Music celebrities will use just about any social edge they can get these days, and it doesn't matter what the platform is.
In May I posted about Britney Spears using Uber to launch her "Pretty Girls" single, complete with a vehicle wrapped in custom Britney graphics.
Not to be outdone, Justin Bieber is making his new album available for early purchase via the Lyft app. Fans can purchase it for $5 from November 12th to 19th. If you buy it via the app, you get the download link at the end of the ride and a $5 credit towards your next Lyft ride (which makes the album essentially free).
And that's not all, the Biebs is also surprising random people by showing up as a passenger in the front seat of some of their rides.
Okay, so this might seem a bit over the top, but it just goes to show how hard even the top 0.1% of music celebs work at keeping in the social forefront and staying in the public eye.
If A-list acts like Justin Bieber and Britney Spears are using all the tools at their disposal, it shows the need to keep up with the latest in social media to make sure that you continue to reach your audience.
Help Support This Blog
Friday, November 13, 2015
Guess The Music Celeb Dropping His Album Via Lyft
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Why Teens Love Instagram
If you want to know what a typical teenager thinks of the various social networks available, there's a great post by 19 year old University of Texas student Andrew Watts on BackChannel. In it he describes how he and his friends use all the popular networks, but what they love and hate about them as well.
It's especially interesting what he has to say about the current darling of the teen world, Instagram. In an excerpt from his article, here's why he says it's so beloved.
It's especially interesting what he has to say about the current darling of the teen world, Instagram. In an excerpt from his article, here's why he says it's so beloved.
- "I'm not terrified whenever I like something on Instagram that it will show up in someone’s Newsfeed and they'll either screenshot that I liked it or reference it later. The same goes for commenting.
- I am not as pressured to follow someone back on Instagram, meaning my feed is normally comprised of content I actually want to see. That being said, I will come back and scroll through an application that has content I enjoy rather than one where I have to find the occasional diamond in the rough.
- The content on Instagram is usually of higher quality. People take time to edit their photos with filters, use different brightness/contrast settings (it’s even one of the steps to posting a photo), etc., to make the pictures look the best they possibly can. This means the content on Instagram is normally “better” (photo-wise), so I am more likely to go back to the application.
- Instagram hasn't been flooded with the older generation yet (not everyone has an Instagram) meaning it’s “hip” and “cool” to the younger crowd. However, it is popular enough that if you have a smartphone it’s almost unheard of for you not to have Instagram, if not to take pictures, but to at least tag people in photos.
- Another point: tagging. I don't have to constantly check Instagram to make sure I wasn't tagged in any awkward or bad photos. That’s because you can't easily see them in your feed, making the whole experience seem way more private. Am I looking weird in a photo you posted? Who cares—I can just delete the tag if I really am that upset about it without fear that my friends from another social circle (who don’t follow you) will get to it first. I know Facebook has the ability to let you check every single photo tagged of you before it appears on your profile, but many people I know do not have that enabled or know it even exists.
- People do not post 10000 times a day on Instagram. Many are much more polite about posting, either doing once a day, a few times a week, etc. This means that there isn't a constant flow of content being shoved down my throat every time I open the application, and it is possible to be “caught up” with my Instagram feed.
- There are no links on Instagram, meaning I'm not being constantly spammed by the same advertisement, horrible gossip news article, or Buzzfeed listicle about the “28 Ingenious Things For Your Dog You Had No Idea You Needed”
There's a lot of great additional insight about social use by teens, so if you market to that age group, I suggest you take a look.
Labels:
Andrew Watts,
BackChannel,
Instagram,
social networks,
teens
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Indie Labels Benefiting From Digital Music
It looks like indie labels are actually benefiting from digital music and streaming, according to a new survey by the indie music trade organization Merlin. The study contacted indie labels from 26 countries to gauge their health in the new digital economy.
The survey revealed that business was up for 65% of its members, and over half derived more than 50% of their revenue from digital. Only 16% said their digital revenue decreased, mainly because of a decrease in download sales.
What was significant was that around 55% of the labels said that their digital revenue was more than half of their total income, while another 33% placed it at somewhere between 25 and 50%.
Merlin labels represent around 10% of the global digital market share at the moment, but that seems to be rising. What it shows is that indie labels are beginning to thrive in our Music 4.0 economy as they learn the various ways to earn money.
While the major labels have gotten stronger in the last few years, that doesn't necessarily mean that the indies have become weaker. The music industry continues to evolve and everyone inside is learning to change with it in order to stay in business.
The survey revealed that business was up for 65% of its members, and over half derived more than 50% of their revenue from digital. Only 16% said their digital revenue decreased, mainly because of a decrease in download sales.
What was significant was that around 55% of the labels said that their digital revenue was more than half of their total income, while another 33% placed it at somewhere between 25 and 50%.
Merlin labels represent around 10% of the global digital market share at the moment, but that seems to be rising. What it shows is that indie labels are beginning to thrive in our Music 4.0 economy as they learn the various ways to earn money.
While the major labels have gotten stronger in the last few years, that doesn't necessarily mean that the indies have become weaker. The music industry continues to evolve and everyone inside is learning to change with it in order to stay in business.
Labels:
Digital Music,
indie labels,
Merlin Network
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Music 3.0 Blog Named #4 In Top 50 Awesome Blogs
Many thanks to Amir Muminovic for naming the Music 3.0 Blog at #4 on the Stereostack Top 50 Awesome Blogs To Follow to learn more about the music business.
Gaming The Streaming Networks With Fake Listeners
While most people play by the rules, there's always someone that wants to game the system. It happened on MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and just about every other platform, so when a story came out about a programmer who gamed the streaming services, it should be no surprise.
Security consultant Peter Fillmore showed how an automated program called a bot (a software based robot) could generate royalties a few years ago. Fillmore made about $1,000 in royalties and even topped the Australian streaming charts of Rdio by having the bot listen to his own music nonstop. In Fillmore's case, it wasn't about making money as much as it was about showing the various streaming services the potential vulnerability.
Fillmore's music was sampled every 30 seconds for about 6 months, when Spotify finally caught on and took down his album.
In a great article on Motherboard, William Bedell attempted to duplicate Fillmore's method and wound up making approximately $32 a day from Spotify, at about $0.08 per stream, which is at the high end of the Spotify payout.
That being said, while this might be child's play for an experienced hacker, it's beyond the abilities of most musicians who aren't programmers. It involves disguised user bots using virtual private networks and dozens of paid Spotify accounts (see the graphic above). Still, Bedell estimates about a 600% rate of return on the venture.
You can be sure that Spotify and all the other streaming services are taking these approaches very seriously, so by the time you try something like this, it's possible that this hole in their services will be patched.
It does go to show that people will always try to game the system if they can.
Security consultant Peter Fillmore showed how an automated program called a bot (a software based robot) could generate royalties a few years ago. Fillmore made about $1,000 in royalties and even topped the Australian streaming charts of Rdio by having the bot listen to his own music nonstop. In Fillmore's case, it wasn't about making money as much as it was about showing the various streaming services the potential vulnerability.
Fillmore's music was sampled every 30 seconds for about 6 months, when Spotify finally caught on and took down his album.
In a great article on Motherboard, William Bedell attempted to duplicate Fillmore's method and wound up making approximately $32 a day from Spotify, at about $0.08 per stream, which is at the high end of the Spotify payout.
That being said, while this might be child's play for an experienced hacker, it's beyond the abilities of most musicians who aren't programmers. It involves disguised user bots using virtual private networks and dozens of paid Spotify accounts (see the graphic above). Still, Bedell estimates about a 600% rate of return on the venture.
You can be sure that Spotify and all the other streaming services are taking these approaches very seriously, so by the time you try something like this, it's possible that this hole in their services will be patched.
It does go to show that people will always try to game the system if they can.
Labels:
gaming the system,
Peter Fillmore,
Rdio,
Spotify,
streaming music,
William Bedell
Monday, November 9, 2015
Facebook Launches Music Stories Post Format
Facebook has launched a new feature that helps users share and discover new music called "Music Stories."
Music Stories is a new post format that allows people to listen to a 30 second preview of a shared song. The preview is streamed from either Apple Music or Spotify, and can be either purchased from or saved to the streaming service.
The previews are available directly from Facebook, but if you want to hear more you can click through to the streaming service.
To use the feature, just copy the link to the song or album, then post it to your status update box. This creates a preview that others can interact with. An animated spinning record with a pause button shows as the track is played.
This is a great way for artists and bands to get their music in front of their Facebook fans, and is a tool that can be especially valuable on an artist's profile page.
Music Stories is a new post format that allows people to listen to a 30 second preview of a shared song. The preview is streamed from either Apple Music or Spotify, and can be either purchased from or saved to the streaming service.
The previews are available directly from Facebook, but if you want to hear more you can click through to the streaming service.
To use the feature, just copy the link to the song or album, then post it to your status update box. This creates a preview that others can interact with. An animated spinning record with a pause button shows as the track is played.
This is a great way for artists and bands to get their music in front of their Facebook fans, and is a tool that can be especially valuable on an artist's profile page.
Labels:
Apple Music,
Facebook,
Facebook posts,
Music Stories,
Spotify
Friday, November 6, 2015
Yes, You Can Hire A Fake Crowd
Want to impress the press with a large crowd of screaming fans? How about having a big crowd for a video shoot? Maybe you want to impress a club owner with a big turnout?
All the above scenarios are possible (if you have the money) by using a company called Crowds On Demand.
Hiring a fake crowd may seem like cheating on some level, but it's actually been done for years. Going back as far as Elvis and The Beatles, management inserted ringers into every television audience to make the reaction larger than life. Yes, it worked very well indeed.
It might cost you $5,000, but if it pumps up the publicity machine the cost could be well worth it.
Many companies that have used Crowds On Demand for everything from fake protests to screaming fans at the airport, and have reported getting enough free publicity as a result to be worth the cost many times over.
The problem of course is that you need the money and the campaign strategy to make the utmost use of your fake crowd, something that most artists and bands find out of reach.
Still, if you're heading up the success ladder and need a boost, Crowds On Demand is just another tool in the box, if you can get around the ethical dilemma.
All the above scenarios are possible (if you have the money) by using a company called Crowds On Demand.
Hiring a fake crowd may seem like cheating on some level, but it's actually been done for years. Going back as far as Elvis and The Beatles, management inserted ringers into every television audience to make the reaction larger than life. Yes, it worked very well indeed.
It might cost you $5,000, but if it pumps up the publicity machine the cost could be well worth it.
Many companies that have used Crowds On Demand for everything from fake protests to screaming fans at the airport, and have reported getting enough free publicity as a result to be worth the cost many times over.
The problem of course is that you need the money and the campaign strategy to make the utmost use of your fake crowd, something that most artists and bands find out of reach.
Still, if you're heading up the success ladder and need a boost, Crowds On Demand is just another tool in the box, if you can get around the ethical dilemma.
Labels:
Crowds On Demand,
fake crowd,
screaming fans
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Adele Sets A Record For Downloads
Who says that downloads are dead?
That's not the case for Adele's new song "Hello," which set the record for most downloads sold in a weekin the US at 1.11 million. It's the first song ever to sell that many in week since Nielsen began tracking digital and physical singles in 1991.
Not only that, the song has set records for downloads, streams and airplay in the UK and Europe, so the girl must be doing something right.
Plus the song is already #1 in the US and 14 other countries around the world.
One of the more interesting facts about Adele's past and current success is that she continues to defy the punditry of music industry analysts who insist that physical and download sales will never sell in great numbers again.
Adele's last album 21 sold in excess of 28 million worldwide, while those in the business said that there would never be another album that would ever sell more than 2 to 3 million again.
The same was said for downloads, but yet "Hello" is being purchased in record numbers at the same time as it's being listened for free online and on radio.
Many claim that Adele's popularity is the fact that she's the "anti-Lady Gaga/Beyonce/Ariana Grande, etc", but she's also managed to cross over from the usual teens that buy pop music to a much older crowd as well. Sometimes lack of controversy works in your favor.
It should be interesting to see how well her new album 25 sells when it's released.
That's not the case for Adele's new song "Hello," which set the record for most downloads sold in a weekin the US at 1.11 million. It's the first song ever to sell that many in week since Nielsen began tracking digital and physical singles in 1991.
Not only that, the song has set records for downloads, streams and airplay in the UK and Europe, so the girl must be doing something right.
Plus the song is already #1 in the US and 14 other countries around the world.
One of the more interesting facts about Adele's past and current success is that she continues to defy the punditry of music industry analysts who insist that physical and download sales will never sell in great numbers again.
Adele's last album 21 sold in excess of 28 million worldwide, while those in the business said that there would never be another album that would ever sell more than 2 to 3 million again.
The same was said for downloads, but yet "Hello" is being purchased in record numbers at the same time as it's being listened for free online and on radio.
Many claim that Adele's popularity is the fact that she's the "anti-Lady Gaga/Beyonce/Ariana Grande, etc", but she's also managed to cross over from the usual teens that buy pop music to a much older crowd as well. Sometimes lack of controversy works in your favor.
It should be interesting to see how well her new album 25 sells when it's released.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
5 Qualities Of A Memorable Post Graphic
When you post to Facebook or Twitter, your engagement goes up about 30% or more (depending upon the study you read) if you add a graphic. The problem is that most graphics aren't that compelling, so the effect is diminished.
It turns out that a picture isn't exactly worth a thousand words as the old adage says. In fact, it's worth exactly 84.1 words, which is the number of words it takes people to describe an image, according to cognition expert Alan F. Blackwell. That said, visuals are much more memorable than words, which is why it's best to take care when choosing one.
There's a great article on thenextweb that describes this in more detail, but here are the 5 qualities of a memorable graphic in a nutshell.
This is something that I'm going to be placing more emphasis on in the future, and perhaps it's something that you should consider in your posts as well.
It turns out that a picture isn't exactly worth a thousand words as the old adage says. In fact, it's worth exactly 84.1 words, which is the number of words it takes people to describe an image, according to cognition expert Alan F. Blackwell. That said, visuals are much more memorable than words, which is why it's best to take care when choosing one.
There's a great article on thenextweb that describes this in more detail, but here are the 5 qualities of a memorable graphic in a nutshell.
1. Harmonious colors. Colors schemes that are natural and work together are the most memorable.
2. People expressing emotion and interacting. Some objects can also be memorable, but landscape images are largely forgettable.
3. Prior knowledge of the subject. Aesthetically pleasing images aren't very memorable.
4. Infographics are memorable, but graphs aren’t. Musicians aren't likely to do many graphs though, and that's a good thing.
5. Multiple images reinforces the point. In other words, a variety of images is better than just a single image.The graphic on the left incorporates 3 of the 5 qualities just mentioned. The colors are harmonious, we all know what a brain looks like so there's prior knowledge, and there are multiple images (the brain overlaid with the skull x-ray). It's perhaps not the best example of the ideal graphic, but it does capture your attention.
This is something that I'm going to be placing more emphasis on in the future, and perhaps it's something that you should consider in your posts as well.
Labels:
Alan F. Blackwell,
graphic,
infographic,
memorable graphic,
The Next Web
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
How Radio Airplay Compares To Streaming
Many people have a difficult time getting their heads around the fact that a million streams or views just isn't that much in our new Music 4.0 age. A minor hit starts at around 50 million and a major hit is in the hundreds of millions.
1 million isn't that much when it comes to radio either, so take at traditional terrestrial radio for a second and see how it stacks up to streaming.
There are 15,730,000 people in New York City, and Artibitron estimates that a station like Z100 (currently the #1 station in the market) reaches at least 0.01% at any given moment (it's probably 5 times that actually). That's 157,000.
If the station plays a song 5 times a day (not uncommon for a song in rotation), that's 157,000 x 5 = 785,000 listens a day.
If the station plays the song for 2 weeks, that's 785,000 x 14 days = 10.99 million listens from just this one station.
There's probably at least one other station in the market playing the song, so that's 10.99 million x 2 = 21.98 million listens.
If the song is playing in New York, it's probably playing in the top 25 markets as well, which means 21.98 million x 25 = 549.5 million listens.
That's the equivalent of almost 550 million streams, but unlike streams, the artist didn't get paid for a single one of the radio listens (the songwriters got paid though).
Keep in mind that the number of plays above aren't even for a big hit (double the number of plays per day at least) and don't include the ratings for the number 1 station (at least by a factor of 5 in New York City).
You can see why our perceptions of a million are a bit skewed. When it comes to sales, yes, a million is a big deal, but it's not the same scale when judging plays, streams or views.
1 million isn't that much when it comes to radio either, so take at traditional terrestrial radio for a second and see how it stacks up to streaming.
There are 15,730,000 people in New York City, and Artibitron estimates that a station like Z100 (currently the #1 station in the market) reaches at least 0.01% at any given moment (it's probably 5 times that actually). That's 157,000.
If the station plays a song 5 times a day (not uncommon for a song in rotation), that's 157,000 x 5 = 785,000 listens a day.
If the station plays the song for 2 weeks, that's 785,000 x 14 days = 10.99 million listens from just this one station.
There's probably at least one other station in the market playing the song, so that's 10.99 million x 2 = 21.98 million listens.
If the song is playing in New York, it's probably playing in the top 25 markets as well, which means 21.98 million x 25 = 549.5 million listens.
That's the equivalent of almost 550 million streams, but unlike streams, the artist didn't get paid for a single one of the radio listens (the songwriters got paid though).
Keep in mind that the number of plays above aren't even for a big hit (double the number of plays per day at least) and don't include the ratings for the number 1 station (at least by a factor of 5 in New York City).
You can see why our perceptions of a million are a bit skewed. When it comes to sales, yes, a million is a big deal, but it's not the same scale when judging plays, streams or views.
Labels:
Arbitron,
Music 4.0,
radio airplay,
streaming royalties
Monday, November 2, 2015
Superstars Account For Less Than You Think
Most of us think that only the top 1% in music, the superstars, make most of the money.
Well, they certainly do when you take touring and merch into consideration, but not when you look at sales and streams, which will surprise many industry naysayers.
Rockonomic did a recent study based upon Nielsen's 2014 music report and found the following:
It seems that the music business is a lot more democratic than we give it credit for. Artists and bands should take heart in the fact that there appears to be plenty of room for other music besides what comes from the superstars.
Well, they certainly do when you take touring and merch into consideration, but not when you look at sales and streams, which will surprise many industry naysayers.
Rockonomic did a recent study based upon Nielsen's 2014 music report and found the following:
- The Top Ten CD albums account for only 6.624% of total CD Album Sales.
- The Top Ten Digital Tracks account for only 3.759% of total Track Sales
- The Top Ten On-Demand (Stream) Tracks account for just 0.98% of total Track Streams.
It seems that the music business is a lot more democratic than we give it credit for. Artists and bands should take heart in the fact that there appears to be plenty of room for other music besides what comes from the superstars.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Last Days Of British Bands Touring America?

Unfortunately that's getting tougher and tougher to do these days, and we may soon see less of the Brit artists and bands we love, according to an article by John Robb.
It seems that high visa costs and long waits are making it financially challenging for those acts with marginal success. Of course that applies to new artists and bands trying to break in the US, but also to all the "classic" artists of yesterday who still tour.
A US work visa now costs upwards of $7,000, and the wait time is so long that making advance travel plans become impossible, thereby jacking up the costs. It's even worse if you book the tour and then have to change plans at the last minute in fear of not having the visa issued.
Some Brit musicians used to get away with this by applying for a holiday visa, but it seems that immigration officials have now caught on, sending violators right back home and even banning them from entering for up to 10 years.
Apparently there's also a 30% tax on every dollar earned while in America, which hardly seems fair but isn't all that surprising.
American artists face no such trials getting into the UK, as a mere 50 bucks secures a work visa, and they're quick to get as well.
So see that British band while you can the next time they tour the US. You may not have another chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)