The Economist Is The Latest To Recognize The Music Industry Is Thriving

from the nice-to-see dept

We've been making this point for years now, but as more and more evidence comes from the recording industry itself, it's nice to see mainstream publications like The Economist finally willing to admit that the music industry is actually thriving, contrary to the stories you keep hearing in the press. It covers many of the same data points and stories we've seen before, but highlights a few others -- including a rapper who set up a clothing line before he even made his first video, but is making more money selling clothes (which he wears in his videos) than selling music. As the article says: "Scorcher is not so much selling music as using music to sell. 'If you buy into me musically, you will also buy into the clothing and the lifestyle.'"

The other thing that the article highlights is the absolutely thriving B2B side of music, where companies will sponsor musical acts, either for tours or other efforts. The companies get their brands associated with cool acts, while the artists get a nice chunk of cash. This is an area of the business that keeps on growing.

Unfortunately, despite all this evidence of a very strong music business, the article does revert to an odd interpretation later, complaining that the market is "greying," because only old people buy music any more. But, they point this out after they spend many paragraphs showing all of the other business models that artists can embrace to make money -- so I'm not sure why it matters that only older people now buy music any more. Selling music isn't the music business model any more, and it's time for everyone to recognize that.

Filed Under: data, music, music industry

Plane Finder Phone App Called An 'Aid To Terrorism,' Even If It's Just Using Public Data

from the look,-up-there-in-the-sky,-it's-a-clue dept

Slashdot points us to the news that security experts and the US Dept. of Homeland Security are apparently worried about an application called Plane Finder, which is available on the iPhone and Android phones. Among other things, it lets you point your phone at an airplane in the sky, and it will provide info on that plane, including the height and speed, as well as its destination, and a "likely course." The fear, of course, is that terrorists could potentially use this to shoot down a plane.

Of course, in blaming this app, everyone seems to be missing the real target. This app is using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcasts (ADS-B), which is transmitted by many aircraft these days, and can apparently be read with a $200 receiver. In other words, if terrorists wanted that data, they'd go out and get that $200 receiver. The "problem" (if there really is one) isn't the Plane Finder app (which actually sounds kind of cool), but the fact that all that data is being made available publicly. Blaming the app sort of misses the point, because if the data is available so easily, you can bet those who wish to do harm with it, have already figured that out. In the meantime, the Plane Finder app itself doesn't appear to actually have that many downloads. The report claims 2,000 sales on iTunes, and in the Android store, it looks like less than 500 have been purchased. Of course, now that it's in the news...

Filed Under: apps, data, planes, terrorism

Live Nation's Plans To Annoy More People?

from the tone-deaf dept

Last week, we briefly mentioned how sad it was that Ticketmaster/Live Nation's boss Irving Azoff seems so confused into thinking that stronger protectionism really is better for content creators. In that post, I mentioned that last year I spoke with a few top Live Nation execs, who appeared to understand the value of treating customers right, and looking for ways to enable CwF+RtB-style business models. They even talked about using companies like Zappos -- a company which has built up incredibly loyal customers though amazing customer service, even if it means taking a big financial hit itself -- as an example to learn from. I have to admit that I was impressed, but realized the company had a huge negative image to overcome -- and that merging with Ticketmaster wasn't going to help. Still, I thought that it would be quite a story if the company really could embrace that kind of thinking and rebuild its reputation.

So far, it doesn't look good. Beyond Azoff's bizarre anti-consumer tweeting, the company's plans seems to be about as tone deaf to consumer concerns as you can imagine. Now, obviously, this is a giant company, and it has Wall Street investment bankers to please, so it has to tell some sort of numbers-based story. But, the story it's telling is basically "we can squeeze more money out of consumers and artists overseas, so we're going to focus on that," which isn't compelling to anyone (artists, fans or investors -- who note that the company hasn't had as much success overseas).

It seems like perhaps there's a tale of two views at Live Nation: one that's actually focused on building out a sustainable business, and the other that appears to have gotten data happy. I'm a big fan of collecting and analyzing as much data as possible, but it's possible to get lost in that data at times, and lose sight of the big picture. So, right now, the data is telling Live Nation that US fans don't want to pay as much, and US artists want a bigger cut. So it wants to focus elsewhere. But, it seems to be forgetting to figure out why that is. Azoff seems to want to blame file sharing, but that's a red herring. Perhaps the company should look at the company's own image and how widely it's hated out there. People pay for Ticketmaster/Live Nation tickets in spite of the company, not because they like the company.

Azoff apparently scolded investors asking him questions about the company's poor performance, blaming them for not "getting the message." This is the same approach the company recently took in trying to explain its ticket fees, saying that the problem was that fans just didn't get what Ticketmaster was doing. Blaming everyone else for just "not getting" you, isn't an approach that's going to win over many people. You need to actually start showing people through actions.

One of the reasons why the company's margins might be so tight in the US is that it has focused on trying to squeeze every last dime out of fans without giving them enough value in return. Zappos isn't the cheapest retailer out there, but people buy from them because they know the experience is worth it. Perhaps Live Nation/Ticketmaster should take a step back from the data and look at ways to actually wow fans and artists with an experience that over-delivers, rather than has them holding their nose every time they have to hand over money. That is, why not focus on actually adding value, rather than looking for every nook and cranny to charge people more.

Filed Under: concerts, data
Companies: live nation, ticketmaster

Why Does The NY Times Rely So Often On Single Anecdote Trend Pieces Not Supported By The Data?

from the trend-pieces dept

A few months ago, we pointed to a NY Times "trend piece" on people so hooked on their gadgets that they get distracted. As we noted, the entire piece seemed to be based around a single anecdote of a guy who got distracted, and some scientific studies that don't actually support the underlying thesis of the article. I've noticed that this formula is all too common in NY Times tech trend pieces. We saw it more recently in the NY Times piece we wrote about claiming that cable TV was winning against the internet by purposely keeping authorized content offline, based off of a single anecdote of a guy who ditched his cable subscription only to go back a year later... just a day or so before the stats came out showing that people are actually ditching their cable connections.

It appears that others are catching on to this rather questionable form of "reporting" by the NY Times. Jack Shafer over at Slate is calling the NY Times out for a similar piece which was so ridiculous that the article itself contradicts the central thesis:

In the 11^th paragraph of its Page One, Aug. 22 story about how technology--cell phones, GPS devices, satellite-location devices, and even video cameras--tends to get visitors to the national parks into trouble, the New York Times confesses the inherent bogusity of its premise, stating:

The National Park Service does not keep track of what percentage of its search and rescue missions, which have been climbing for the last five years and topped 3,500 in 2009, are technology related. But in an effort to home in on "contributing factors" to park accidents, the service recently felt compelled to add "inattention to surroundings" to more old-fashioned causes like "darkness" and "animals." [Emphasis added.]

Yet the newspaper persists in advancing its techno-made-the-visitors-get-in-trouble thesis, headlining the piece "For Parkgoers Pushing Luck, Technology and Trouble Got Together" in print and "Technology Leads More Park Visitors Into Trouble" online.

Shafer goes on to look at the details beyond the anecdotes and claimed single stat "climbing for the last five years" and finds that the NY Times' report is misleading at best:

Not precisely. The numbers, provided to me by the NPS, have been bouncing up and down. In 2004, the NPS conducted 3,216 search-and-rescue operations. In 2005, the number went down to 2,430 operations. In 2006, it rose to 3,623 operations. In 2007, it declined to 3,593 operations, and in 2008 declined again to 3,481. In 2009, the number rose to 3,593. Search-and-rescue operations conducted between 1992 and 2009 actually peaked at 5,761 in 1998, according to the NPS. Over that same period, the average number of annual search-and-rescue missions was 4,027, which means that the figure the Times ended up ballyhooing ("topped 3,500") is below the 18-year average.

In other words, there has been no dramatic increase in the number of NPS search-and-rescue operations in the era of the mobile phone, the satellite phone, GPS, and the emergency beacon. Technology isn't leading more park visitors into trouble.

So, given that we've now seen this happen multiple times, perhaps we can pen a "trend piece" about how the NY Times writes its trends pieces based on a few anecdotes, contrary to what the data actually says. They're really making a strong case for why we should pay up to access the site once that paywall goes up in a few months, right?

Filed Under: anecdotes, data, trend pieces
Companies: ny times

New Research Suggest Google Book Search Helps Publishers A Lot More Than It Hurts

from the nice-to-see-some-data dept

For years, we've suggested that the fears of various publishers, that Google's book scanning/book search project was somehow a bad thing, were way overblown. We'd seen reports noting that putting your books into Google's book search often helped increase sales, and some enlightened publishers have started to realize the same thing. Yet, to hear some publishers and Google critics talk about it, you would think that the Google book scanning offering was the worst thing ever -- with some comparing Google to the Taliban. Yet, if you take a step back, and realize just how powerful and useful a universal searchable library of books would be, it's difficult to see how that's a bad thing.

But, now we've got a bit more evidence. Michael Scott points us to a new research paper from law professor Hannibal Travis, that tries to look at the actual economic impact of Google's book scanning on publishers, and finds that the falling sky claims from publishers and critics simply isn't supported by the evidence:

First, it finds little support for the much-discussed hypothesis of the Association of American Publishers and Google's competitors that the mass digitization of major U.S. libraries will reduce the revenues and profits of the most-affected publishers. In fact, the revenues of the publishers who believe themselves to be most aggrieved by GBS, as measured by their willingness to file suit against Google for copyright infringement, increased at a faster rate after the project began, as compared to before its commencement. Their profits also increased significantly more on average from 2005 to 2008 than from 2001 to 2004. The increased rate of growth by publishers most affected by GBS does not disappear when one compares it to the growth of the U.S. economy or to the growth of retail sales. The continued rise in sales is remarkable when one considers the soaring sales and prices of other entertainment products that may compete with books.

Second, this Article finds some support for the view that mass digitization and expanded access to book previews may increase the revenues and profits of the most-affected publishers. The evidence for this proposition takes the form of large increases in revenues and profits for publishers affected by GBS who did not opt out of Google's publishing partner agreement for broader access to previews of works still in copyright.

Third, it seems that GBS may simultaneously vindicate the public interest in expanded access to the world's cultural heritage and the pecuniary interests of authors and publishers in recouping the substantial fixed costs of book and periodical production and distribution. Analyzing this virtuous circle can help us begin to theorize the relationship between the Internet industry, the producers of cultural products, and the wider public. This relationship is also visible with other advanced Internet services such as YouTube or DailyMotion, which may increase viewership of copyrighted works that they may infringe, such as television shows.

Obviously, this seems to go beyond just Google's book search, in showing that greater access can certainly lead to greater revenue and profits for those who embrace it. Definitely another worthwhile paper to read on the subject.

Filed Under: copyright, data, economics, google book search, publishers
Companies: google

And Of Course: 'Surprising' Openness And Sharing Of Data Leads To Advancements In Alzheimer's Research

from the well,-duh dept

I think everyone who reads Techdirt -- including my parents -- sent over this story today. The NY Times has an article about the rapid advancements in Alzheimer's research after researchers agreed to immediately open up any data:

The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

This should hardly be surprising -- except to those who insist that without the possibility of patents no research would be done on curing diseases. In fact, the only thing that should be surprising about this is the fact that anyone is surprised by it, or that anyone continues to insist patents are necessary in this kind of research. We've already seen how large groups of scientists sharing data leads to faster advancement in those fields, and how data that is locked up leads to slower advancement in research.

Thankfully, it appears that some folks are getting the right idea about this, and have set up a similar deal for research into Parkinson's disease, and perhaps it can finally lead to a rethinking of patenting federally funded drug research and (dare we hope?) a rolling back of the disastrous Bayh-Dole Act, which resulted in this desire of universities to lock up basic research.

But the key results here highlight the same point many of us have made for years: openness and sharing of the underlying data allows overall advancement in the space to move at a faster rate (prior to this openness, research in the area had apparently stalled out a bit). And, even with the open sharing of data and the lack of patents, there are still plenty of incentives to do the research, because they know that there is plenty of money to be made in selling the actual treatments that come out of this.

Filed Under: alzheimer's, data, openness, patents, research, sharing

Hot News Showing Up Everywhere: Costco Sued For 'Violating' Hot News In Publishing Market Data

from the oh-come-on dept

It seems like every few days or so we're seeing lawsuits attempting to stretch the hot news doctrine further and further. News organizations who support hot news as a concept really have no idea what sort of can of worms they've opened up. Since the infamous (and ongoing) theflyonthewall case, we're seeing hot news pop up in all sorts of weird places. The latest, as sent over by Eric Goldman, is that Costco is being sued by "Banxcorp" for hot news violations (along with copyright violations and a bunch of other things) for republishing Banxcorp's data showing national average money market and CD rates.

But, of course, such data is factual information, right? And, indeed, the judge seems to realize this quickly and, for the most part does not buy the copyright claim. However, the judge leaves a little wiggle room, and refuses to dismiss the copyright claims in response to Costco's motion to dismiss. He does note that the data is not copyrightable, and the final values are not copyrightable, but suggests that maybe, sorta, possibly Banxcorp could convince the court that the methodology it uses in converting the raw data into final values could have enough creativity to be covered by copyright. But, he still sounds skeptical. So now everyone has to waste time filing motions for summary judgment, and we'll have to see how far this goes.

But, of course, Banxcorp doesn't just rely on copyright. Now that "hot news" is back with a vengeance, more and more organizations are realizing they can effectively claim copyright on some facts by hiding it under a hot news claim. Costco tried to get this dismissed by arguing (1) that the hot news claims are pre-empted by the copyright claims and (2) that there was no real hot news claim. Once again the court refuses to dismiss this, suggesting that Banxcorp has properly hit on all the prongs needed to file a hot news claim, though it notes that these can and probably will be "revisited" during motions for summary judgment. So the hot news claim lives on to another day. Watch out folks. Repeating a reported average financial rate may put you in hot water for hot news. How long until this comes back to bite a newspaper who is in favor of hot news?

Filed Under: copyright, data, hot news
Companies: banxcorp, costco

Twitpic Overreacts To Competitor's Tool That Helps Export Data

from the welcome-to-the-web,-twitpic dept

We were just discussing the Facebook/Power.com mess, involving the question of whether or not a user can choose someone else's tool to access the data that they, themselves, put on another site, and it appears we may have another such case to look at. Twitpic, an online service for easily posting pictures to Twitter, is apparently quite upset that Posterous, an online blogging platform, has set up an automated system to export your own photos from TwitPic to Posterous. As soon as the exporter was announced, Twitpic not only blocked Posterous's tool, but got the lawyers involved. As the Posterous folks note, it's not clear how any of this actually breaks the law. Setting it up so users can access their own photos is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In fact, for many user-generated content sites these days, offering export functionality is considered good manners. Going so far as to threaten legal action against 3rd party exporters is going too far.

Filed Under: competition, data, exports
Companies: posterous, twitpic

Faux Randomness Strikes Again: How Researchers Realized Research 2000's Daily Kos Data Looked Faked

from the random-ain't-so-random dept

You may have heard by now that the political website Daily Kos has come out and explained that it believes the polling firm it has used for a while, Research 2000, was faking its data. While it's nice to see a publication come right out and bluntly admit that it had relied on data that it now believes was not legit, what's fascinating if you're a stats geek is how a team of stats geeks figured out there were problems with the data. As any good stats nerd knows, the concept of "randomness" isn't quite as random as some people think, which is why faking randomness almost always leads to tell-tale signs that the data was faked or manipulated. For example, one very, very common test is to use Benford's Law to look at the first digit of data in a data set, because in a truly random set, the distribution is not what people usually expect.

In this case, the three guys who had problems with the data (Mark Grebner, Michael Weissman, and Jonathan Weissman) zeroed in on just a few clues that the data was faked or manipulated. The first thing they noticed was that when R2K did polls that tested how men and women viewed certain politicians or political parties (favorable/unfavorable) there was an odd pattern: if the percentage of men that rated a particular politician favorable or unfavorable was an even number, so was the the percentage of female raters. It seemed like these two points always matched up. If the male percentage was even the female percentage was even. If the male percentage was odd, the female percentage was odd. Yet, as you should know, these are independent variables, not influenced by each other. That 34% of men find a particular politician favorable should have no bearing on why an even percentage of women find that politician favorable. In fact, this happened in almost every such poll that R2K did, to such a level as to suggest it being as close to impossible as you can imagine:

Common sense says that that result is highly unlikely, but it helps to do a more precise calculation. Since the odds of getting a match each time are essentially 50%, the odds of getting 776/778 matches are just like those of getting 776 heads on 778 tosses of a fair coin. Results that extreme happen less than one time in 10²²⁸. That's one followed by 228 zeros. (The number of atoms within our cosmic horizon is something like 1 followed by 80 zeros.) For the Unf, the odds are less than one in 10²³¹. (Having some Undecideds makes Fav and Unf nearly independent, so these are two separate wildly unlikely events.)

There is no remotely realistic way that a simple tabulation and subsequent rounding of the results for M's and F's could possibly show that detailed similarity. Therefore the numbers on these two separate groups were not generated just by independently polling them.

The other statistical analysis that I found fascinating was that when you looked at weekly changes in favorability ratings, the R2K data almost always changed a bit. But, if you look at other data, no change is the most common result. As they point out, if you look at, say, Gallup data, you get this nice typical bell curve: But if you look at the R2K data, you get things like the following:
Notice that substantial dip at the 0% mark. That seems to indicate a likelihood of faked or manipulated data, from someone who thinks that "random" data means the data has to keep changing. Back to Grebner, Weissman and Weissman:

How do we know that the real data couldn't possibly have many changes of +1% or -1% but few changes of 0%? Let's make an imaginative leap and say that, for some inexplicable reason, the actual changes in the population's opinion were always exactly +1% or -1%, equally likely. Since real polls would have substantial sampling error (about +/-2% in the week-to-week numbers even in the first 60 weeks, more later) the distribution of weekly changes in the poll results would be smeared out, with slightly more ending up rounding to 0% than to -1% or +1%. No real results could show a sharp hole at 0%, barring yet another wildly unlikely accident.

Kos is apparently planning legal action, and so far R2K hasn't responded in much detail other than to claim that its polls were conducted properly. I'm not all that interested in that part of the discussion however. I just find it neat how the "faux randomness" may have exposed the problems with the data.

Filed Under: data, faked, random
Companies: dailykos, research 2000