EMI Tries Fake Word Of Mouth Campaign To Promote Ok Go

from the yer-doing-it-wrong dept

Well, well. We've written about the band Ok Go a few times here, as a band that definitely does seem to "get" what's going on in terms of how to connect with fans and promote their music well. Many years ago, the band had spoken out against DRM, and, of course, they produced one of the most popular music videos of all time -- the famous "treadmills" video. I would have embedded that video here, but Ok Go's label, Capitol Records/EMI decided somewhere along the line that no one should want to share one of the most viral videos ever, and disabled all embedding. Brilliant.

So, when Ok Go put out a new album with a new "viral video" EMI once again banned embedding, apparently not realizing how this viral stuff works. Ok Go wrote about it, and basically made it clear that they'd tried over and over again to explain this stuff to Capitol/EMI, and the folks at the label simply didn't get the value of making the video viral.

Well, now, instead of allowing a real "word of mouth" viral campaign with the video, it looks like EMI/Capitol has decided to bootstrap a fake viral word of mouth campaign, by sending around emails (and even submitting directly to us) a request to "get a free Ok Go" song if you just Tweet about it. Seriously. So rather than letting people organically share what they wanted to share, EMI is trying to bribe people into promoting something else.

EMI, you're doing it wrong.

In the meantime, the platform that EMI is using for this is easily defeated. You have to log in to Twitter Connect via a special promo page, and it asks you to send a specific twitter message about how you just got a free Ok Go song... but you can edit the message to say whatever you want. And, here's a little trick: if you edit the message to be more than 140 characters, it doesn't actually send to Twitter, and you still get the free song.

And wait, didn't EMI insist in court that it never authorized free MP3s to be available online?

Anyway, the problem here is that EMI is trying to force people into doing things a specific way (not embedding, must tweet), rather than simply being open, sharing and (perhaps) suggesting they share things if they like with a friend. That's much more authentic and real. This feels very fake and corporate. You build trust by actually putting stuff out there and seeing how people respond, rather than bribing them and limiting how they can share.

Filed Under: music, ok go, promotion, viral, word of mouth
Companies: capitol records, emi

Murdoch's Daughter Recognizes That 'Piracy' Can Be Good

from the tell-your-dad... dept

Even as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators and other sites "pirates" and claiming that fair use can be blocked, it seems his daughter has a more enlightened view. Copycense points us to a recent talk by Elisabeth Murdoch, who owns a TV production house, where she basically admits that blocking what people want to do is a bad idea:

"Fans remain the best salesmen of our content, even if that behavior is on the borderline of piracy. Danger of the new world is that we must concede that we'll lose some control."

Nice to hear. Now, if only her Dad would listen to her before he pisses off a bunch of his best content salesmen.

Filed Under: elisabeth murdoch, piracy, promotion, rupert murdoch, selling

Retail Giant Tesco Gets Into The Movie Business

from the alternative-means dept

Even as the movie business has had yet another record breaking year at the box office, we still hear claims from Hollywood that online downloading of unauthorized movies is going to kill the movie business. And yet, where there's demand, new business models will be created. ethorad points us to the news that UK retail giant Tesco is getting into the business of producing movies itself based on the books of some very famous authors. The movies will be direct-to-DVD and direct-to-the-internet, but the idea is for Tesco to use these movies to generate more traffic to their stores (both online and off). In fact, if you look at the retail business, music and movies have long been used as a loss leader of sorts, to drive traffic to get them to buy other, much higher margin, goods. This is really an extension of that, but all the way to the point of helping to fund the production of the movie itself. Also, while it will have a window of exclusivity at the beginning, it sounds like Tesco is quite open to other stores selling the movie as well. Either way, it's interesting to see other third parties recognize that they benefit from having movies made, and thus are willing to partially fund the production of those movies.

Filed Under: funding, loss leader, marketing, movies, promotion
Companies: tesco

Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped

from the good-luck dept

I had just been thinking that one of the nicer things about the Midem conference this year was that no one really seemed to still be complaining about "piracy" as a problem, and really seemed focused on more positive opportunities for going forward (more on that later). However, not everyone got the message, apparently. In a discussion on the "manager's role" in developing an artist in the digital era, Chris Morrison -- who manages Blur and the Gorillaz, among others -- waited until the end to start trashing "pirates." What was odd was that earlier in the panel he was talking about how much attention and free publicity the Gorillaz got when their latest single showed up on file sharing sites last week. He even seemed proud of all that free publicity, but then later in the panel, he declared that if he could find out who had put the file up first, he'd bring him into his office and have all of his colleagues "give him a good kicking." Then he went on the typical anti-unauthorized file sharing rant, saying, "I believe that piracy can be stopped and should be stopped."

Back on the first day of the event, legendary producer/musician Pharrell Williams had noted that file sharing is "like taste testing," in explaining that he wasn't worrying about it, noting that if people liked the "taste" they could then find something worth buying. But Morrison was having none of it: "It's not a taste. It's like giving them the whole bloody meal!" That's an interesting viewpoint for a manager to have, and one that makes me wonder. I can see how a record label -- who tends to really only own the recording -- could see things that way, but as a manager, he must realize that there's a lot more to sell out there than just the music itself. So, no, it's not the whole meal (bloody or not), but a taste of what the band itself has to offer. And many of the things bands have to offer are not easily copied and shared -- and any manager who wants to cope with today's digital market needs to understand that.

Filed Under: blur, chris morrison, file sharing, gorillaz, piracy, promotion

Simon Cowell's Confusion: YouTube Should Pay; YouTube Helped Sell Millions Of Albums

from the cognitive-dissonance? dept

We were amazed a few months back when a variety of press reports started surfacing after Susan Boyle became famous via a YouTube clip, claiming what a shame it was that no one was monetizing that video. That whole thing seemed preposterous. YouTube provided free software, free hosting and free distribution and turned Susan Boyle into a world famous star, overnight. As we noted at the time, if you can't monetize that in some other manner, you don't belong in business. And, indeed, as tons of folks have reported, Susan Boyle's first album has been a massive top seller -- the best opening week selling album of the year, and the best opening for a "debut" album in sixteen years. And, yes, much of the reason that anyone knows of her existence is because of the clip on YouTube.

But would you believe that people are still complaining about YouTube's role in all of this? Rob points us to an interview with Simon Cowell, who demonstrates stunning cognitive dissonance in both slamming and praising YouTube in two contradictory consecutive sentences:

Cowell also spoke of the popularity of Susan Boyle's Britain's Got Talent audition, which saw her rendition of I Dreamed A Dream viewed 100 million times in its initial days on YouTube - without any kickback for him.

"That will change," he told GQ. Because, eventually, if YouTube are not paying, they're not getting the clip.

"But at the moment I'm very happy to get promotion around the world. She'll sell 10 million albums this year because of YouTube."

So, wait, is he upset or not? Would he have preferred that YouTube had not shown the video which it didn't pay for, and a very small number of people knew of Susan Boyle? Or is he happy that he got free hosting, free software, free bandwidth and free promotional value that helped him sell 10 million of her albums? Maybe he should be paying Google...

Filed Under: free, promotion, simon cowell, susan boyle, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

Musician Chases Down Google Street View Car To Promote His Music

from the creative dept

Via Blaise we learn of a musician in Saskatoon, who heard that Google was going to be adding Saskatoon to its "Street View" efforts, and decided he was going to figure out a way to promote himself via Google Street View. He bought a sign with his band's name, and kept it in his car. He told all his friends to be on the lookout for the Google Street View car, and to alert him, but he actually spotted it himself while eating lunch one day. After following it around for a bit, he figured out the pattern the car was driving in, and set himself up a little ways ahead and was photographed. He dashed ahead again, and got photographed a second time as well: But here's the thing: his face is blurred out due to pressure from various governments to "protect" people's privacy from Google Street View. So this raises an obvious question: what do you do if you want to be seen on Google Street View, rather than blurred, and your government has taken away that ability?

Filed Under: privacy, promotion, street view
Companies: google

Study Shows Counterfeit Buyers Frequently Buy Real Products Later

from the acta-what-now? dept

As the negotiations over the ACTA treaty continue in secret, one of the more frustrating aspects is how defenders of ACTA repeatedly conflate "counterfeit goods" with "copyright infringement." Witness Senator Evan Bayh's nonsensical response to being asked about ACTA, where it becomes clear quite quickly that he's unfamiliar with the most basic information on the subject. He switches back and forth between counterfeiting and copyright as if they're the same thing, and seems to think that any treaty on the matter must be good.

But, an even more annoying part of all this is the use of fear mongering over "counterfeit goods" as some huge problem that has to be solved, when the evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. The copyright lobbyists are using the cover of some mythical massive counterfeiting problem to push for unnecessary and potentially dangerous copyright law changes, but even the counterfeiting claims are suspect. In the past, we've noted that both the GAO and the OECD have noted that the "problem" of counterfeiting has been massively inflated by lobbyists.

And, a new study suggests that even the counterfeit goods that do get sold aren't really a huge problem to the original manufacturers (thanks to Dave Barnes for sending this in) -- if there a problem at all. In a study that was actually carried out by a former brand manager at LVMH, it was discovered that people don't view counterfeit goods as a substitute to the real goods. People aren't being tricked -- they know they're buying counterfeits, and others know that they have counterfeit goods as well:

"Consumers are a lot smarter than we may give them credit for -- just because you've got a nice fake doesn't mean you're going to get away with it."

But, even more importantly, it looks like counterfeit products often act as a stepping stone to get people to go forward and buy the original version:

"The counterfeit actually served as a placebo for brand attachment," she said. "People were becoming increasingly attached to the real brand even though they never possessed it at all."

Forty-six percent of the counterfeit-bag owners bought the authentic products within two and a half years, she said. Shoppers were willing to pay $786 for a real luxury bag....

So, for all the reports of "harm" done by counterfeit products, here's a study suggesting that it actually helps build brand loyalty, and appears to often lead to the counterfeit buyer later buying a massively expensive real offering in a relatively short time frame. As some are noting, this suggests that the counterfeit goods act as advertising for the real goods. These are the sorts of things that would probably be useful to discuss with those negotiating ACTA. If only those discussions weren't all happening behind closed doors due to "national security" issues.

Filed Under: counterfeit, promotion, study

Comparing File Sharing To Payola: Could Have Had That Promotion For Free

from the failure-to-engage dept

BullJustin points us to a short NPR piece about four massive failures by the recording industry. If we skip over number 3 (Kevin Federline), the other three are pretty relevant to what we talk about here on a regular basis: the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco that opened up security holes on computers without letting anyone know, the RIAA's lawsuit strategy of suing fans and the record labels' ongoing efforts at payola to get songs played on the radio.

However, BullJustin makes an amusing point in the submission concerning that last one:

It cost the industry untold millions in actual payola, independent promoter fees, and then more than $25 million in settlements, not to mention lawyer fees. If they would have just let people share the music online, the marketing they were looking for could have been free."

It really does make you wonder what goes through the minds of record label strategists. They tossed away millions paying people to get music heard, when they could have just embraced file sharing and made it cheaper and easier to get music heard without running into the legal problems of payola as well. Of course, the problem with that plan is that the labels also lose "control." They've paid to get songs on the radio because they wanted to just focus on a small group of artists who they could squeeze for as much profit as possible, dumping all the rest. File sharing makes it harder and raises the possibility that other artists might also get heard.

Filed Under: file sharing, music, payola, promotion

File Sharing Sites Team Up To Help Promote Indie Films

from the no-legitimate-purpose? dept

While some continue to insist that there's nothing good or legal that comes from file sharing sites, many content creators who have embraced those sites have found them to be wonderful tools for distribution and promotion. Now, it looks like a bunch of them are teaming up to do even more. Mininova, The Pirate Bay, isoHunt, Miro, Vuze and Frostwire have all agreed to work with a new project called Vodo, which will help promote indie films. Filmmakers can offer their films through Vodo and get promoted on the various file sharing sites -- and the system is designed to let people easily donate. While I'm not a huge fan of a pure "donation" business model, it should be interesting to see how Vodo evolves over time. Certainly, it could be a valuable tool to indie filmmakers who recognize that obscurity is a much bigger threat to their efforts than piracy.

Filed Under: file sharing, films, p2p, promotion
Companies: frostwire, isohunt, mininova, miro, the pirate bay, vodo, vuze

Could Artists Help Newspapers? (And Vice Versa)

from the symbiotic-content dept

Reid Rosefelt writes "I thought you might be interested as this is a good example of how someone can make money out of free (or close to it). ... Jeff Scher has had a long and successful career as a painter and an animator/experimental filmmaker.... Recently he was asked to make a short film [once] a month which would run in the Opinion Page of the New York Times. This has changed his life. It's not just that his worldwide audience has grown beyond his wildest dreams; he is reaching a completely different kind of audience -- people who would never have seen his movies in museums and festivals. And although he makes very little money doing them, it has been the best advertising in the world for his paid projects. ... He is getting jobs that he would never have gotten, including one from one of his musical heroes."

The details of this deal are a bit unclear to me, but it sounds like Scher gets free publicity for his work -- and the New York Times gets some interesting content that might help promote its own reputation (and reason to buy). Also, according to Rosefelt, Scher retains ownership of his artwork, but the NYT has an exclusive license to show his work for the first month that it's on the NYT site. While that detail may appear to be a shrewd clause for NYT to help it gain audience, it shouldn't rely too heavily on that exclusivity. The NYT needs to focus on providing interesting and unique content all the time -- and the month-long time limit suggests that someone in the deal might understand that fact. But in any case, this is yet another example of how providing digital content for free can create a viable business for an artist.

In the bigger picture, though, this promotion alone obviously won't budge the NYT's bottomline. However, this deal highlights one of the NYT's strengths: that it can help artists (not just journalists) to connect with a large community -- and an expanded business could be built around that strength. There's an opportunity here for newspapers to reach broader audiences with content (beyond news) that is not a commodity. Experiments like this could point to more newspapers turning to curating unique content and providing more useful services to readers -- services that can't easily be copied.

Filed Under: artists, business models, jeff scher, newspapers, promotion
Companies: ny times