A Music Streaming Service That Builds In CwF+RtB? Built By Trent Reznor And Ian Rogers? Sign Me Up

from the could-be-on-the-way... dept

A few months ago in writing about my interview with Trent Reznor, I mentioned that what Reznor was working on with Beats by Dre would be much more interesting than most people thought (at the time, most people were guessing something having to do with headphones). More of the details are starting to come out. First off, there are the two things that everyone in the press is focusing on, the announcement that Trent Reznor has officially been named Chief Creative Officer and Ian Rogers has jumped over from being CEO of TopSpin to be CEO of this new project, called Daisy.

This is great news for a variety of reasons -- I can't think of two better people to team up on such a project (if you're unfamiliar with Ian, you should read this brilliant profile in Wired, and then know that many of us who know Ian think that the article wasn't nearly glowing enough). The fact that these two (and some others who know what they're doing) are teaming up to work on this project is, by itself, big news.

But those high profile announcements seem to be obscuring some of the other news that came out at the same time about the project, which actually reveals a bit more about where this is actually heading. Since Beats bought failed music service MOG for $14 million, many have been expecting a new version of that with some new paint, but it seems a lot more likely that the purchase was more about buying the licenses, and then building something new from scratch, without having to waste time negotiating. Last month, Reznor had hinted that the music service would add more value beyond what today's streaming services offer.

One way it may be doing so? By building the whole "connect with fans, reason to buy" concept directly into the service. While Ian left his CEO spot at TopSpin to take this new gig, there are some other TopSpin details related to this. Not only is he remaining the executive chairman of TopSpin, Beats has invested in TopSpin and Topspin is providing infrastructure for the service. TopSpin, of course, powers a bunch of artist websites and services for "direct to fan" efforts. Basically, they enable "CwF+RtB" (and, apparently, have even used one of my own CwF+RtB videos in explaining it to people).

So, if you take the guy who inspired me to come up with that formula in the first place, and pair him with the guy (and the tools) that have come pretty far along the path towards enabling it all... and what do you get? Well, TopSpin itself makes some suggestions:

Our plan is to set the standard for how consumer music services can integrate and benefit artists.

Here’s an example: When Trent Reznor uses Topspin to release music and merch on his website, his products should appear inside the streaming services, where the millions of fans listening to his catalog of songs should have the ability to connect and hear from Trent directly when he has new music, merchandise, and tour dates.

The core of this partnership, then, is a shared belief that streaming services should do a better job helping fans discover artists and connect with them directly to buy merch, tickets and other products. And so, Topspin GoDirect will become the way the Daisy service gets photos, videos and products from artists, and both companies will work together to make sure fans see those products when they listen to songs.

Three years ago, we suggested that this kind of thing was exactly what Spotify was missing: a platform to help artists do much more, both in terms of connecting with fans, but also in enabling new business models. While Spotify has tried to do some of that with its app platform, those haven't really taken off the way I had hoped. A system built from scratch with that concept in mind, however, gets very interesting very fast.

So you can see a situation where they build a service that actually is good for everyone: fans, musicians and the company itself. That seems like a pretty good deal. True, some of the other services have actually been pretty good for everyone as well, but there are still limitations, which are why there are so many complaints about services.

In the end, execution is everything. If you have a great idea and terrible execution, it won't matter. So it's possible that all of this goes nowhere, but it certainly has a lot of the right pieces to make something great. Now, if they figure out some way to bring on Zoe Keating to consult on some of her ideas about how online streaming music could create closer connections between musicians and fans, I think that would just turbocharge the whole damn thing.

Filed Under: cwf+rtb, ian rogers, music streaming, trent reznor
Companies: beats, daisy, topspin

Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?

from the focusing-on-the-positive,-not-the-negative dept

While the White House has been asking the tech/internet world to come up with their own "best ideas" concerning legislative solutions for copyright issues, it's a question that rubs many the wrong way. As folks like Tim O'Reilly have noted, this seems to be starting from a pre-determined outcome without evidence. Furthermore, as Nat Torkington has pointed out, the tech industry has been offering tons of solutions for years, in the form of new and useful tools and services that create new business models.

I will say that I tend to agree wholeheartedly with O'Reilly and Torkington. Before rushing in to a "legislative solution," I'd sure like to see some evidence that a legislative solution (1) is needed and (2) would actually work. Nearly all the evidence suggests neither condition is true.

However, are there more creative legislative solutions that come from thinking out of the box? Ian Rogers, the CEO of TopSpin, who has been a vocal opponent of SOPA/PIPA, (despite his close relatioinship with many in the recording industry) has an interesting proposal that he's put forth that's worth thinking about. It starts from a different perspective. Rather than using the opportunity to directly tackle this undefined "problem," he looks at solving a different problem: the fact that it's difficult (to impossible) and expensive to license music for an online service. So his suggestion is really based on dealing with that issue by creating a giant registry whereby copyright holders could indicate what they're willing to license and at what price. He notes that this is an idea that doesn't directly need a legislative solution -- and, in fact, notes that he's tried to build something like that in the past. However, multiple attempts to build this haven't gone very far. He suggests a more official version might be able to really go somewhere.

As a part of this, then, he'd offer up a "quid pro quo" to the SOPA/PIPA supporters of the world. Basically, online services -- streaming sites, cyberlockers, etc. -- would have to make use of a fingerprinting system to run checks back to this registry -- such that if someone uploaded a song, the site could quickly determine if it was "okay" to stream/download, and if not, kick it back to the uploader to deal with it.

In thinking about this, there are some things I like, and some I don't. I do like the fact that this solution isn't really just focused on "stopping piracy," but rather in building a tool that would actually be useful in expanding businesses. This is a key thing that many of us on this side of the debate keep asking copyright maximalists:

Which is more important? Making more money or stopping piracy?

I think the only rational answer is that making more money should be the focus. What good is "stopping piracy" if it doesn't lead to greater sales? Obviously, many maximalists believe that "stopping piracy" automatically leads to greater sales. I'd argue that the jury is still out on that point. Either way, if a proposal is just focused on "stopping piracy," without any actual effort to make sure that the real focus is on maximizing revenue, then I think it's dead in the water.

This proposal, however, has as its key part, a tool -- the registry -- that is much more focused on solving a business problem, rather than an enforcement one. That it also has, almost as a side effect, the ability to have an impact on the enforcement side, certainly makes it pretty interesting.

That said, there are reasons why I'm not convinced that this would actually work. As Rogers notes, the work to build this is non-trivial, but doable. I agree, but that non-trivial problem means that certain "choices" are going to be inherent to the design, and that worries me. We'd be building a central registry really on pure assumptions both of how it would be used and what the coders think. That's almost certainly going to lead to unintended consequences -- and it's those consequences that I fear. How do you predict exactly how this works? How do you program in every option that doesn't lock you into a paradigm that might not make sense? What if someone -- either content provider or service provider -- who wants to do something unique, innovative and wonderful, but for which the registry doesn't have an "entry?" Then what? The fear is that it ends up locking in the business models issues programmed into it... and I'm not sure we know enough about the market to try to define those issues yet.

Second, we already have some pieces of this kind of thing in place already. Things like machine readable licenses, for example, is something that Creative Commons has done, and there are probably plenty of lessons to be learned there. However, even Creative Commons has run into issues at times, and has had to regularly adjust its actual licenses when they realize that current licenses don't really match a need. That's easier to do when you're just issuing licenses. When you're talking about the entire structure of a very large database, the challenges to change features to accomodate innovation and new business models becomes increasingly difficult.

In the end, though, I'm happy to see more creative proposals coming out that don't just take the same old path. I'm not sure I'd fully support any such legislation (it may depend heavily on the details). But I do appreciate that as a starting point, this is something different that truly does seem to focus on a particular and known issue (the difficulty of licensing) and tries to use that as a starting point for a more reasonable solution. It's certainly worth thinking about.

Filed Under: content registrty, ian rogers, pipa, sopa

Connecting With Fans Is An Ongoing Process: Do Something Small Weekly, Big Monthly

from the one-mantra dept

I've been meaning to write about Topspin CEO Ian Rogers' "moonlighting" foray into managing the band Get Busy Committee. Given Ian's close involvement with new music business models, it's no surprise that he's been doing a lot of interesting things, from selling uzi-shaped USB keys with the album (the album is called "Uzi Does It") to using Kickstarter to fund a vinyl picture disc -- including an offer for $1,000 to have the band write a song about the buyer, which would go on the release. It turns out that option sold out in a day (though it looks like some of the other options are still a bit short on buyers).

What's really great, though, is that Ian is revealing as much of the process as he has time for in semi-regular blog posts. Recently, he explained part of the general thinking that he's been pushing on the band, that they should: "Do Something Small Weekly, Something Big Monthly." The specific implementation doesn't fit for all content creators (or even all musicians), but the concept is a good one. It's a recognition that the old way a content creator related with fans was through major one-off "releases" (new album, new book, new concert, etc.). But times have changed, and the way you connect with fans is an ongoing process, and like it or not (and plenty don't like it), there is a sense of "what have you done for me lately." But if you're going to thrive in that sort of world, you have to keep doing stuff and keep experimenting. Setting a specific pace (something small weekly, something big monthly) is quite a useful way for many to think about this sort of experimentation in small, easy to comprehend and implement steps.

Filed Under: business models, connecting with fans, get busy committee, ian rogers, music

Dear Recording Industry: Stop Whining, Start Making Money

from the thanks,-the-rest-of-us dept

In the past we've linked to some of Ian Rogers great presentations at music industry conferences, and now he's done it again. At a recent music industry conference, he told the assembled industry execs to basically stop whining about "losses" due to piracy and start making money. While I don't entirely agree with what business models will eventually be successful, Rogers makes a few key points in showing how musicians are making more money than ever before by figuring out ways to connect directly with fans, and not worrying about how many CDs they can sell.

It's worth reading through the entire presentation, but the key points he makes: the industry has changed, and the record labels no longer have a monopoly on distribution, and it's time they got over thinking that they can stuff that genie back into the bottle. Instead, they need to realize that people are spending more than ever on listening to music -- just not on buying CDs. Once they realize that, they need to get into the game, but do so by realizing that, as labels, they no longer have total control. In fact, it's now the musicians and the fans who are in a position of power, and the role of the labels should be to help enable the connection between musicians and fans.

Filed Under: business models, ian rogers, recording industry