Universities Threaten Virtual Campus Tour Business Over Trademarks

from the hurting-the-help dept

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed and continues to change how life works for many of us in a variety of ways. We're learning just how underserved America is by our monopolistic broadband providers, for instance. Esports has come into fashion in ways never seen before as well. Work from home has become more normalized and school from home is the bane of parents everywhere, even when it's the best option available.

And, with so much emphasis made on not traveling and on remaining socially distant, some had an idea to change how prospective university students perform the ritualistic "campus visit" during COVID times. The idea behind LiveCampusTours was to partner with local university students to provide a virtual tour of a school's campus and facilities.

"We provide live one-on-one virtual tours by high school students given by current undergraduates of the college," [co-founder Seth] Kugel said.

LiveCampusTours gives families of high school students a glimpse of schools without making a road trip and spending money on travel. Sometimes, Kugel says, they will even offer lower rates for tours if some families can't afford it.

"We think that this levels the playing field in many ways," Kugel said.

It seems that the tours from LiveCampusTours are themselves getting positive reviews. The Washington Post noted that the tours are more engaging than the on-campus tours, that the guides from LiveCampusTours aren't beholden to the schools' policies for what the tours entail, and that the personalities giving the tours are a step above the in-person version that schools put on to prospective students for free. All in all, LiveCampusTours appears to be providing something of value to the public and is getting high marks for it.

So, of course, some of the schools want to be able to opt out, apparently seeing trademark law as one way to do so.

But not all of the 175 universities they provide tours of have been on board. More than a dozen have issued cease and desist letters. One the latest to do so, the University of Denver.

"Their argument seems to be that we can’t use their name on the website and they think that people will be confused into thinking that these are official tours given by the university and a lot of times that is the concern," said Kugel.

But the open question is whether any of what LiveCampusTours does actually violates a school's trademark. I would argue that it absolutely does not, given that the site lists school names not as a brand, but as a list of options where a prospective student can book a tour. It's simply a list of real-world, factual names. Go to the site and see for yourself: if you try to book a tour, you're presented with text names of the schools and a thumbnail picture of the campus. There's no school branding, no crests, no imagery. Just the name of the school and then a list of the tour-providers available at that school.

This is not trademark infringement. In addition, schools are also threatening students who participate in giving tours. From the WaPo post:

Two universities have threatened to discipline students who have already signed up to be guides for LiveCampusTours. I can see why this enterprise might bother otherwise kind and friendly educators when there is so much administrative chaos on campus during the pandemic. But some perspective is in order. The students working as guides like putting a personal spin on their campuses. The high school students who take the tour pay just $39 for a unique personal perspective and spare themselves a long car drive with their parents.

Are complaining institutions as solid as Yale, Stanford, Pepperdine and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill likely to topple as a result of this useful service? Don’t they realize each guide is bragging on a school she or he personally chose?

Not only is it stupid, but it's an open question whether state universities can even do this as a matter of free speech. Courts in the past have struck down this sort of "licensed tour-givers only" barrier when it came from local governments. Why a state school would be any different is a mystery to me.

So, to summarize, a useful service is being threatened by higher learning institutions during a pandemic for providing a service that keeps kids and their families safe mostly utilizing either trademark law when it doesn't apply or potentially unconstitutional restrictions on who can offer those kinds of tours, even though these tours essentially advertise the schools to the public. A real banner day for these complaining schools, to be sure.

Filed Under: campus tours, tours, trademark, universities
Companies: livecampustours

Cat Power Gets Sick, Atlantic Wire Declares Indie Music Dead

from the misdiagnosis dept

A story from Atlantic Wire has been making the rounds recently, with a headline forcefully declaring that There's No Money in Indie Music. Why? Because one particular indie sensation is broke:

You know times are tough for indie musicians when even Chan Marshall—who released a Top 10 Billboard album and played sold-out concerts this year—is bankrupt. The singer known as Cat Power has announced a likely cancellation of her upcoming European tour because of financial and health problems.

Now, there are a lot of things I could say about this. I could point out that the financial troubles of one musician, no matter how popular she is, are not a barometer for the entire industry. I could point out that "bankruptcy" says nothing about revenue or earning potential, and is almost always caused by bad money management—or that plenty of highly successful people have gone bankrupt one or more times throughout their careers. But those points would just lend credence to an idea that is fanciful speculation at best, and total bunk at worst. Why? Because the source of this sad news about Cat Power's bankruptcy is nothing more than a single message posted to Instagram (which appears to have been since removed from the photo it was attached to, but Pitchfork has the full text):

I MAY HAVE TO CANCEL MY EUROPEAN TOUR DUE TO BANKRUPTCY & MY HEALTH STRUGGLE WITH ANGIOEDEMA. I HAVE NOT THROWN IN ANY TOWEL, I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT BEST I CAN DO. HEART BROKEN. WORKED SO HARD. GOT SICK DAY AFTER "SUN" CAME OUT & BEEN STRUGGLING TO KEEP ALL POINTS OF ME IN EQUILIBRIUM : MIND, SPIRIT, BODY HEALTHY CENTERED & GROUNDED. I AM DOING THE BEST I CAN. I FUCKING LOVE THIS PLANET. I REFUSE TO GIVE UP. THOUGH I MAY NEED TO RESTRATAGIZE FOR MY SECURITY & HEALTH.

Marshall is obviously struggling with her health problems, and her fans reacted by offering lots of support—but what does this message really tell us about her finances? She used the word "bankruptcy" once, off-hand, and it doesn't even look like she meant it literally. Even if she did, it takes a huge leap to get from there to "there's no money in indie music"—statistically about as sensible as concluding that indie music causes angioedema. But, it's almost certain now that she didn't mean literal bankruptcy, just unforeseen expenses. A more recent Instagram post announced:

EUROPEAN TOUR IS ON. WITHOUT STAGE PRESENTATION. HARD MONEY WASTED.

Then, a few days later, another post announced that the European tour would be postponed until early next year—primarily for health reasons, and to get some more time to potentially find a way to bring the full production to Europe.

The stage presentation in question is a huge gorilla-themed light show that, one imagines, would be quite expensive to ship overseas. Whether the "money wasted" refers to the sunk costs on the display that now may be staying behind, or to her new medical expenses, is not clear, and neither her nor her label offered any additional information. But what is clear is that this is a pretty unsensational story that says nothing about the indie music world as a whole: international tours are big, complicated operations, and sometimes money runs low and plans have to change; our bodily health is a ticking time-bomb that can derail anyone's career in any walk of life. It's sad to see the naysayers brigade exploiting her personal struggle to spread doom and gloom about the modern music industry and the huge variety of opportunities that exist for the independent artist.

Filed Under: atlantic wire, business models, cat power, health, indie music, tours

Songkick Lets Fans Build Andrew Bird's South American Tour For Him

from the the-world-is-changing dept

Over the last few weeks, we've been talking about Songkick's new "Detour" feature, which artists are using to set up shows in "off the beaten track" places, where they'd be unlikely to tour normally, but via Songkick, they discover there are enough fans to make it worthwhile. Considering how often we hear from musicians that touring is such a crap shoot on whether or not you'll make money, it's great to see more tools spring up to help take away that risk. There are a few interesting side effects of all of this. First, beyond just taking some of the risk out of touring, it's also helping artists find different fans they can reach via touring. That doesn't mean they drop existing places, but that they can expand their opportunities. But the second, and perhaps more interesting aspect, is the social one -- in which fans have been using Detour to bring in more fans. That's because one of the ways that Detour can be used is to effectively have a competition, in which cities compete to see which one has more fans willing to crowdfund an appearance by an act they love.

The latest to jump into the Detour pool is a pretty big name artist: Andrew Bird was unsure if it would make sense for him to do a South American tour, but is now using Detour to make sure it's financially viable -- and to figure out what cities he should visit on the tour.

"I've been wanting to go to these countries for years because I'm a fan of their rich musical traditions. Songkick Detour seems like a brilliant idea as it gives me a sense of connection to the people before I go there."

There's a competitive element to this. There are twelve cities (in nine countries) competing (the twelve were picked by going through Songkick's data, to see where Bird had lots of fans -- sometimes in surprising places) for six open slots for shows in February of next year. The setup is basically that the first six shows that have fans crowdfund 250 tickets get the open slots for the gigs. It will be interesting to see if fans in the different cities rally to encourage fans to buy in to get the concert.

These efforts remain very experimental, so who knows how well they'll succeed long term, but I love the fact that we're still seeing unique innovations in different aspects of the music business. Obviously, for many artists, touring has become a bigger part of their revenue stream lately -- but it's also one part of the business that many artists complain has extremely high costs and risks. The system has been inefficient for years, allowing the business to bleed musicians. So it's encouraging to see more attempts to improve the efficiency of the concert business -- and doing so in a way that gets more fans connected to bands, and allows acts to find "out of the way" places to play live, while minimizing the risk of doing so.

Filed Under: andrew bird, crowdfunding, detour, tours
Companies: songkick

Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans

from the everything's-possible dept

Over the last few years, we've covered many of the moves by the band Ok Go -- to build up a fanbase often with the help of amazingly viral videos, ditch their major record label (EMI), and explore new business model opportunities. In the last few days, two different members of Ok Go explained a bit more of the band's thinking in two separate places, and both are worth reading. First up, we have Tim Nordwind, who did an interview with Hypebot, where he explained the band's general view on file sharing:

Obviously we'd love for anyone who has our music to buy a copy. But again, we're realistic enough to know that most music can be found online for free. And trying to block people's access to it isn't good for bands or music. If music is going to be free, then musicians will simply have to find alternative methods to make a living in the music business. People are spending money on music, but it's on the technology to play it. They spend hundreds of dollars on Ipods, but then fill it with 80 gigs of free music. That's ok, but it's just a different world now, and bands must learn to adjust.

Elsewhere in the interview, he talks about the importance of making fans happy and how the band realizes that there are lots of different ways to make money, rather than just selling music directly:

Our videos have opened up many more opportunities for us to make the things we want to make, and to chase our best and wildest ideas. Yes, we need to figure out how to make a living in a world where people don't buy music anymore. But really, we've been doing that for the last ten years. Things like licensing, touring, merch, and also now making videos through corporate sponsorship have all allowed us to keep the lights on and continue making music.

Separately, last Friday, Damian Kulash wrote a nice writeup in the Wall Street Journal all about how bands can, should and will make money going forward. In many ways the piece reminds me a bit of my future of music business models post from earlier this year -- and Kulash even uses many of the same examples in his article (Corey Smith, Amanda Palmer, Josh Freese, etc.). It's a really worthwhile read as well. He starts by pointing out that for a little over half a century, the record labels had the world convinced that the "music" industry really was just the "recorded music" industry:

For a decade, analysts have been hyperventilating about the demise of the music industry. But music isn't going away. We're just moving out of the brief period--a flash in history's pan--when an artist could expect to make a living selling records alone. Music is as old as humanity itself, and just as difficult to define. It's an ephemeral, temporal and subjective experience.

For several decades, though, from about World War II until sometime in the last 10 years, the recording industry managed to successfully and profitably pin it down to a stable, if circular, definition: Music was recordings of music. Records not only made it possible for musicians to connect with listeners anywhere, at any time, but offered a discrete package for commoditization. It was the perfect bottling of lightning: A powerful experience could be packaged in plastic and then bought and sold like any other commercial product.

But, he notes, that time is now gone, thanks in large part to the internet. But that doesn't mean the music business is in trouble. Just the business of selling recorded music. But there's lots of things musicians can sell. He highlights Corey Smith and Smith's ability to make millions by giving away his music for free, and then touring. But he also points out that touring isn't for everyone. He covers how corporate licensing has become a bigger and bigger opportunity for bands that are getting popular. While he doesn't highlight the specific economics of it, what he's really talking about is that if your band is big, you can sell your fan's attention -- which is something Ok Go has done successfully by getting corporate sponsorship of their videos. As he notes, the sponsors provide more money than the record labels with many fewer strings:

These days, money coming from a record label often comes with more embedded creative restrictions than the marketing dollars of other industries. A record label typically measures success in number of records sold. Outside sponsors, by contrast, tend to take a broader view of success. The measuring stick could be mentions in the press, traffic to a website, email addresses collected or views of online videos. Artists have meaningful, direct, and emotional access to our fans, and at a time when capturing the public's attention is increasingly difficult for the army of competing marketers, that access is a big asset.

...

Now when we need funding for a large project, we look for a sponsor. A couple weeks ago, my band held an eight-mile musical street parade through Los Angeles, courtesy of Range Rover. They brought no cars, signage or branding; they just asked that we credit them in the documentation of it. A few weeks earlier, we released a music video made in partnership with Samsung, and in February, one was underwritten by State Farm.

We had complete creative control in the productions. At the end of each clip we thanked the company involved, and genuinely, because we truly are thankful. We got the money we needed to make what we want, our fans enjoyed our videos for free, and our corporate Medicis got what their marketing departments were after: millions of eyes and goodwill from our fans. While most bands struggle to wrestle modest video budgets from labels that see videos as loss leaders, ours wind up making us a profit.

Of course, that only works if you have a big enough fanbase, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that less well known bands can use to make money as well. He talks about an up-and-coming band in LA that doesn't even have a manager that was able make money:

The unsigned and unmanaged Los Angeles band Killola toured last summer and offered deluxe USB packages that included full albums, live recordings and access to two future private online concerts for $40 per piece. Killola grossed $18,000 and wound up in the black for their tour. Mr. Donnelly says, "I can't imagine they'll be ordering their yacht anytime soon, but traditionally bands at that point in their careers aren't even breaking even on tour."

The point, Kulash, notes, is that there's a lot of things a band can sell, focusing on "selling themselves." And, the thing he doesn't mention is that, when you're focusing on selling the overall experience that is "you" as a musician or a band, it's something that can't be freely copied. People can copy the music all they want, but they can't copy you. "You" are a scarce good that can't be "pirated." That's exactly what more and more musicians are figuring out these days, and it's helping to make many more artists profitable. And, no, it doesn't mean that any artist can make money. But it certainly looks like any artist that understands this can do a hell of a lot better than they would have otherwise, if they just relied on the old way of making money in the music business.

Filed Under: business models, experience, music, ok go, sponsorship, tours