Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive

from the good-job dept

You just knew it would happen again. Every time the recording industry finally agrees to license a new music service to try to take the "sting" out of "piracy," it demands licensing terms that are ridiculous. From the execs at the labels' perspective, unless you pay an arm and a leg, you don't get to offer music. So, a few companies agree, and then realize it's impossible to make any money and shut down. In the meantime, the whole point of those legal licensed music services (to compete with "pirate" sites and services) is lost entirely. Wired is chronicling how all of the legal music sites are finding it impossible to survive and offer a free music service -- including MySpace music (which beyond not offering much of value in terms of user experience) "is struggling to keep up with its own payments to music copyright holders."

Of course, it's really no surprise that most of these sites have struggled. Beyond the ridiculously high licensing rates that the labels forced on them (often by negotiating through lawsuits), none of these sites put together a well thought-out business model. Instead, they all seemed to think that they could just slap ads on the site and that would be enough. But, of course, when you're listening to music, you're not looking at that website or paying attention to the ads -- and if the ads got too intrusive, they'd just go elsewhere. A real business model would have been setting up something more comprehensive, that gave listeners a real reason to buy associated with the music. Eventually we'll get there, but in the short-term, the graveyard of failed "licensed" music startups will grow, just as more and more "unauthorized" sites grow in popularity.

Filed Under: expense, licensing, music industry, music services, online, recording industry
Companies: imeem, myspace, spotify

Could Doonesbury Learn Anything From XKCD?

from the help,-I'm-trapped-in-a-newspaper-factory-with-no-business-model dept

Via Poynter Online, there's a recent interview with Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau where he talks about his post-newspaper media plans and what he sees as his future options while newspapers face significant declines in their circulation numbers.

"Doonesbury" has been on the Web for 15 years, and the site actually makes a little money -- unheard-of for media sites. But it's not really a plan, just a presence. I don't believe there's anything I can do personally to prepare for a post-newspaper future, other than hope that the large media companies will come to their senses and form a gated Web collective along the lines of cable TV. They need to form a news utility, financed by subscription or micropayments because going it alone has been disastrous for all of them.

Trudeau continues on, saying that he believes that e-readers are promising because so many people are happy to pay for iPhone apps and Kindle content. He also says that his livelihood doesn't seem to be threatened in the short-term because only "big newspapers" with loads of debt are really going under -- and most small newspapers are still getting by and can support his line of work for the foreseeable future. But, essentially, Trudeau sounds like he's given up on his own plans for making Doonesbury into a business outside of syndication. (Or he's being much too modest about the "little money" he earns from his website, and he doesn't want to offend his current newspaper benefactors.) In any case, he seems to envision a giant news consortium that will be able to retain subscribers due to a form of monopoly advantage. And if that's really the future of journalism, that doesn't sound too promising.

Additionally, though, Trudeau asserts that the "Web is a lost cause" because everyone thinks content on the web should be free. But that statement directly contradicts the work of online cartoonists such as Randall Munroe and his xkcd webcomic (which just happens to be one of my favorite examples of a "free" online comic strip). Munroe has a significant following for xkcd and has proven that "free" can be a sustainable way to promote and publish his work. So can we help enlighten Trudeau? Munroe sells prints, t-shirts, a book, and even sponsored comics. Is there a path to becoming the "Trent Reznor of webcomics" for Trudeau? Or is there something unique about Doonesbury that makes it impossible for it to take advantage of "free" distribution?

Filed Under: business models, comics, doonesbury, garry trudeau, online, russell munroe, xkcd

Limited Selection, Walled Gardens, Unskippable Ads... What's The Benefit Of TV Everywhere Again?

from the train-wreck-in-action dept

While Mark Cuban's insisting that TV Everywhere is brilliant, it's difficult to see what the benefit is for users. We already noted that the whole program seemed to be something of a mess with no one agreeing on standards, meaning that there might be a bunch of different ones. Oh, and then there's the whole plan to include way too many ads and not let users skip any of them. Meanwhile, Broadband Reports notes that the various players appear to be bickering with each other over who pays for what... and who gets compensated for what. The whole thing is a recipe for a disaster. As Broadband Reports summarizes, "bickering between broadcasters and TV operators, limited selection, walled gardens and unskippable ads" are the sort of things that drive people to other options, such as file sharing -- which is what TV Everywhere was supposed to prevent.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, tv everywhere, video

Is Google Just Toying With Newspapers Now?

from the that-seems-mean dept

When it was leaked last week that Google is offering up a micropayment solution for newspapers, my cynical side noted that this seemed like Google giving the newspaper industry tools to commit suicide faster. Then, earlier this week, Google unveiled its new "Fast Flip" application, which tries to make the process of skimming news more like reading a physical paper. Sorta. Or, as many people have pointed out, it mimics the old "microfiche" machines that we old folks used to have to use to scan archived newspapers in the library. It was inconvenient and annoying then, and it doesn't seem that much better now (though, at least we don't have to deal with getting the whole negative/positive thing straight).

I almost wasn't going to say anything about it, but Jeff Sonderman points me to a post at the Online Journalism Blog that suggests (similar to my thoughts on the micropayment stuff) Google's Fast Flip is a cruel joke being played on the news industry (on purpose or not). At that link, Paul Bradshaw argues that the cruel joke is that Google would benefit more from this than any newspaper -- and that might be true, but I get the feeling this is more about false hope for newspapers. Google has taken some criticism for "not helping" newspapers. So now it wants to show the world that it's doing something. But the problem isn't Google. The problem is that newspapers aren't doing anything to help themselves. Working with Google on some gimmick isn't going to change that, even if it does give them false hope.

Filed Under: fast flip, flip, newspapers, online, user interface
Companies: google

Cable Companies Appear To Be Screwing Up TV Everywhere

from the what-a-surprise dept

Back in March, some cable companies announced plans for an offering called TV Everywhere, which was designed not to actually add value to your cable subscription plan, but to pressure TV networks to stop putting their content online for free, and offer it, instead, via cable authentication. For users, it would mean the ability to watch their cable subscriptions online, but only after they authenticate themselves, which seemed like a big hassle. It may be an even bigger hassle. Apparently, in this effort to take on things like Hulu (and, to a lesser extent, YouTube) no one at the cable companies got the message that simplicity is what made those sites work:

CBS Interactive president Quincy Smith this week proclaimed that there's no unified standard among cable companies for the project, and dozens of companies are all approaching back-end technology differently. There's also no real consensus between cable companies on how to proceed. One result? Users not having a central resource for video content.

Bowman suggested that projects like TV Everywhere may not yield a single site that will contain content from dozens of programmers. Instead, the authentication system the industry develops may be used to point pay-TV subscribers to several different sites to view their pay-TV content online.

Now that sounds like a winner.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, tv everywhere, video

Is Serendipity Lost Online?

from the i'd-say-it's-been-gained dept

I'm a big fan of Damon Darlin, at the NY Times, but I'm a bit confused by his latest, claiming that serendipity is being stamped out online, because people just go find stuff they want, rather than randomly discover stuff. Perhaps I'm just speaking for myself, but I end up finding random stuff all the time -- whether it's from seeing random links on Twitter/Digg/Fark or other sites, having people send me stuff or just chatting with people. I'd argue that I end up finding a lot more that's new and interesting than I did before the internet was around. Darlin tries to brush off the fact that people get stuff from friends on social networks, by saying that's "filtered" by who you choose to follow, but his own example of serendipity at the beginning of the article is: "When we walk into other people's houses, we peruse their bookshelves, look at their CD cases and sneak a peek at their video collections." Isn't that "filtered" by whose homes you happen to walk into? I walk into strangers' homes a lot less often than I hear about a new book, album or movie from someone on Twitter.

Filed Under: culture, online, serendipity

Cable Walled Garden TV Plans To Include Too Many Ads

from the of-course-they'd-screw-it-up... dept

We've already been incredibly skeptical of the plans by certain cable companies to get TV networks to limit their content such that it can only be accessed online if you have a cable TV subscription. The whole thing is based on setting up artificial barriers and artificial scarcity to hold back the inevitable. Such plans never do well. They piss off users and drive them to alternatives. And, of course, you just knew that the likes of Comcast and Time Warner Cable would like screw up the execution too. Many folks (myself included) have been surprised at how well (for the most part) Hulu executed, but just leave it to big cable companies not to learn from Hulu's success.

Reports are coming out claiming that when the shows are put online for this "TV Everywhere" program they'll include the full slate of ads seen during the regular TV version. Studies have shown that this is a bad, bad idea. Having so many commercials -- especially on a platform (the internet) with so many other options, simply drives people away. Hulu learned very quickly to limit the number of ads to just a few -- and it's discovered that (1) people actually pay attention to them and (2) they can charge higher rates. One more sign that this TV Everywhere program is a disaster in the making.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, video
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Online Journalism vs. Print Journalism: Real Time vs. Batch Processing

from the think-about-it dept

Last week, there was a bit of a silly fight over the NY Times publishing an article noting that blogs sometimes publish rumors. I didn't find the story to be all that bad, actually, as it did a fair job explaining why those blogs publish rumors without confirmation, and how they do it in a reasonable way (i.e., saying it's a rumor and hasn't been confirmed). Some felt the article was a hit piece, but on the whole it actually seemed pretty reasonable and accurate. Still, in response to that, Cody Brown (via Jay Rosen) put up a fascinating and thought-provoking writeup comparing online to print journalism -- noting that print is "batch processing" while online is "real-time processing" and explaining why this makes it so difficult for print to either understand the value of online journalism, or to keep up with it. To be honest, I think the point was made even clearer in last week's hilarious Daily Show takedown of the NY Times, where Jason Jones refers to the newspaper as "aged news" and asks Rick Berke, the assistant managing editor to point out a single article in today's newspaper that "happened today" (at around 3 minutes): Separately, I should point out that I find it amusing that around 1:45, the video quotes Kristin Mason, the NYT's communications coordinator, noting that "The NY Times really prides itself on making sure that the information we're putting out in the newspaper and online is factual. We have editors going through and checking on a variety of sources...."

Fair enough... But what happened on Friday? That's when the NY Times falsely reported that The Pirate Bay had lost its appeal... and that false story has remained uncorrected at least up until I published this story. It appears that the "pride" the NY Times takes in getting the story right doesn't necessarily extend to things like The Pirate Bay.

Filed Under: batch processing, fact checking, journalism, online, print, real-time
Companies: ny times

Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV

from the take-your-500-channels-and... dept

People are cutting back on lots of spending these days, but one area that was supposedly relatively safe was in-home entertainment expenditures. Things like cable and satellite TV and Netflix were thought to even thrive during economic downturns as people looked to limit going out, choosing instead to stay in and be entertained. While that seems to be working out for Netflix, cable companies are starting to feel the pinch as people drop their subscriptions and get their TV fix online. While it's a relatively small number of people that are making the move, it's the sort of thing that cable companies have been concerned about for a while. The WSJ story talks about some moves by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner to grab more online viewers, but if the cable companies continue to try and treat their online efforts in the same way as their traditional offerings, it's hard to see much success. It doesn't seem like a coincidence that this is happening as cable companies are looking to introduce caps on their broadband services. They say it's because some consumers are creating too much traffic, in part because of their online video viewing, and it's straining their networks. But perhaps it's just a way to try and capture lost TV revenue from cord-cutters? Of course, trying to get users who are going broadband-only for their TV to take on metered broadband seems like a good way to drive them to competitors with uncapped plans.

Filed Under: cable, online, tv, video

Newspapers Betting On The Past May Find Themselves In Trouble In The Future

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

One of the "examples" held up by newspaper folks, who think that charging online is the answer, is the "success" of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. However, Jay Rosen points us to Mark Potts excellent analysis of what's happening at the Democrat-Gazette and the conclusion is that the "success" is a lot more questionable than many who highlight it might believe.

First, the online subscription process hasn't really been a success in terms of getting online subscriptions. They've only signed up 3,400 subscribers in six whole years -- bringing in a whopping $200,000 in revenue. That's not paying for very much. What the subscription process has done, is slowed down the number of folks ditching their paper subscriptions. Of course, that still might get some newspaper folks excited -- but, again, Potts pours some cold water on that, by suggesting some reasons why this might be unique, including the fact that the population is older, there's little competition (but it's rapidly increasing) and the paper already held a really strong market position. But the key point is that the paper is betting on print -- not the web. The business model isn't driving significant new web revenue, it's trying to cling to the past as long as possible. That's a really dangerous position to be in if someone else in your market figures out how to make the online revenue side of things work out -- because it really isn't that easy to turn on a dime.

Filed Under: arknsas, journalism, online, subscriptions
Companies: arkansas democrat-gazette