Dream?

With VCs and investment bankers willing to open their pockets at seemingly any online service that contains the words "music discovery" in their mission statement, it makes you wonder about the validity of the idea that it's still the holy grail for every company offering music online.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why music discovery is a hot topic. After all, if a listener can find new music that they like, they're more likely to buy or stream it, which means a potential additional income stream for all involved. At least, that's the theory.

What I'm beginning to disagree with is the idea that music discovery can be done electronically thanks to a smart algorithm that learns your tastes. Sound good on paper, but that's not actually the way that we've discovered music over the last 50+ years, or even today for that matter.

Think about how we found recent breakout artists like The Black Keys and Alabama Shakes. Did most people find them via a Pandora recommendation or Spotify? No, most people found them the same way that new artists have always been discovered for decades and decades. There was a groundswell buzz that you couldn't avoid, and it was both offline and online. When enough people begin to talk about an artist, it doesn't take long for the word to get around. Do you think that's ever happened thanks to an algorithm?

If you think about it, radio has always been the major means of music discovery - 50 years ago, and still today. YouTube ranks as #2 at the moment. In the 60s and 70s when FM was at its peak, the disc jockeys were the unquestioned arbiters of musical taste, and we listened to their show based specifically on those tastes. We knew that whatever they played was in line with what we liked, and we were open to new suggestions as a result. This has happened a bit on the web with sites like Pitchfork (who's influence seems to be waning a bit), but there's really been nothing like similar to the radio experience yet. We keep on waiting for the taste of a computer to take over, when it's really the human one that we crave.

Perhaps all the money chasing music discovery is just good money after bad purchasing fool's gold, because it still comes down to people talking about an act both on and offline to break it. Let's hear it for the humans, until the algorithms can prove us wrong.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

Our 2013 Online World According To Nielsen

It's always fun to look inside the Nielsen Interactive numbers to see if you can find the significance. In the charts below you'll find the usage numbers for January 2013. Take a look at the first chart of the top 10 entertainment sites.

Top 10 Entertainment Sites

Rank     Brand                            Unique Audience     Time Per Person (hh:mm:ss)
1          YouTube                           124,073,000               1:57:28
2          iTunes                                 44,965,000               1:11:58
3          Comcast Ent sites                 33,825,000               0:54:42
4          Yahoo! Sports Websites        32,581,000               0:25:02
5          IMDb                                  29,783,000               0:17:49
6          Netflix                                 28,076,000               0:46:31
7          ESPN Digital Network          27,366,000               1:02:05
8          Omg! Websites                     25,298,000               0:08:55
9          VEVO                                  25,204,000               0:07:54
10         FOXSports.com on MSN      24,385,000               0:09:59

Of course, what immediately catches your eye is the fact that YouTube (in red) was watched more than the others. It's significant that iTunes isn't all that far behind. If you factor in the fact that Apple's iRadio streaming network will be implemented sometime during the summer, this chart could look a lot different in 6 months. Also, if you combine all the sports sites (Comcast, Yahoo Sports, ESPN and FoxSports), it shows that sports is bigger entertainment sector than anything else, with nearly 2:30 of viewing.

Top 10 Web Brands by Unique Audience (U.S. Total)

Rank     Brand                          Unique Audience     Time Per Person (hh:mm:ss)
1           Google                                   170,629,000     2:05:30
2           Facebook                                145,297,000     6:41:44
3           Yahoo!                                   135,100,000     2:32:52
4           YouTube                                124,073,000     1:57:28
5           MSN/WindowsLive/Bing         123,133,000     1:15:40
6           Microsoft                                  86,986,000     0:47:26
7           Amazon                                    84,735,000     0:38:14
8           AOL Media Network                 83,826,000     2:09:36
9           Wikipedia                                 76,310,000     0:24:25
10         Ask Network                             69,447,000     0:12:30

No surprise here that Facebook leads the way in stickiness, with nearly 3 times the amount as the next in line. Everyone complains about Facebook, but we still use it a lot.

Average U.S. Internet Usage for January 2013

Metrics                                            Total
Sessions/Visits per Person                   62
Domains Visited per Person                96
Web Page Views per Person            2417
Duration of a Web Page viewed       0:01:12
Online Time per Person                   29:10:34
No. of People Who Went Online      208,703,000
No. of People with Internet access    276,778,307

What's interesting about this chart is the fact that we don't stay too long on most websites that we visit, which makes the Facebook number in the previous chart all the more impressive. Also, with a total US population of 313 million, it's pretty interesting that 208 million of them went online in January, and 276 million of them have Internet access. Yes, it is almost everywhere.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.