We've pointed out how incredibly ridiculous the old structure of the recording industry was, where artists would hand over pretty much all of their rights to the label. It's amazing that this sort of indentured servitude model has survived as long as it has. After all, if you look at other parallels -- such as venture capitalists and startups, the VCs don't end up totally owning startups to the same extent as labels. Of course, this was really a function of the limitations inherent in the industry: the very limited ability to promote and distribute music in the past without a major record label behind you. With those barriers falling away, we're seeing much more reasonable models pop up. I still believe there's a big place for record labels, but it no longer needs to be a massive record label where you hand over all your rights.
And, in fact, we're seeing newer, more nimble and smarter record labels who are willing to embrace these new models rather than spending all their money on lawyers and lobbyists to hold back customers. The latest example (sent in by Ruby) is that Radiohead's manager, Brian Message, has teamed up with Nettwerk (who we've written about a bunch) to launch a new, much more artist-friendly record label called Polyphonic. One key point: artists on the label retain their copyright. To be honest, it's amazing that any band has ever been willing to give up the copyrights on its music to a label, so it's good to see alternatives showing up. The other plan is that the artists will get 50% of any profits, a significantly larger percentage than most other labels give.
Remember, also, that Brian Message is the guy who said file sharing is great for music and championed the band's "pay what you want" experiment (which I still don't think was nearly as creative as others' business models). And Nettwerk's Terry McBride has been an enthusiastic supporter of innovative business models that don't focus on relying on copyright as a crutch (in fact, he's discussed that copyright may be a totally pointless concept in the near future, and artists are better off to focus on other ways to build smart business models). It will be interesting to see who the new label signs up.
In the last post, I showed the video of my presentation at the NARM event full of music industry and music industry retailers. I recognize that not everyone wants to sit through a 30 minute presentation (even though I promise that it goes quickly!), so I did want to highlight two parts of it separately, here in text, that I think are worth calling out. Both show companies that seem to (implicitly or explicitly) recognize what we talk about in terms of enabling artists to better connect with their fans and give those fans a reason to buy -- Topspin and Nettwerk. We've certainly talked about both in various posts, but execs from both companies were kind enough to share some data on some of their experiments that have not been reported elsewhere, and which I thought was worth sharing.
Topspin, of course, has built up a platform to better enable artists to both connect with fans and to give them a reason to buy, and has been able to work with some fantastic artists, both big and small, including Eminem, Paul McCartney, the Beastie Boys, Metric, Beck, Van Hunt, David Byrne and a bunch of others as well. The exciting thing is the level of success Topspin has found with these artists:
The average transaction price across all Topspin artists has been $22. Compare that to the average price of a CD, which remains between $12 and $14. If you give people a reason to buy, they're willing to pay more. It's obviously not just about "getting stuff for free" as some contend.
Even better, two separate artists using TopSpin have found that their average transaction price is between $50 and $100.
Finally, one artist using Topspin has found (amazingly) that the average transaction price from what was being offered was greater than $100.
And, on top of that, on one recent project, they found that 84% of the orders were premium offers (meaning above the lowest tier).
The idea that people just want stuff for free? Debunked. Give people a reason to buy in the form of real value they can't get elsewhere, and they absolutely will. About an hour after my talk, Ian Rogers, CEO of Topspin did a keynote interview at the same event. You can watch it here:
Separately, we've definitely been quite impressed with what Terry McBride has done lately with some artists who work with Nettwerk, the indie label/artist management company. Terry's very much been a believer in the mantra of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy, and has even talked about how the whole concept of copyright has become outdated. His view isn't that this is necessarily a good or bad thing, but it's just the way it is, and in helping the artists he works with, they have to figure out ways to work with it. To date, that's included a lot of creative ideas for better connecting with fans and then giving them a reason to buy. One experiment he did was with the artist K-OS, who did a few different experiments, starting with allowing the fans to create their own "mix" of his latest album. Not a remix, but a mix. They released the stems of the songs before the album was released, let the fans create their own mixes, had them vote on the best, and then released two albums at the same time. One was the "pro" mix and the other was the "fan" mix. Then you could buy either one separately, or both together as a package.
The second experiment was the "pay on your way out" concert tour. Realistically speaking, this was a series of ten "free" shows. You could get in for free, but they asked you to pay what you felt was reasonable on the way out. Given the insistence by people that fans just want something for free, you would expect that very few would actually pay anything at all. Of course, that wasn't what happened.
Terry was kind enough to share with us some data from the experiment. Despite being free to come and go without paying anything, 63% of people attending ended up donating money on the way out. Now I'm sure some folks will mock this and say that he could have made more by charging everyone, but it seems quite likely that a lot more people came out to these free shows than if he had made people pay in advance. Almost two thirds of people ended up paying, totally voluntarily -- and their average donation was $6. Again, some will claim that this is low, but you have to look at the bigger overall picture. During this tour each of the two K-OS CDs were separately in the top 50 list of best sellers.
So, he gave a series of free shows that ended up bringing in tens of thousands of dollars combined (average attendance at each show was approximately 1,000 people) and it helped get a lot of people to buy both the CDs that were being offered in support of K-OS. Some people are going to nitpick the numbers, of course, but the evidence remains clear again: it's not that fans just want stuff for free. If you give them a reason to buy, an awful lot of them will absolutely buy.
from the be-interested-in-seeing-how-that-works-out... dept
Terry McBride, of Nettwerk, an interesting label based in Canada, has been running a whole series of interesting experiments that show how a modern record label can still be useful. When I saw McBride speak at Midem earlier this year, he mentioned an experiment he was running, which I never really wrote about. However, Nancy Baym points out that it's starting to get some press. The idea is a free concert to attend... where you're asked to pay what you think it was worth on the way out. Nettwerk artist k-os is doing this, setting up a "Karma table" where you can also get a free copy of k-os' "fan-mixed" album. This was the other experiment Nettwerk is running: rather than letting fans remix the album, they released all the stems so that fans could mix the album itself -- and then they're releasing both the best fan-mixed versions and the professionally mixed versions.
It's an interesting experiment, and it will be worth watching (especially if McBride is willing share any of the actual results). It does seem like a risky move, because you're taking on the whole upfront cost of putting on the event -- giving away a scarcity, rather than an infinite good. However, depending on how the rest of it is structured they could end up making some decent money out of it. I'm just not sure it's really the best model, since giving away the scarcity for free gets much costlier much faster.
Last year we wrote about a fascinating interview with Terry McBride, the CEO of Nettwerk Music, a Canadian record label that has proven to be quite innovative with its business models (and quite successful). He's really focused on helping musicians build up valuable brands, and then being able to make money off of those brands by being consumer-friendly, rather than consumer-antagonistic. One of the examples mentioned in that interview was a new album coming out where before the album was even released, the raw files were put online for fans to download and mix themselves. As he said, it wasn't "remixing," it was "premixing." And, the plan is to take the best of those and release the actual album in two formats: the official mix and the best fan mixes.
There's now another interview with McBride at the Future of Music site where he talks more about his vision of a music future where people effectively pay not for the music, but for the convenience of a "music valet" that does a better job organizing and finding the music you want when you want it. I'm still not convinced this is how things eventually work out, but it's certainly worth thinking about.
However, there are few statements McBride makes that are worth highlighting. First are two statements I agree with, and then one I don't:
People have always been sharing music. Why would I want to stop them? Why would I want to tell them what to do? The way to win was to get them to support my artists, not to force them to do it a certain way. I know I wouldn't like anyone telling me that.
This is a huge point that is so often missed by those in the industry who are focused on "protecting" and "control" rather than recognizing how people want to interact with musicians. The thing that I find most ridiculous from those complaining about file sharing is that they always make some statement along the lines of, "people who are sharing my files aren't fans, because real fans spend money." Of course, if that's true, what's the problem? The people who aren't fans aren't paying and (based on that statement) the real fans will pay. So, there's no problem at all...
Songs are not copyright. Songs are emotions.
Indeed. And that's the point. Do people pay for emotions? No. However, emotions will impact what people will pay for. However, despite agreeing with McBride on so much, I think he goes a bit off-track with the following:
Out of all of the sharing of music, who's making an economic return? Whoever is should then share that with all the people that allowed it to happen, creating a nice alignment of interests to grow any business. A lot of the providers have viewed music as free content, while at the same time paying for the cable content to grow their networks. They've been making money off the backs of the artists without any compensation for the artists at all. I think that's fundamentally wrong. I've also said it's fundamentally wrong to go after the consumers that are using that opportunity. That's not the right approach either. The phone companies and the cable providers have gotten away with murder in this whole situation.
This is the blame game and it's missing the point. The ISPs haven't "gotten away with murder." They've simply put in place a reasonable business model based on fundamental economics -- and there's nothing stopping plenty of others in the music business from doing the same. Demanding those who have figured out how to make money share with those who haven't isn't the answer either. There are business models that work just fine for those creating the music that don't require demanding anyone else share their profits. You just focus on coming up with real scarcities that give people or companies real reasons to buy and there are tons of business models that work.
from the consumer-models,-not-business-models dept
Mark Glaser has an absolute must-read interview with music label Nettwerk's CEO Terry McBride. Nettwerk, of course, has been one of a few record labels that really understands how the market has been changing, and has moved aggressively to take advantage of that. The label, which represents some top artists like Coldplay, Barenaked Ladies, K-OS and Avril Lavigne, got a lot of press a couple years back when it agreed to pay for the defense of some folks who were sued by the RIAA for file sharing. But, much more interesting was how it was actively embracing the changing market while other record labels were trying to hold back the tide. I don't agree with everything McBride has to say, but he's a lot closer to understanding where the music market is heading than pretty much everyone else we've seen in the recording industry.
You should really read the entire interview, but a few highlights are things like where he points out that musicians and record labels should be selling the overall brand, not the music:
In the digital space, where you don't need to buy shelf space, if you create the right metadata behind what you're doing, and market it in an effective way -- you're not marketing the new album, you're marketing the brand.... Chad [Urmston of State Radio] just played to 2,800 people with a $25 ticket price in New York on the weekend. He's marketing a brand, he's not just marketing intellectual property. Now it all makes sense. He's happy, he owns his future, his audience has grown with him really well.
Which brings up the second key theme: growing the audience and having them connect more closely with the musicians, even to the point of having some say in what direction the band goes in. For example, he talks about originally letting fans design the t-shirts the bands would sell. While some band members didn't like the fan-designed shirts, they inevitably sold more than the band-designed shirts. So, they started taking that even further: releasing versions of the bands' music online for fans to remix. And, with the latest K-OS album, even releasing all the musical stems for remixing, months before the actual album is released, with a plan to then release both the artist mix and the best fan mixes as both physical and digital offerings:
You can even take it beyond that. With K-OS, we're thinking about having the audience vote on which 10 to 12 cities he plays in Canada. We might even take it one step further: pay as you go not as you enter. And maybe when you leave you get a copy of the fan mix for your donation, so there's karma pricing on the exit.
McBride also talks about where he thinks this is all going to end up, and he discusses a model that might sound sort of like the music tax we've been slamming, but in reality it's quite different:
To me, the future of music is really simple. It's cloud-based servers that have all of the music, TV, movies -- whatever it might be. Very rich application-driven PDAs, whether it's the iPhone or whatever else comes up, that has applications that I have yet to see. Like digital maids or valets, which go out and knows what your musical tastes are and your 20 friends, and finds that music and organizes it -- not the actual music but the metadata so you can pull it when and how you want it. You would have a $5 or $10 per month fee for pulling it down. And that's how it will all end up, because business cannot drive business consumption.
How free loses out is the applications and metadata that makes it really easy. I call it the "hassle factor" -- for $5 to $10 you get all the music you want without the pain of having to find it. So you get the new Killers album without even knowing the new Killers album is out, and it's automatically in your weekend listening folder because your digital valet got it for you. And if you want to know what your buddy Ken's listening to, then the valet checks out his playlist and copies it over for you.
I could see this happening to some extent. The difference between this and a music tax is (a) it's totally voluntary (b) it's about adding value beyond "free" that makes it worth paying and (c) what you're really paying for is actual scarcities: convenience and pointers to good music you'll really like. Of course, in the end, my guess is that eventually this would go one step further, where the service itself would be free, because musicians would find so many other benefits from being promoted through such a system (increased ticket sales, fan club subscriptions, etc...) that it would make even more sense for the whole system to be free.
Anyway, it's great to see real progress being made on business models in the industry, and this actually highlights (once again) why Warner Music/Jim Griffin's music license system just isn't necessary. The market is making things work without it. In fact, the key quote from McBride may highlight why Nettwerk is getting somewhere while so many of the old school labels are having trouble:
It's a business model and not a consumer model. And it's definitely not a psychological model. This is about monetizing consumer behavior and not about trying to control where they go.
He's talking specifically about "ad-supported" music, which I agree is a model that will never get very far, but the same thing pretty much applies to the old record label model, as well. These days, when there are real consumer options out there, you don't succeed by limiting what consumers do, you succeed by enabling them to do more. And, that seems to be exactly what Nettwerk is doing.
Earlier this year, there was a huge fuss over the UK's Daily Mail newspaper's promotion giving away the new Prince CD for free with a copy of the newspaper. It seemed like a pretty good way of dealing with the troubles facing both the newspaper industry and the recording industry -- offering a new way of financing music combined with a new way to promote and distribute music, all the while helping give people a reason to actually buy a newspaper. It was so reasonable that it freaked out the recording industry, music stores and even other newspapers. However, it appears that some newspapers have decided to go even further. Michael Geist lets us know that over the weekend, the Vancouver Sun put up a freely downloadable compilation of songs from Nettwerk Music. You may recall Nettwerk as being the Canadian record label that seems to actually understand that the trick isn't in fighting against consumers (or in suing them), but in giving them what they want. Thus, it's not really a huge surprise that it would be this label that took part -- allowing well known acts like Sarah McLachlan and the Barenaked Ladies to take part in this promotion. What's a little strange is that the promotion only lasted for one day. However, it is good to see more newspapers (and bands) at least experimenting with this type of model. It has a long way to go, but through this experimenting the next generation of music business models are going to be discovered.
RSS
Twitter
