Everything Will Be Corp Sponsored Funding...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Its all about the money.

that's what businesses do, attempt to make a profit, yes.

Originally Posted by Subversounds

From a market point of view, what is the difference between Motorola, GM or Time-Warner?

it is the difference between artists being supported by commerce or patronage. commerce gave us the beatles, patronage gave us bach.

commerce allows for independence, patronage does not.

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Music ceased being a 'business done by real people' a long time ago.

really? how so?

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Thom Yorke told TIME, “I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say ‘F___ you’ to this decaying business model.”

what is interesting and ironic about that - is that thom yorke's career was built by the very model you are seeking to invalidate.

do you think pentax tampons are going to develop the next radiohead, pink floyd or beatles?

[Subversounds]

it is the difference between artists being supported by commerce or patronage. commerce gave us the beatles, patronage gave us bach.

commerce allows for independence, patronage does not.

Bach wrote for several different nobles, he had no exclusive contracts deals. No patron did profit over Bach music playing in another cities or for other patrons. This is a very bad example.

Yeah, Beatles did have independence (specially after selling millions), isnt that exactly what Frank Zappa was telling in this thread.

The argument you gave reinforce that in current music business there is no place for independence, risk taking and 'the will of the artists'. Corporations have share holders concerned only with their financial situations. Its not about the music anymore.

What do you think if Metallica suddenly, by their personal will, decided to end up, or worse, start doing contemporary jazz or whatsoever. This is a major business decision, not a subject to artists personal vanity. Metallica is an asset of the share-holders of Warner, they couldnt do that even if they wish.

Or if Britney Spears decided to sing progressive rock?! One of the major assets of their Corporations is willing to end with the product?! No way.

If this is true to big artists with much more bargain power, what can we say to the small ones?!

Its a really naive thought thinking that musicians and artists run the music business.

what is interesting and ironic about that - is that thom yorke's career was built by the very model you are seeking to invalidate.

I'm illustrating with an opinion of a major artist perception that music is not more a people's business anymore.

And if its commerce, answer me this:

Do you think that gear factory should receive % of the sales that stores made with their product?

When a store put any product to sell, they have to buy the product first, from the factories, then they sell the price for whatever price they want. After the trade factory-store, there is NO more commercial link between them. All sales are final.

So answer me, why should music be any different?! Why these Corporations have the right to charge a 80-100% percentage of the sales of a product?!

Is it because they fund artists? This is even more rare now. Imogean Heap that you feel sorry about funded her album with own money. And this is way more common, the standard.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

So answer me, why should music be any different?! Why these Corporations have the right to charge a 80-100% percentage of the sales of a product?!.

I have no idea what you are talking about? what are you talking about?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Bach wrote for several different nobles, he had no exclusive contracts deals.

Sorry that's too funny.

What do you think if Metallica suddenly, by their personal will, decided to end up, or worse, start doing contemporary jazz or whatsoever. This is a major business decision, not a subject to artists personal vanity. Metallica is an asset of the share-holders of Warner, they couldnt do that even if they wish.

Or if Britney Spears decided to sing progressive rock?!

OK, this really does happen all the time.
Sting just brought out an album of old folk songs performed with tradition instruments.
Miles Davis made an album of pop tunes, programmed on drum machines and sequencers.
Mark Knopfler made an album of traditional country guitar music with his hero Chet Atkins.
David Bowie made a glam rock album, followed by a soul album, followed by a dark Berlin electronic album, then a pop album produced by Chic.

[Subversounds]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Sorry that's too funny.
OK, this really does happen all the time.
Sting just brought out an album of old folk songs performed with tradition instruments.
Miles Davis made an album of pop tunes, programmed on drum machines and sequencers.
Mark Knopfler made an album of traditional country guitar music with his hero Chet Atkins.
David Bowie made a glam rock album, followed by a soul album, followed by a dark Berlin electronic album, then a pop album produced by Chic.

If we compare record sales and market value of Metallica and Britney Spears in the current days, to Knopler and Sting will we reinforce your argument?

Lets look even more commercial stuff then, if that is not sufficient. If Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers, Justin Bieber, 50 Cent... or even more commercial stuff, the religious/gospel singers that are between top hits for 10 years here in Brazil. They can't even think of changing, are products of their labels, assets of the music business. If they decide to change, they must find a new record deal, or probably a new label. If 'Mili Vanilli' faux pax was never discovered, would they not be considered an fully label-architected projduct, a commodity as we see today? Or even Ashlee Simpson, the lip-syncinc was a total ruin of her as an label asset, hence the almost 4 years pause between the first two succesful products, i meant, albums.

Continuing...

Stings new album?! Symphonicities? More then half of this album is reinterpration of classics. Wow, what a risk and a major change in his sound...

Miles Davis 'You're Under Arrest' you mean? It has two reinterpretations of big Hits of that time, Time after Time (Cindy Lauper); Human Nature (Michael Jackson). 'Very risky' too, considering the fact that most major pop releases have one, two, maybe three hits at max in any given album... That by itself would explain the 'deviation' of his work but even then, by any measures, You're Under Arrest was not a pop album, It was not a 'deviation', jazz musicians always tend to do experimentations. Remember the 'digital age was begining'. Two years before that, Herbie Hancock launched the album "Future Shock", with lots experimentations and pop inclination (such as Rockit).

And Mark Knopler solo carreer was always folk rock/country inclined, where is the 'deviation' and 'harm' to the label original product? If he wented into heavy metal, well, that would be a different story. Artists cant freely end/change their product without serious market analysis and previous marketing campaigns, they will be suggested to do a parallel project or anything.
------------------------------

I have no idea what you are talking about? what are you talking about?

I'm talking about: chain-production and market structure of Music Industry. Today, more then anytime before, Its clearly the same as any Industry. The difference is that JBL, Coca-Cola or Nike - to cite three different industry fields - are not demanding sales shares of already paid products.

You see, as music is subjective, music business is always dealing with a certain amount of risk. Because of that, when releasing an independent artist, ALL labels take the risk portion out of the equation by demanding that the artists pay all the costs of the release, asks for us to take the risks. And as we love our music and believe in it, we pay (again Imogean Heap pawning his house is a great example). Today, no independent release come out of labels on the red side (unfunded), hoping it will sale to payoff the costs NO. Minor artists, independents, will ALWAYS fund the album first, then try to make a success out of a label. From the Label point of view, its a zero risk situation, always. But hell, we absorb all the risks of our releases and the benevolent distributor wants 80% of copyrights out of it??! this is the major piracy.

Why do we, producers and musicians, have to not only pay for the costs of album production (including pressing and distribution) but, once signed, we have to pay 80-100% of the copyrights again to the distribution/pressing company. We are paying twice, that is the major piracy. Was it more clear now?

[Subversounds]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Sorry that's too funny.

Thanks, it was meant to be sarcastic.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

I'm talking about: chain-production and market structure of Music Industry. Today, more then anytime before, Its clearly the same as any Industry. The difference is that JBL, Coca-Cola or Nike - to cite three different industry fields - are not demanding sales shares of already paid products.

this is not true - it may be where we are going, we may be at a cross roads, but this is not true as of today.

Originally Posted by Subversounds

You see, as music is subjective, music business is always dealing with a certain amount of risk. Because of that, when releasing an independent artist, ALL labels take the risk portion out of the equation by demanding that the artists pay all the costs of the release, asks for us to take the risks.

again, not true in most cases.

in most cases the artist is given an advance against sales which is separate from the advances paid to record the album and promote it.

so in fact the artists is paid, and the label assumes all the risks.

Originally Posted by Subversounds

And as we love our music and believe in it, we pay (again Imogean Heap pawning his house is a great example). Today, no independent release come out of labels on the red side (unfunded), hoping it will sale to payoff the costs NO.

I know English is not your first language - but I have no idea what that sentence is suppose to mean.

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Minor artists, independents, will ALWAYS fund the album first, then try to make a success out of a label. From the Label point of view, its a zero risk situation, always.

really? prove it. start your zero risk label and let me know how that works out for you... why is it you guys who have "figured it all out" never start labels to prove us wrong and show us how to do it "right'?

why is that? there's net speak, there's, marxist philosophy, and then there's reality...

Originally Posted by Subversounds

But hell, we absorb all the risks of our releases and the benevolent distributor wants 80% of copyrights out of it??! this is the major piracy.

not withstanding the total inaccuracy of this statement...

what the hell are you talking about? by law the most any publisher can reasonably get is 50% of the copyright. that's why there is a publishers share and a writers share!

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Why do we, producers and musicians, have to not only pay for the costs of album production (including pressing and distribution) but, once signed, we have to pay 80-100% of the copyrights again to the distribution/pressing company. We are paying twice, that is the major piracy. Was it more clear now?

no. we're not.

you are factually wrong on so many levels...

The Root Investigates Who Really Gets Paid in the Music Industry

[Subversounds]

Fearing i'm a bit repetitive, in Brasil:

1. bands pay to play on tv. Due to its high price, only major labels do this. Its much like advertising their product. It has no exception, no 'talent show' or whatsoever. Btw talent shows are paid too. If you have a chance grab the "Beyond Citizen Kane" documentary or book, its about our TV biz.

2. bands pay to play on the radio, not that high, but follows the same logic above. After decades of mainstream radio only, just one year ago a new one came putting original non-major labels stuff on air nationwide. I've met a DJ that was fired from a radio for playing ONE song during a whole day that was not of the labels that paid to play. And other important stuff is that 50% of all 4000 radios we have in Brazil, are owned/controlled by politicians. There are some university/free radios with local reach, rare.

3. Bands pay to open big concerts (national or international). Depending on the band opening may vary a lot. And its common to local promoters to "buy the right to open for big artists". T4F is a company specialized on that sort of 'business' in Brazil.

http://www.t4f.com.br/ (website in english)

These three practices above are so common that we have a widespread slang for it called jabá, term also used refering to bribery.

4. Bands pay to play live music in clubs, houses and restaurants. The standard is to pre-pay a fixed amount, then the club charges an "artistic cover charge" from people entering the club and then gives it gives a share to the band.. Due to this it is common to artists associate with party/promoters to make their events. But its not rare to encounter bad-payers among major clubs here, taking two to three months to pay.

5. The majority of bands use personal funds during the full recording process (rec,mix,master). Like a plumber or computer tech, studios/producers are paid by the services, not by percentages. In this way, is really 'taylorized' the process and also outsourced. No major label owns studios here, not even Som Livre, our major national label with 10 of the 20 top sellers. It's really rare label-funded artists, even old and new known names like João Bosco, João Donato and Krassik had to do that in their later works. Some few major artists are funded by the big five labels but as soon as they are no suficient profitable anymore they are left behind by the label that 'created' them, no long term duration, highly perishble stuff. And others are funded by the church (catholic or protestant) 3 of the top 10 sellers in Brasil are religious/gospel music.

6. Following the above principle. We pay the distributors/pressing companies the costs for their services. Even if the distributors/pressing is a major label company as Universal Music and EMI, they want the costs before pressing. Zero risk. There is no more "you were found by a talent agent and Label X will support you". For the vast majority of cases this is not true. But still they charge a % of our work.

And as we love our music and believe in it, we pay (again Imogean Heap pawning his house is a great example). Today, no independent release come out of labels on the red side (unfunded), hoping it will sale to payoff the costs NO.

Sorry about my bad english, what i meant "As we love our music and belive in it we pre-fund our cds. No independent release in Brasil, come out of labels without being previously paid. There is no expectations of selling to pay the previous costs. From the label perspective, is only profit, from the artists perspective, its 10% profit.

really? prove it. start your zero risk label and let me know how that works out for you... why is it you guys who have "figured it all out" never start labels to prove us wrong and show us how to do it "right'?

why is that? there's net speak, there's, marxist philosophy, and then there's reality...

I work with independent bands from Rio for 4 years now, and i'm in independent market since 2002. Universal Music in Brasil is doing that in a regular basis, the price for a initial release of 1000 copies + material costs was near U$3000. No advertising or whatsoever in this 'basic package', just putting the album available for sale and adding his brand to it. I can get the name of the executive we've talke, but it wouldnt be too much ethical (i can send to you by email if you want).

not withstanding the total inaccuracy of this statement...

what the hell are you talking about? by law the most any publisher can reasonably get is 50% of the copyright. that's why there is a publishers share and a writers share!

By brazillian law its not, 50% here this figure is just to the independent producers. Publishers can have different parcels 'negotiable' with the artists. The best major artist deal over sales in Brasil Music history was Ivete Sangalo, and she received 8% of sales.That i learned doing a course on authoral rights in Brasil, in FGV. There are even brazillian examples of artists that are payed much like outsourced laborforce, to do 'temporary jobs' for the label. That is wha i'm talking about.

The thing is that this is becoming a standard for the world.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Sorry about my bad english, what i meant "As we love our music and belive in it we pre-fund our cds. No independent release in Brasil, come out of labels without being previously paid. There is no expectations of selling to pay the previous costs. From the label perspective, is only profit, from the artists perspective, its 10% profit.

so then why would you do it? do they do marketing and promotion? I don't understand - why would you knowingly do such a deal? do they not pay any advance?

Originally Posted by Subversounds

I work with independent bands from Rio for 4 years now, and i'm in independent market since 2002. Universal Music in Brasil is doing that in a regular basis, the price for a initial release of 1000 copies + material costs was near U$3000. No advertising or whatsoever in this 'basic package', just putting the album available for sale and adding his brand to it. I can get the name of the executive we've talke, but it wouldnt be too much ethical (i can send to you by email if you want).

again - if they don't have anything to offer of any value and you paid for the recording yourself - why on earth would you do it?

Originally Posted by Subversounds

By brazillian law its not, 50% here this figure is just to the independent producers. Publishers can have different parcels 'negotiable' with the artists. The best major artist deal over sales in Brasil Music history was Ivete Sangalo, and she received 8% of sales.

on the masters or the publishing - you seem to be interchanging the two... do you understand the difference?

Originally Posted by Subversounds

That i learned doing a course on authoral rights in Brasil, in FGV. There are even brazillian examples of artists that are payed much like outsourced laborforce, to do 'temporary jobs' for the label. That is wha i'm talking about.

The thing is that this is becoming a standard for the world.

I can't imagine how it could become standard? Who would agree and why?

I mean if they labels are paying nothing and getting 90% of "the copyright" as you say - what are they actually offering that you can't do on your own?

[rack gear]

get your ice skates - hell has frozen over...

ex sex pistol is butter shill... who will you shill for?

John Lydon says Country Life butter adverts are funding PiL reunion - LAUNCH, Music on Yahoo! is now Yahoo! Music UK & Ireland

Former Sex Pistol John Lydon has said that the money he earned from the 'Country Life' butter advertising campaign has funded the reformation of his band Public Image Ltd.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

By brazillian law its not, 50% here this figure is just to the independent producers. Publishers can have different parcels 'negotiable' with the artists. The best major artist deal over sales in Brasil Music history was Ivete Sangalo, and she received 8% of sales.That i learned doing a course on authoral rights in Brasil, in FGV. There are even brazillian examples of artists that are payed much like outsourced laborforce, to do 'temporary jobs' for the label. That is wha i'm talking about.

The thing is that this is becoming a standard for the world.

That's certainly not the case in the UK and I haven't heard of anything similar being mooted.

My publisher is on 20% and I have a non-exclusive deal. This is what I negotiated ( without the aid of a lawyer ) and that's what I got. If I own the master I negotiate a separate deal, lease or sale.

If I wasn't getting what I thought was appropriate why would I sign the deal ?

To be fair I didn't ask for or take an advance which made my negotiating position stronger but again that seems appropriate and equitable.

Mustard Music Publishing | Artists

James

[Muser]

From what I understand being mentioned these days and based on what I am hearing as being a standard view of emerging economies (Brazil) is one of them, along with India and China. looking at your figures there, Brazil might be being seen by the industry as a good place to maximize profits. cheap labour or higher profits is always the reason any industry moves into new countries to carry out business.

The aesthetic of Adverts seem to be merging with Music more and more. Adverts have always been sort of infantile in style and a lot of Music at the moment, seems to sound like and be concerned with a schoolyard level of subject matter. It's like the aesthetic of the whining teenager has been raised to the level of Art form. The Music even often sounds like quite unimaginative schoolyard taunts or playground putdowns, as they are sometimes called.

funny actually. I was just reading about Jimmy Putznatowski, Creator Of Classic Schoolyard Taunts.
He was the creator of classics like, "asswhipe" "Blow Me”, “Bite Me”, “Eat Me”, and “I Know You Are But What Am I?”

He died in 2009 July.
In a heartfelt tribute his brother Mickey, inventor of the LintMaster, said “Let’s face it, the man was a genius, and yet at the same time he was a total dipshit.”

LOL

[rack gear]

but wait... there's more...
SanDisk + Tiesto: It's The Tiniest Exclusive You Can Imagine... - Digital Music News

[rack gear]

but wait, there's more!

American Express Announces Partnership with VEVO and YouTube Unveils "Unstaged: an Original Series from American Express" - MarketWatch

YouTube - AmericanExpress's Channel

[Bob Olhsson]

Never forget, "he who pays the piper calls the tune."

The free speech and censorship implications of this stuff are absolutely mind boggling.

[Muser]

seeing as this thread is shaping up to be a rather good thread, I thought I would post this here. instead of into one of the other piracy threads.

putting-pirates-in-perspective-mininova-versus-the-world.

David Touve. Washington and Leew University.
Assistant Professor of Strategy & Entrepreneurship
Williams School of Commerce, Economic & Politics.

from. you can check his credentials here too.
Putting Pirates in Perspective: Mininova versus the World

For a recent Telco 2.0 conference, I decided to try and get a sense of just what proportion of media experiences could be attributed to files acquired through pirated channels as compared to those experiences that are the function of more “traditional” and licensed access channels (e.g., radio and television). The pirate channel I chose was Mininova, given the site recently claimed 10,000,000,000 torrent downloads during the period 2005-2009.

In short, I estimated that Mininova accounted for approximately 0.02901% of global media experiences—i.e., unique listens and views.


It's also worth watching his presentation from the Telco 2.0 conference in London + Orlando. Media is not a product. Media is not a service. Media is an Experience.
YouTube - ‪Media is an Experience, Telco 2.0 presentation‬‎

This video shows in presentation graphics form, exactly the same assumptions I was outlining in the GS thread - ( END of the Internet !! is there any truth to it ? )

If you look at one of the final images it shows an image of a man running towards an exit door in case of emergency. I think that might be a message to the Telco industry that it can (if the plan fails) take it that, it won't be a financial catastrophe for them.

I really do think this piracy issue is the industries perfect storm. I mean, if He is presenting a figure for Mininova as accounting for 0.02901% then my overall conclusion is that, we may be all having the wool pulled over our eyes.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by sparqee

Just went to the Lilith Festival and we (the audience) were forced to watch an entire episode of an ABC sitcom between acts.

Forced? They strapped you to a chair with your eyes clamped open like in Clockwork Orange?

You could have brought along a book. I never go anywhere without a book and a flashlight.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

I'm talking about: chain-production and market structure of Music Industry. Today, more then anytime before, Its clearly the same as any Industry. The difference is that JBL, Coca-Cola or Nike - to cite three different industry fields - are not demanding sales shares of already paid products.

Come again? What ARE you talking about?

Do you understand that this is the MUSIC INDUSTRY we're talking about here, not some widgit manufacturing operation?

The plastic disk is not the product.

The music is the product.

The music has production expenses that must be recouped.

The songwriters and musicians must be paid royalties for their performance to recoup the IMMENSE amount of time and effort that go into creating the music.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF ROYALTIES????

Do you understand that people must be paid for their work?

Why do we, producers and musicians, have to not only pay for the costs of album production (including pressing and distribution) but, once signed, we have to pay 80-100% of the copyrights again to the distribution/pressing company. We are paying twice, that is the major piracy. Was it more clear now?

What the hell are you talking about?

What is "more clear now" is that you obviously don't have the foggiest idea of how things work.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Subversounds

Fearing i'm a bit repetitive, in Brasil:


Sorry about my bad english, what i meant "As we love our music and belive in it we pre-fund our cds. No independent release in Brasil, come out of labels without being previously paid. There is no expectations of selling to pay the previous costs. From the label perspective, is only profit, from the artists perspective, its 10% profit.

I work with independent bands from Rio for 4 years now, and i'm in independent market since 2002. Universal Music in Brasil is doing that in a regular basis, the price for a initial release of 1000 copies + material costs was near U$3000. No advertising or whatsoever in this 'basic package', just putting the album available for sale and adding his brand to it. I can get the name of the executive we've talke, but it wouldnt be too much ethical (i can send to you by email if you want).

By brazillian law its not, 50% here this figure is just to the independent producers. Publishers can have different parcels 'negotiable' with the artists. The best major artist deal over sales in Brasil Music history was Ivete Sangalo, and she received 8% of sales.That i learned doing a course on authoral rights in Brasil, in FGV. There are even brazillian examples of artists that are payed much like outsourced laborforce, to do 'temporary jobs' for the label. That is wha i'm talking about.

If that's the case where you live (and, without having any data to verify one way or the other, I'm seriously doubtful that it is), you need to move to a country that doesn't abuse its musicians.

The thing is that this is becoming a standard for the world.

Um, no, not any world I've been in recently.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Muser

funny actually. I was just reading about Jimmy Putznatowski, Creator Of Classic Schoolyard Taunts.
He was the creator of classics like, "asswhipe" "Blow Me”, “Bite Me”, “Eat Me”, and “I Know You Are But What Am I?”

He died in 2009 July.
In a heartfelt tribute his brother Mickey, inventor of the LintMaster, said “Let’s face it, the man was a genius, and yet at the same time he was a total dipshit.”

LOL

You DO understand that article is on a joke site, don't you?

Jimmy Putznatowski, Creator of Classic Schoolyard Taunts, is a Dead Man at 68 | The Daily Idiocy

[John Eppstein]

You guys do understand that broadcast media have ALWAYS operated on corp. sponsored funding don't you?

I remember back when I was a kid, tv shows preceding commercial breaks with "And now for a word from our sponsor!"......

It's just that the internet, by its nature, is driving all content distribution toward a broadcast style business model. There's simply no other way to make it pay.

Product placement ain't anything new, either - I remember that Perry Mason always drove a Ford product, usually a Lincoln Continental or a T-Bird, sometimes a Galaxy...

This episode of Gearslutz is brought to you by Steven Slate Software........

[Muser]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

You DO understand that article is on a joke site, don't you?

Jimmy Putznatowski, Creator of Classic Schoolyard Taunts, is a Dead Man at 68 | The Daily Idiocy

Funny site though

someone did do a study on Schoolyard Taunts and every now and then I go on a little search to little avail.

one current one, is that children are Taunting other children with.
"your Mum blogs about you"

[Muser]

Lots of the worlds Media actually works on Public Funding. BBC or ABC in Australia etc.

funnily enough, Newspapers lobbied the UK government for a public license fee, so it wouldn't impact their newspaper advertising.

Then when it became so popular they started whining about not having a piece of the action. Then they started taking over the TV medium.

same thing is happening with the internet now.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Muser

Lots of the worlds Media actually works on Public Funding. BBC or ABC in Australia etc.

funnily enough, Newspapers lobbied the UK government for a public license fee, so it wouldn't impact their newspaper advertising.

Then when it became so popular they started whining about not having a piece of the action. Then they started taking over the TV medium.

same thing is happening with the internet now.

Yeah. Unfortunately that ain't so in the USA. We do have PBS, but that's like the appendix of the broadcast industry.

[petermichael]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Yeah. Unfortunately that ain't so in the USA. We do have PBS, but that's like the appendix of the broadcast industry.

100+

I think we are returning to the "XXX has been brought to you today by...." model.

We got away from that, I would surmise, from TV/Radio deciding they could make alot more money selling blocks of commercials as opposed to just one. But as viewers leave TV / Radio for the internet, (EDIT - and let's not forget the effect the DVR is having on commercial viewing) that old style is starting to return. I think there will be multiple people sponsoring various single acts, but it will not be because of a time slot, but rather because they are mutually behind each other, or at least have mutual appreciation.

This is a good thing. Funding is required, and if advertisers and entertainers can develop a respect and appreciation for each other, (as opposed to artists working for advertisers, ) then it will reduce the reduction the adverts have on the art.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by petermichael

100+

I think we are returning to the "XXX has been brought to you today by...." model.

We got away from that, I would surmise, from TV/Radio deciding they could make alot more money selling blocks of commercials as opposed to just one. But as viewers leave TV / Radio for the internet, (EDIT - and let's not forget the effect the DVR is having on commercial viewing) that old style is starting to return. I think there will be multiple people sponsoring various single acts, but it will not be because of a time slot, but rather because they are mutually behind each other, or at least have mutual appreciation.

This is a good thing. Funding is required, and if advertisers and entertainers can develop a respect and appreciation for each other, (as opposed to artists working for advertisers, ) then it will reduce the reduction the adverts have on the art.

I had two meetings this morning. one with the producing partner of a youtuber with one of the highest audience shares on the site, the other with mtv...

guess what both meetings had in common?

making content that makes advertisers (aka Brands) happy...

which is a lot different from making content that makes the artist happy...

so if advertising is the key, better learn how to sing for yer supper, and if you think the mill that's cranking out miley, gaga, beiber is bad... you ain't seen nuthin yet...

these guys, are the future, ya ready?

YouTube - ‪Fred's Channel‬‎
YouTube - ‪realannoyingorange's Channel‬‎

advertisers LOVE them...

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by blue nine

..guess what both meetings had in common?

making content that makes advertisers (aka Brands) happy...

which is a lot different from making content that makes the artist happy...
...

Which is even more different than making music fans happy.

Advertising is the problem and not the solution.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Which is even more different than making music fans happy.

Advertising is the problem and not the solution.

piracy will end when it competes with google's ability to monetize content.

thou shalt not steal from google.

the cure could be worse than the poison.

[Muser]

Originally Posted by blue nine

these guys, are the future, ya ready?

When agencies get to grips with this using teams of professionals, then there won't even be a place for bedroom productions any more. They will structure large contracts to account for that kind of competition.

This G∆∆gle Verizon deal was a news item on BBC radio today. people need to keep making the noise and the most impact-full arguments. otherwise, we may spend the rest of our live borns eating from their meager Trough. It's already almost empty.

[Muser]

There you go. proof they are actively encouraged to do it.

Boston — 360PR Blog

The SXSW viral video seminar was led by Jonathan Wells, the creative director at Flux, --- Margaret Gould Stewart --- from YouTube, Jason Wishnow from TedTalks and Damian Kulash from OK GO. They were informed and articulate, and it was one of the more meaningful and lively discussions at SXSW. I learned that many popular viral videos happen not on purpose like, Charlie bit my finger. So the question is, how do you create a successful viral video on purpose? Here are 10 secrets I learned from this panel of pros:

QUOTE
5. Viral doesn’t always mean having to create original content. You can also curate original content from others and provide a platform to help them gain a larger audience for their content.