Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

But if a venture capitalist wants ownership of the artist's material that's too much. (and what else does an unknown artist have that a vulture capitalist might be interested in?)

.

Now we finally get to see who hasn't got a clue how the record business works. Or any business for that matter.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

That appears to be the faction that Mike Caffery is shilling for.....

Hahah! Are you posting drunk again?

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Well, that's different and a bit of a special case. The newspapers really got into trouble when they lost nearly all their classified advertising revenue to Craigslist, which is free. Banner ads won't replace that revenue. Banner ads are comparable to display advertising but not classifieds. In addition, online advertizing doesn't work that well for local products - you can advertize Fords but you can't do a very good job advertizing the deals at Joe Murphy's Ford Dealership in beautiful downtown Podunk. Joe Murphy will be doing that on his own website, he doesn't need your newspaper site for that.

What you can do is advertise stuff that's of widespread national interest - think anything advertised on TV for starters. While newspapers did do a lot of that sort of thing it wasn't the bulk of their revenue.

I get lots of local ads on my computer. It's very annoying, but Google has been doing a great job advertising products and stores I've done searches for. Especially on YouTube.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I'm amazed actually how happy everyone seems to be about the idea of a lot more advertising and a lot more aggressive marketing.
Speaking for myself, I watch quite a lot of TV, but very rarely watch commercial TV. The ads and the repetition of the same ads drives me mad.
When you are watching a continuous sporting event, like soccer or an auto race, they still try and squeeze in ads, but inevitably the action happens while you are being sold hamburgers.
I've worked with the socialist indie bands, and the mega global pop stars, but I never liked the marketing side of it. I never enjoyed talking to the sponsors, or the businessmen who didn't know who you were, even though they just watched you play a gig.
I'll state clearly I'd prefer music to be paid for when bought, rather than everyone having to suffer crass marketing and an abundance of advertising just because in the first ten years of this century lots of people found a way to steal music, and no one could figure out how to stop it.
If that makes me a dinosaur, OK, but at least I haven't sold my soul to Park Avenue, or had to pitch my music to Ronald McDonald before the true audience gets to hear it.

I almost never see TV commercials. It works out that I watch very little live TV.

I assume that the reason my remote doesn't have a 1 or 2 minute jump forward button is so that the cable company doesn't loose all of their advertisers.

I'm sure you've seen that networks are now advertising their own shows along the bottom of a live one.

Advertisers are tailoring their images and logos to be more effective when viewed in fast forward.

TV advertising is going to go the way of print ads. Probably not as extreme, but who knows. If it snowballs bad enough and the budgets to make shows drop too much, then viewers will get their entertainment elsewhere.

Both advertisers and consumers need advertising. If it wasn't for TV I wouldn't know that Maytag is a national brand vs some unknown generic. How would we hear about new medications for our restless legs?

As annoying as it is there's some minimal benefit from the consumer side.


Anyway, it's clear that advertising is being forced to change.

Do you think there's any potential benefit in new advertising methods for bands and musicians?



Could someone who has 10 million youtube video views get one million live viewers of some kind of event, like a concert? I'm going to guess that right now, the answer is no, but after 5 years of owning iPads, I think that most people will have done something like that once, and an artist won't have to both convince someone to get their entertainment that way as well as turn into them specifically. Then it will be easier to get 1 million viewers, which at that point, could be more than a network TV show. Even 100,000 viewers might be at that point.

What year do you think will be the first year that the Superbowl is broadcast live on the internet? What year do you think will be the first year that it's exclusively live on the internet?


Advertisers need entertainment content to advertise in. How many years do you think it will be before an advertiser creates a new model for bands because the advertiser is desperate?

Have you ever seen a TV show called Fearless music? I'm not clear whether that's national or not. What about Austin City Limits? Do you think there may be a point where some day they can make more money by selling ad time directly and broadcasting on ACL.com? With that model, they could get more per show and advertisers could pay less because there would be no middle man - the network - to take a cut.


ACL's brand is powerful from ti's association with all of the brands/bands that have been on there. That multi-brand mixing is an advantage that a band doesn't have, but can you see how advertising needs to change and that creates opportunities for smaller organizations, like a TV show rather than a network.

If it did get to the point where the organizations were as small as a band, there's no way a middle man wouldn't step in as some kind of aggregator. But at that point, it's a blank page as far as what people would get paid for and why and it is possible to create a model where audio recordings are not use as something to sell.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I'm amazed actually how happy everyone seems to be about the idea of a lot more advertising and a lot more aggressive marketing.
Speaking for myself, I watch quite a lot of TV, but very rarely watch commercial TV. The ads and the repetition of the same ads drives me mad.
When you are watching a continuous sporting event, like soccer or an auto race, they still try and squeeze in ads, but inevitably the action happens while you are being sold hamburgers.
I've worked with the socialist indie bands, and the mega global pop stars, but I never liked the marketing side of it. I never enjoyed talking to the sponsors, or the businessmen who didn't know who you were, even though they just watched you play a gig.
I'll state clearly I'd prefer music to be paid for when bought, rather than everyone having to suffer crass marketing and an abundance of advertising just because in the first ten years of this century lots of people found a way to steal music, and no one could figure out how to stop it.
If that makes me a dinosaur, OK, but at least I haven't sold my soul to Park Avenue, or had to pitch my music to Ronald McDonald before the true audience gets to hear it.

Everyone???

No.

NOT "everyone".

I won't.

You see, it all depends on the medium and the purchase outlet you choose.

I don't do MP3s and I don't download music, so I won't have to put up with the ads.

And people who DO do downloads won't necessarily have to either, if they choose an "enhanced services" package - one of the services can easily be elimination of advertising. Of course they'd have to pay a subscription fee for that, but if you don't want the ads you should be happy to pay, right?

You want "free", you get ads. You care more about no ads, you shouldn't expect "free".

Simple.

And nobody has to sell their soul to Ronald McDonald unless they're after Barry Manilow's old job.......

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Now we finally get to see who hasn't got a clue how the record business works. Or any business for that matter.

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Hahah! Are you posting drunk again?

Mike, I'm simply basing that on what you, yourself have said. Are you denying that you proposed that artists work under contract to corporations, relinquishing rights to their work in exchange for a wage? Because if you are trying to deny that I'll just have to go back and refer you to the post where you said it.

And what's this about you working under an NDA with some unnamed corporation on some sort of new model? Oh, that's RIGHT! You can't talk about it because of the NDA! If there wasn't something dodgy going on there wouldn't be any need for an NDA, not in the music business.......

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Could someone who has 10 million youtube video views get one million live viewers of some kind of event, like a concert? I'm going to guess that right now, the answer is no, but after 5 years of owning iPads, I think that most people will have done something like that once, and an artist won't have to both convince someone to get their entertainment that way as well as turn into them specifically. Then it will be easier to get 1 million viewers, which at that point, could be more than a network TV show. Even 100,000 viewers might be at that point.

What year do you think will be the first year that the Superbowl is broadcast live on the internet? What year do you think will be the first year that it's exclusively live on the internet?

Are you suggesting that internet broadcast will be a viable alternative to actual live performance? Because if you are you need to (a) go see some live shows and (b) have your head examined.

The Superbowl sells out every year and always will unless people stop liking football. There will always be a market for live performance, unless the performers suck.

OTOH if you're suggesting that direct internet broadcast will eventually cause the demise of broadcast (and cable) TV I'd say you're spot on the money. That why Comcast is putting so much into their internet operations - they understand that the days of cable TV as we know it are numbered. (Too bad, I hate Comcast....) That's also why DirecTv has partnered with AT&T.

As to whether this will actually cause a decrease in advertising, I'm very skeptical. The tendency is to charge what the market will bear, or in this case to load the medium with as many ads as the audience will tolerate.

The primary reason that the TV industry hates TV pirates so much isn't actually that they distribute the shows on their own "channels" and allow users to watch any time - it's because the pirates strip out the advertising.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I get lots of local ads on my computer. It's very annoying, but Google has been doing a great job advertising products and stores I've done searches for. Especially on YouTube.

But that's kind of beside the point we were actually talking about, which was the inability of print newspapers to effectively utilize online ad revenue to make up their losses. Sure, Google can effectively target you with specialized advertising. But a newspaper's online division doesn't have access to Google's technology and databases. So while a search engine company can do that other companies can't, at least not without access to exclusive technology that Google isn't about to release to other companies.

So the fine targeted advertising that you get on Youtube and Gmail isn't going to be coming to the New York Times site anytime soon.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

You want "free", you get ads. You care more about no ads, you shouldn't expect "free".

Simple.

Yes.
I'm saying it's being widely touted, at least on this forum, as the future solution to the piracy problem.
Give your music away, then recoup from advertising, sponsorship and marketing.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Yes.
I'm saying it's being widely touted, at least on this forum, as the future solution to the piracy problem.
Give your music away, then recoup from advertising, sponsorship and marketing.

Well, yes. Thing is that you can really only fight "free" with "free". That means that you have to derive your royalty payments some other way. It doesn't HAVE to be advertising - In my propsal for co-opting pirate sites and getting them to pat loicensing fees I don't actually SPECIFY any given model for raising cash. For all I care if some billionaire philanthropist wants to run a site where he gives everything away any pays the royalties from his own pocket that's fine. Pretty damn unlikely, but fine.

It's just that advertising is the most obvious of the possible practical solutions. Others include financing by donation, which many private pirate sites already do to cover operating expenses, merch, and promotional events like raffles.

And, as I've stated previously, if you don't like the ads you could simply pay to have them removed.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EFF

john - I've been there - it's set up for people like you. There's a round robin pitch pit, with both VC and Start Ups. Plenty of hang time in the halls and in between sessions. Sure you can watch the presentations if you want too, but the real action is in the hallways.

I dunno... 100 bucks and a day of hustle seems like a really small investment to advance a genius idea...

I met the soundcloud people there for example... I win by developing relationships with people no one cares about - and those are the same relationships I keep when everyone cares about them.

I was a day one guy with Itunes and it paid off, big. So you never know...

OK, EFF, you talked me into it. I just hope that it's worth the money - I need every extra penny I can scrape up for recording tape.......

[Dirty Halo]

I find it odd that some here are all for "free music" because it is truer to the art and truly free expression, etc.

And then quick to embrace advertising as the way it'll be paid for.

(Screw those big labels!)

How "free" do you think you'll be when your music needs to be "reviewed" by Coke Cola and Disney?


-Andrew

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

I find it odd that some here are all for "free music" because it is truer to the art and truly free expression, etc.

And then quick to embrace advertising as the way it'll be paid for.

(Screw those big labels!)

How "free" do you think you'll be when your music needs to be "reviewed" by Coke Cola and Disney?


-Andrew

I certainly hope you're not talking about me? Because if you are that's a total misstatement of my position.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

OK, EFF, you talked me into it. I just hope that it's worth the money - I need every extra penny I can scrape up for recording tape.......

hey I make no reps or warranties - it is what you make of it - you just seem to be very passionate about your idea, so it seems like you should do more with it than posts on GS (and maybe you are - I don't want to sound presumptuous).

Any new idea or business or start is probably going to take more rejection than welcome, but you gotta start somewhere.

I'm helping to launch a new product line for the fall by a well financed group who figured out to monetize an underdeveloped segment of a major sports franchise.

Two major distributors passed... but one is very excited. Sometimes, it's just about finding the right allies. And, to our surprise the distributor who is the most interested is also going to have the most clout in the marketplace this xmas season.

So you never know...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

I find it odd that some here are all for "free music" because it is truer to the art and truly free expression, etc.

And then quick to embrace advertising as the way it'll be paid for.

(Screw those big labels!)

How "free" do you think you'll be when your music needs to be "reviewed" by Coke Cola and Disney?

-Andrew

that is in fact an interesting observation.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EFF

hey I make no reps or warranties - it is what you make of it - you just seem to be very passionate about your idea, so it seems like you should do more with it than posts on GS (and maybe you are - I don't want to sound presumptuous).

Any new idea or business or start is probably going to take more rejection than welcome, but you gotta start somewhere.

I'm helping to launch a new product line for the fall by a well financed group who figured out to monetize an underdeveloped segment of a major sports franchise.

Two major distributors passed... but one is very excited. Sometimes, it's just about finding the right allies. And, to our surprise the distributor who is the most interested is also going to have the most clout in the marketplace this xmas season.

So you never know...

The thing is, I don't want to run it myself - I have my hands full with trying to get the band off the ground - but I believe that my solution is, in fact, the most viable model and I'd really like to see somebody take the idea and run with it.

The obvious people would be the ones who have experience operating a pirate BT tracker, but most of them are very leery of talking to anybody in the industry and for good reason. There also needs to be somebody involved who knows how to set up royalty payments.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I certainly hope you're not talking about me? Because if you are that's a total misstatement of my position.

Not clear on what your position is, so nope; not directed at you. For SURE directed at the OP and a few others.

But, if advertising plays a role in your model of artist compensation, then I'd like to know more about how, why, what, etc.

-Andrews

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by elginchris

the old system of selling music will never work again. anyone who thinks otherwise might as well stop reading this post right now.

all music should be free in cost.

as an artist/label, the only way to make money 'selling' music is through advertising and merchandising.

---end of story---

Fans are not the only ones who want what is "hot". Marketers make entire careers "breaking" underground artist to the main stream. Thats where the deals should be made.

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

I find it odd that some here are all for "free music" because it is truer to the art and truly free expression, etc.

And then quick to embrace advertising as the way it'll be paid for.

(Screw those big labels!)

How "free" do you think you'll be when your music needs to be "reviewed" by Coke Cola and Disney?


-Andrew

And that's where the fun begins. Can you imagine Marilyn Manson trying to be an artist in a world of Procter & Gamble, Disney and pretty much ANY sponsorship controlled system?

ElginChris- Can you actually specifically address this point to give your OP even the smallest shred of credibility? Waiting...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Not clear on what your position is, so nope; not directed at you. For SURE directed at the OP and a few others.

But, if advertising plays a role in your model of artist compensation, then I'd like to know more about how, why, what, etc.

-Andrews

Site makes money off advertising to pay royalties to artist, similar to radio. Advertising does not affect artist directly. (Unless they want to sell rights for commercials, same as now.)

As far as artists striking sponsorship deals with companies, that's been happening for tour support for decades, it's nothing new. I can't see companies wanting to do it for recording, at least not in a way that would be acceptable to the artist. Look at the Starbucks/Carly Simon fiasco......

OTOH, it might work for Kenny G...........

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

As far as artists striking sponsorship deals with companies, that's been happening for tour support for decades, it's nothing new.

Agreed.
From my own point of view I would just exercise a word of caution.
In my experience on bigger tours, it was the corporations who were seeking to get involved.
The bands thought Hey, great. We can afford a few extra crew now, or half a dozen lazers, or a slightly bigger stage.
Once the tables are turned and bands need sponsorship to even put on the show, then I think you'll see corporate business exercising a lot more control.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Site makes money off advertising to pay royalties to artist, similar to radio. Advertising does not affect artist directly. (Unless they want to sell rights for commercials, same as now.)

As far as artists striking sponsorship deals with companies, that's been happening for tour support for decades, it's nothing new. I can't see companies wanting to do it for recording, at least not in a way that would be acceptable to the artist. Look at the Starbucks/Carly Simon fiasco......

OTOH, it might work for Kenny G...........

Totally agree with you, but that's not what ElgrinChris is talking about and it doesn't address a workable solution for all the artists who aren't tour-centric, and pure banner/site based advertising doesn't even begin to have the numbers to support/make-up the lost income from piracy.

-a

[Id Ridden]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

I find it odd that some here are all for "free music" because it is truer to the art and truly free expression, etc.

And then quick to embrace advertising as the way it'll be paid for.

(Screw those big labels!)

How "free" do you think you'll be when your music needs to be "reviewed" by Coke Cola and Disney?


-Andrew

Yeah it kind of goes against itself and not everyone wants to sell out to that degree....however if Playboy or Hustler were the sponsor, well, that wouldn't be so bad...the perks would be a little more enjoyable then a years supply of battery fluid, i mean coke!

All seriousness aside, I kind of look at this free content issue as foreshadowing of what is to come. I think of it in more simple terms like jobs and it has become evident in many industries and areas that when the technology reaches a certain point it is nearly impossible to maintain employment levels. What happens when machines are able to run a fast food joint, quicker, better and more efficiently then a bunch of people? What are all those people, especially kids, going to do? Profit and capatilism and simply just common sense says we have to use the machines, can't keep people employed where something else can do a better job. Where are the jobs coming from? This isn't that far away and we are probably restricting technology because we are not sure yet. This kind of problem is not dedicated solely to the music biz, it is going to become rampant pretty much everywhere. We cannot sit back and dehumanize ourselves because a machine can do something better, they will never be able to do many things we can, good riddance to those kind of jobs I say, lets start utilizing people properly.

People generally seem to be creators, hopefully we can maintain robust employment in creative/inventive/scientific type fields and increase them instead of decreasing. There are problems on both sides of this issue as far as I can tell but generally there needs to maintain employment AND the people need to afford to live and afford pleasantries such as entertainment while not being ripped off by corps and etc. Free content sure won't keep it robust but the hyper greed and corner cutting won't either...

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Id Ridden

What happens when machines are able to run a fast food joint, quicker, better and more efficiently then a bunch of people?
We cannot sit back and dehumanize ourselves because a machine can do something better, they will never be able to do many things we can.

Your very last line kinda hits the nail on the head.
'Better' is debatable. More economical, more profitable? maybe.

I think it comes down to value adding.
People will pay a premium for a hand built car, or to visit a four star restaurant rather than a fast food joint.
What we are seeing now is a feeding frenzy in the music industry.
People want it free, and they don't seem to care much about the quality.
Once the novelty wears off, then quality will become a factor.
This is why we need to resist being wiped out by the 'new business' brigade for as long as we can, so really good creative people can pick up the pieces of the cheap as chips scenario we have now and sell quality going forward.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Totally agree with you, but that's not what ElginChris is talking about and it doesn't address a workable solution for all the artists who aren't tour-centric, and pure banner/site based advertising doesn't even begin to have the numbers to support/make-up the lost income from piracy.

-a

Yeah, well, Elgin doesn't seem to be very clear on a lot of stuff. Too much reading blogs by internot BS artists, not enough real world experience IMHO......

Anybody who thinks low and mid level tours make money has never been on one.

OTOH he tells me he's actually working on setting up a site and is interested in having me consult...... Dunno what good it'll do, the site sounds like another site for non-pros, but what the heck?

I don't think that we necessarily know that about banner based advertising yet. For one thing AFAIK every organization that's tried anything like that so far has tried to be a for-profit, VC backed company (or an amateur based site, but that's not what I'm interested in.) That's a lot of overhead. I propose doing it as a non-profit, using the ad revenue to pay royalties and base operating expenses only.

[Paawo]

Taking an other point of view... you could also think of it as the natural law of supply and demand. EVERY business operates under that law. Also music. Currently the market is overfed. There is so much "todays fashion" crap without substance that I think deserves to die. It happens in all industry... cell phones, cars, magazines, furniture... some business is always in crisis, people lose jobs, the strong and clever remain. The more fashion in the business, the shorter the life time seems to be. Music has converted more and more into a world of consumer fashion. New trend, momentary joy, no substance, throw away, forgotten after use. Too much mass production --> cheap stuff --> no value for user --> hard competition --> some production is bound to die. Supply and demand in effect.

Usually some status quo is then reached again.

So, looking on the bright side of it... when the thing collapses, maybe we will get some better quality again. If the wannabe untalented fashion crap only held up by industrial forces dies and the stuff with real talent survives, we might have again more music with substance.

If the bulk mainstream hypocrite industrially massproduced crap cannot survive its own business model in todays society and todays consumer habits, then it's a paradox anyway. No place for it. Die and rot. Never had a chance to start with.

Someone posted in another thread on GS that he/she doesn't buy music anymore and doesn't listen to radio. For me it kinda the same. Threw my TV out in late 90's, and can't listen to radio anymore. But when I happen hear substance (for me) I pay for it. The music I buy is usually stuff that is too "fringe" for the local stores so I mostly have to order it. E.g. found Inga Liljeström on youtube, ordered her stuff via the local small record shop, waited almost 2 months for the two CD's. But it was worth it. And I also go to concerts sometimes.

I will keep supporting the stuff I recognize as true art. It's maybe a small circle with small revenues, barely surviving. But if it survives, it's enough for me. Even if the main industry dies now, true music will live on. It has never died, world wars and plagues, no matter what.

Sorry about the epic tone on that. Wasn't on purpose.

Cheers, I'll put some good music on

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Site makes money off advertising to pay royalties to artist, similar to radio. Advertising does not affect artist directly. (Unless they want to sell rights for commercials, same as now.)...

Ultimately an advertiser only wants to support access to artists who will appeal to that advertiser's idea of who their most likely customers are.

This is precisely what's wrong with commercial and even non-commercial broadcasting.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Ultimately an advertiser only wants to support access to artists who will appeal to that advertiser's idea of who their most likely customers are.

This is precisely what's wrong with commercial and even non-commercial broadcasting.

Ah, this is where what I'm proposing deviates a bit from the radio model. A (traditional terrestrial) radio station, you see, by nature has a restricted playlist - they can only play so many songs a day.

But what I'm proposing is a big clearinghouse for all commercial (meaning music with the necessary registration codes) music - kinda like a huge record store with EVERYTHING.

Therefore an advertiser would be reaching EVERYBODY, including everyone in their entire target group. Plus maybe they'd get additional sales. It wouldn't cost them any more.

If a company wanted to target particular genres of music that could be easily accomplished, as the site would have different pages for particular genres, much like the sections in a record store. That only makes sense - you don't want everything jumbled up together. And THAT, BTW, is a HUGE advantage this site would have over TPB, Demonoid, and all the other high profile general use sites that don't differentiate between musical genres AT ALL.

[McLies]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

If you're interested in a partial list of the bands I've worked with live send me a PM.

me too!

[bilbobaggins]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

But what I'm proposing is a big clearinghouse for all commercial (meaning music with the necessary registration codes) music - kinda like a huge record store with EVERYTHING.

The idea that advertising revenue can fund content is an interesting one. But unfortunately, it's being done all over the internet and we've yet to see proof that this can sustain whole companies never mind
the worlds musicians.
If you do the math, you'd understand why it does not work......Spotify, YT, Myspace, Facebook, ALL make their money through this 'advertising pays for content' model. Even the pirate sites operate on this 'model'

Youtube is still running an operating loss.
Facebook hit a small profit for the first time this year
MySpace has never turned a profit and its losses are mounting.
Spotify [probably closest to your model as it actually deals with music!] is making a $5.5m monthly loss
Even the Pirate Sites barely make enough to keep their head above water.


I've had numerous discussions with people about this- but we've nearly always come to the conclusion that the advertising paying for content model is more of a reaction to free rather than a solution to it.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by bilbobaggins

...we've nearly always come to the conclusion that the advertising paying for content model is more of a reaction to free rather than a solution to it.

The industry that actually lacks a viable business model is the internet industry. It's one of the many elephants in the room.