Dear Recording Industry: Three Strikes Won't Save Your Business

from the please-stop-thinking-it-will dept

At this year's Midem, there was still a fair bit of talk about the various "three strikes" proposals around the world that get ISPs to kick people accused (not convicted) of file sharing offline. To hear supporters tell it, the concept of "three strikes" is gaining widespread support and is really going to save the industry. Of course, the reality is quite different. Michael Geist details the state of such proposals around the globe, noting that while a few countries have implemented them, many others are rejecting them. At the same time, he highlights the high costs of implementing such proposals -- without any evidence that they will actually get people to buy more music. While supporters of such proposals may think that there's momentum behind them, if you look at the details, it seems like pretty limited support, and the plans that are in place don't seem likely to do much other than frustrate and annoy people.

Filed Under: business, three strikes

Understanding The Decline And Fall Of The Major Record Labels

from the perhaps-it-was-inevitable dept

There's a fascinating, and well sourced, editorial over at Hypebot by Kyle Bylin, suggesting why the major record labels have had so much trouble adapting to these changing times. Bylin argues, convincingly, that a big part of the problem was that as the record labels got bigger and bigger, they focused solely on the "music as commerce" side of things, ignoring the role of "music as culture." Obviously, music as commerce is an important part of the music business, but if you ignore the cultural importance of music (except, of course, when lobbying the government for more protections) you miss what's actually happening in the marketplace: how people are connecting with the music, and what they're doing (and want to do) with the music. Here's a snippet:

As the record industry moved through this stage there was a decline in learning orientation -- in learning what fans actually wanted -- both in terms of how they consumed music and what they were willing to pay for. So to, they began to discount the role that luck played in their success, to assume that the mass-marketing successes that occurred near the end the CD boom, which sold 3-4 million copies, applied to the natural laws of the universe, rather than that of a relatively short-lived phenomenon. This addiction to blockbuster artists is what characterizes the second stage of decline, which Collin's deemed The Undisciplined Pursuit of More. Here, the record industry started out on an unsustainable quest, and, because of their huge successes, they were pressured to grow.

Having reached the peak of the CD boom in 1999, the record industry had become a nearly $15-billion-a-year juggernaut, but under the pressure for more growth they collapsed, and, in the process, a vicious cycle of expectations had been set that strained the artists, the fans, the culture, and their systems to the point of breaking. Since record industry was unable to deliver new music with "consistent tactical excellence," they began to fray at the edges. Disruptive technologies were released, an epidemic of file-sharing proceeded, and, at this critical juncture, vested interests of music executives struggled and competed to achieve repetitive consumption through obsolescence. But these executives were too late, as the record industry, by externalizing the blame for their decline in sales, had already started to show symptoms of stage three, Denial of Risk and Peril.

Music executives began discounting negative data, amplifying positive data, and putting a positive spin on ambiguous data. In stage three, Collin's argues that those in power start to blame external factors for setbacks -- "or otherwise explain away the data" -- rather than accepting responsibility and confronting "the frightening reality that their enterprise may be in serious trouble." Right away, the Internet and file-sharing became easy scapegoats for the decline in sales that the record industry faced.

There's nothing all that surprising in the essay, but it's nicely written and explained. Well worth reading the whole thing.

Filed Under: business, denial, luck, record labels, strategy

Getting The Music Business Over The 'But We Must Sell Music' Hump

from the it's-not-all-there-is dept

On Monday, I attended and participated in the always excellent twice yearly event, the SF Music Tech Summit. As always, it was a fun time, full of interesting people. While smaller than some of the big music events, pound for pound, I tend to end up in a very high percentage of fascinating chats with people at SF Music Tech. The panel I was on was the first in the morning, and was officially called "meet the press," even though at least two of the five panelists (myself included) don't consider ourselves press. I didn't mean to stir up much controversy (never do), but I apparently got a few vocal folks in the audience riled up on a few points. The one that got some attention on Twitter, was the claim that live music was growing. A few folks started screaming and no one then let me back that up, but the numbers don't lie. A lot of people came up to me afterwards with stories of success by focusing on live music, and I even heard from some folks who are involved in organizing live shows who say that the "complaints" about live shows tend to come from those who focus only on a subset of live venues that have struggled lately -- but that the overall live market is thriving (as the numbers show).

However, there was a second point that I later tried to make that again I never had a chance to follow through on, and wanted to do so here. People were asking about what business models are working for musicians, and I started listing out some examples, and a loud gentleman in the front row yelled out that the business model that had to be at the center was selling music. I responded with what I thought was an important question: "Why?" and again people started yelling. Of course, no one answered the question, and then the panel shifted gears to another topic.

But, the reaction from the crowd on that question cemented for me one of the biggest reasons why some in the industry have struggled to grasp new business models. As I discussed in my NARM presentation a few months ago, selling music is just not a good business model, but it doesn't mean there aren't good, very profitable, music business models. It's just that selling music isn't a very good one. Instead, you need to learn to use the music (which still needs to be good, and is still the central reason why these other business models work) to sell something else -- something scarce, which can't easily be copied. That can be attention, access, time, creative ability, cool physical products, whatever. All of those things are made more valuable the more popular the music is, and you can build all sorts of powerful and immensely profitable businesses once you recognize that.

But if you still think that selling the music or making money directly from the music has to be at the "center" of any music business model, you're shutting yourself off to the largest opportunities out there. But, the thing is, music has always been a product that makes something else more valuable. While there was some disagreement on the panel from someone about how record stores were profitable in the 70s, that's a case where the music was making the vinyl (and later, plastic) more valuable. Today, it makes iPods more valuable. As the big box retailers know, it acts as a loss leader to bring people in to buy higher margin goods. Music is great at selling other, higher margin things. If you ignore that in the music business model, you're missing the big opportunity.

This isn't to downplay the importance of music, or say that the quality of music doesn't matter. It absolutely does. But the music is not the scarcity, and you don't make money off of selling something that's abundant. You use the abundance to figure out what other scarce goods it makes more valuable and you sell those. So, people can complain and shout all they want, but it doesn't change the basic fact that until you recognize that selling music directly just isn't a very good business model, you're limiting your market tremendously.

Filed Under: business, music, selling music

Other Legal Work Slow? Start A Practice To Help Patent Trolling

from the not-good dept

The economy still isn't doing so great, and that impacts everyone -- even lawyers. So what are they to do in weak times? Eric Goldman points out that in the past, they'd become bankruptcy lawyers, but this time around, it looks like some are realizing a more lucrative strategy is to get involved in patent trolling -- though they prefer to call it "IP monetization." This is, of course, just a continuation of the whole ridiculous focus on squeezing cash from unused or ignored patents, following the publication of the book Rembrandts in the Attic, which kicked off this effort.

From an economic standpoint, this activity is a pure dead weight loss on economic activity. There is nothing good that comes from it. You basically have companies that have ignored a patent they got for whatever reason, suddenly rediscovering it and using it to go after totally unrelated companies who actually innovated and brought products to market (almost always with no knowledge whatsoever of the questionable patent in the first place). And suddenly the actual innovators have to pay up to a company that did absolutely nothing with the invention.

Filed Under: business, lawyers, patent trolls

Suing For Patent Infringement No Replacement For Actually Building A Real Business

from the more-focus-on-executing,-less-on-suing dept

TiVo has been spending a lot of effort suing others for patent infringement, but apparently not very much on actually improving their own services and giving customers a reason to buy them over the competition. So while it may be winning some of its patent lawsuits, it hasn't helped much for the business, which is rapidly bleeding customers and losing marketshare. TiVo basically created this market and owned it for years -- but then got complacent. Now, since it can't compete, it's gone to a litigation strategy. Perhaps it should have focused more on providing value and competing rather than suing.

Filed Under: business, dvr, infringement, patents
Companies: tivo

If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur

from the that's-how-it-works dept

One of the common criticisms we hear around here when we talk about the various business models that are working for more and more musicians these days, is that it's somehow "unfair" or even "wrong" that musicians need to think about business models these days, since they should just be spending all their time creating music. Of course, this assumes (incorrectly) that the same thing wasn't true in the past as well. For years, musicians have always teamed up with business managers and music labels for that very reason: to delegate some of the business tasks. That doesn't change in the modern era. What does change is that the different opportunities have grown significantly. Either way, Andrew Dubber (who's always worth paying attention to on these topics) recently put a comment on a blog post on this particular topic that is so good it shouldn't be buried as just a comment, so I'm going to highlight some of the key parts here:

Musicians deserve more money than they get. Most train harder and for longer than brain surgeons in order to do what they do, and then they earn less than checkout operators for what they do. I strongly believe that more money should go to more musicians more often than it does....

Making music is not (usually) a job of work. It is a creative act. You don't have the RIGHT to make money from your music. You only have the opportunity.

If you make music speculatively - that is, you create it in the hopes of making money from it, then you are a music entrepreneur. As such, entrepreneurship rules apply.

You may invest a good deal of energy, effort and expense in your creative ideas. You may make a lot of money. You will probably make none. But nobody OWES you money just because you put the work in.

If your business model is to grow and sell oranges, then it's no good picking the oranges, then leaving them on the footpath outside your house with a price tag on each one. It doesn't matter how great your oranges are, or how hard you've toiled in your garden. Someone WILL take your oranges. Some will get kicked to the side of the road. Some will get stepped on. But it's not because people are immoral and don't understand or appreciate fruit properly.

If you wish to be reliably rewarded for your music, then get employed to make music as your job.

Bingo. That's the point I've been trying to make for years on this, but said much better than I could express it. He then goes on to make another point I've tried to make in the past, which is that if you compare the situation today to what it was in the past, there are so many more opportunities to make money. In the past, it was nearly impossible to make money on music because there were so many gatekeepers.

The odds are stacked against you. History is littered with musicians who are disillusioned, embittered and broke. This was true before the internet just as it's true now. The internet is neither your saviour, nor your enemy.

Let me make that bit clear: prior to the internet, most people spent NO money on music. If they bought a record in a year, it was a gift for a nephew (and it was usually rubbish). Some people spent a lot of money on music, because it was tied up with cultural things like identity that they were really invested in.

Back when you needed a record label to just be heard, it was a lottery. The odds were bad, the lottery tickets were expensive, and most of the prizes - if you did happen to win - were just awful. Now you don't need to play that game - but you need to be smart and you need to understand what the rules of the new game are.

You CAN, of course, get signed to a record label (and that lottery is still in play) but you can also be an entrepreneur. I recommend the latter - but not because it guarantees you money.

But the simple fact is that you don't become a successful entrepreneur by making things that people will not pay for, insisting that they should, and then complaining that their morals are to blame. They may not share your morals, but that's not even the point.

It's not their job to understand your needs. It's your job to understand theirs.

You become a successful entrepreneur by meeting people's needs and wants, solving a problem for them and doing it in a way that allows you to make money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Even if it was true that all the people you wish to target with your art are immoral thieves who you would never invite into your home - why would you insist on trying to change their behaviour as part of your business strategy?

And he concludes by pointing out (as we have in the past as well) where the real "sense of entitlement" comes from:

You may make great and interesting music, and put on an amazing show with amazing costumes.... But decrying a sense of entitlement among those who won't pay you for what you insist on doing is back to front.

The people with the weird sense of entitlement are the ones who stamp their feet and say 'look at all this hard work I put in - where's my money?'

Filed Under: andrew dubber, business, entitlement, entrepreneurship, music, musician

Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

from the good-luck,-buddy dept

Brooks writes "Speaking at a cable broadcaster's summit, Steve Burke, Comcast's COO, said: "An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting." How's that for cart before the horse?

His ultimate goal -- to maintain or increase revenue for Comcast -- makes perfect sense, and is positively what a cable COO should be focused on. From there on out, though, he's off in the weeds. How about offering this new generation new and innovative services that are worth paying for? That's challenging, of course... but how challenging will it be to change the next generation's behavior "to respect subscription revenue." Yikes.

How many consumers, in any market, are focused on "respecting" vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"

The quotes really are quite stunning. Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want. A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.

Filed Under: business, cable, customers
Companies: comcast

Protecting Copyright Often Seems To Fly In The Face Of Good Business

from the bingo dept

Dave Title recently had a post on his My Media Musings blog, where he talks about a student "lip dub" music video, which he notes almost certainly violates copyright law, but that it would be really dumb for the copyright holder (in this case, whoever holds the copyright on music by the Black-Eyed Peas) to enforce. Then Title busts out a line that should be repeated often:

Protecting a copyright often seems to fly in the face of good business.

Bingo. This is an argument we've been making for over a decade. There are many in both business and law who seem to assume that because you can enforce a right, it means that it always makes business sense to enforce that right. And yet, as we see over and over and over again, it's quite often not the case at all. In an awful lot of cases, very strong arguments can be made that the reverse is true and that protecting your copyright actually does a lot more damage than good.

Filed Under: business, copyright

Creating vs. Running A Business

from the a-good-discussion dept

When we talk about business models here, we often use music as an example, since the music industry is facing many of these issues a bit ahead of the curve from many other industries. However, some other industries are actually facing many of the same issues, and it's good to see what they have to say as well. For example, one of the key complaints that many people have when we show and discuss models that involve connecting with fans, is this odd claim that doing so means that the "creators" have to spend all their time "connecting" or "selling" or "running a business," rather than doing more creating. However, I've never thought that to be the case. I've said from very early on that the real point is that an artist can do that if they want, but that partners can and have sprung up to fill those roles. This is why I still think there's a big role for a "record label" to play, in handling much of that for the artists, so they can continue to focus on creating.

JLJ points out that a similar debate appears to be happening in the webcomics community, with Scott Kurtz, the author of PvP discussing the swinging pendulum between handing over nearly all control to a syndicate or marketing partner to a completely DIY model, and then hopefully back to some happy medium.

I think that's definitely what's happening in the music space -- but the nice thing is that it's not just a pendulum, but a spectrum, so that different artists can pick and choose what makes the most sense for them. Sometimes you come across artists who really want to be involved in the marketing and connecting and the selling. And sometimes, they don't. But the point is now they have the choice. And, even beyond that choice, within each aspect of the spectrum, there are many more options in terms of who to partner with and how to structure the deal. In the old system, you had a very small number of record labels or comic syndicates -- and, as such, they held all the power and could structure deals that were bordering on indentured servitude. But, with so many more options these days, the creators are actually taking back control. There's competition in the marketplace, and even if a creator wants nothing to do with the business and marketing side at all, it doesn't mean they have to sign a life sentence over to a business manager. And that's a very good thing for content creators.

Filed Under: business, content, creating, scott kurtz, separation, webcomics