Got proper metadata? If the answer is no, then you could be losing fans and missing transactions. That was a major takeaway from a pair of recent digital music conferences, on both sides of the Atlantic.
The rest of this article is available from digital music news.
26 October 2008
15 October 2008
10 Questions to Ask a Potential Band Member
So you're a band looking for a new band member. You'd think the questions you'd need to ask were blindingly obvious. Sometimes not. Always a good source of music industry information, David Hooper has a brilliant guide that covers this topic: http://www.musicmarketing.com/2008/09/10-questions-to.html
09 October 2008
Would Apple really close iTunes?
Word on the street - and whispered conversations in the places where London-based music industry executives hang out – is that Apple might very well have closed its heralded iTunes stores in protest if The Copyright Royalty Board decided to raise rates for the sale of digital music. Read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7645537.stm
In the end, the Copyright Royalty Board decided not to change the rate (9 cents per song). It’s not to say that the fees that the likes of Apple, MySpace, Amazon, Rhapsody, LastFM and others aren't high. They are. However, I'm still left wondering if Apple would have followed through with its threat. Unlikely, I think. Would Apple really walk away from such a powerful global brand that: 1) reinvigorated the Apple brand; 2) was the springboard of success for the now iconic iPod and 3) the company had invested a staggering amount of money to advertise, market and promote? I wouldn't have thought so. The words 'nose', 'cut' and 'face' readily spring to mind.
This was pretty much a non-story. Undoubtedly it was a story that generated shivers of excitement and countless 'what if' scenarios.
The real story is why online music industry hasn't stepped up to the plate to adopt a revenue sharing model. This way, digital music sales would have more breathing room to establish itself; and artists as well as smaller independent labels and music publishers would be able to grow with the industry. Rather than focus on how much each publisher gets per track, the Copyright Royalty Board should try to maximize the total amount of fees that publishers will get. This is a logical and fair approach…which probably means it won’t happen – or at least not any time soon.
Who knows, perhaps this might happen in 5 years' time when the Copyright Royalty Board will once again convene to make a ruling.
In the end, the Copyright Royalty Board decided not to change the rate (9 cents per song). It’s not to say that the fees that the likes of Apple, MySpace, Amazon, Rhapsody, LastFM and others aren't high. They are. However, I'm still left wondering if Apple would have followed through with its threat. Unlikely, I think. Would Apple really walk away from such a powerful global brand that: 1) reinvigorated the Apple brand; 2) was the springboard of success for the now iconic iPod and 3) the company had invested a staggering amount of money to advertise, market and promote? I wouldn't have thought so. The words 'nose', 'cut' and 'face' readily spring to mind.
This was pretty much a non-story. Undoubtedly it was a story that generated shivers of excitement and countless 'what if' scenarios.
The real story is why online music industry hasn't stepped up to the plate to adopt a revenue sharing model. This way, digital music sales would have more breathing room to establish itself; and artists as well as smaller independent labels and music publishers would be able to grow with the industry. Rather than focus on how much each publisher gets per track, the Copyright Royalty Board should try to maximize the total amount of fees that publishers will get. This is a logical and fair approach…which probably means it won’t happen – or at least not any time soon.
Who knows, perhaps this might happen in 5 years' time when the Copyright Royalty Board will once again convene to make a ruling.
06 October 2008
When internet misinformation becomes a right headache
Well, it was bound to happen. It happens to most record labels sooner or later…that annoying creature called the Internet rumour mill where an erroneous snippet of incorrectness snowballs out of all control.
Once upon a time there was a Bold Infusions 2 in1 telly advert. It’s the one featuring Bold 2 in 1White Diamonds (sorry, do Diamonds even have a scent!?!) and Lotus Flower. There’s a nice bit of ethereal and floaty music to accompany the advert. People liked the music and they wanted to know two simple things 1) who produced it and 2) where they could get it if it was available for sale.
While there have been posts/comments on YouTube and other sources claiming the music was produced by a company called Aardvark Sounds, the numpty who is responsible for claiming it was Aardvark Records (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722081358AAwAxyy) unfortunately seems to have generated the greater exposure.
Every day our email inboxes are blitzed by two types of emails regarding this matter: 1) Where can people buy the music and 2) Do we realise we’ve stolen a song from The Cocteau Twins and 2b) That we’re a bunch of tw@ts for stealing it?
Now about the whole ‘stealing’ business. The advertising agency that produced the advert is a highly respected and creditable one. So I’m willing to bet they did the standard provenance on the music before releasing the advert for broadcasting. While I’ve never heard of Aardvark Sounds before, I checked out their website and they too come across as highly creditable and respectable people. Honestly? I don’t care if the music is from the Cocteau Twins or merely sampled from one of their tracks or is an original piece of music that just sounds vaguely like a Cocteau Twins track. I’m sure that if a Cocteau Twins song was used that Aardvark Sounds got the requisite licensing permission from the relevant label and publisher.
All I really care about is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Aardvark Records.
Naturally, we’ve repeatedly asked said numpty to please amend his entry to reflect that it is indeed Aardvark Sounds that is responsible for this particular piece of music – and that Aardvark Sounds has nothing to do with Aardvark Records. Has he done so? No.
So we’re left with having to reply to quite a staggering number of emails which is a complete waste of our staff’s time. Personally, I feel like billing the guy for all the wasted man hours his post has caused us.
Well, I suppose I should look on the bright side. This is proof enough, if ever it was needed, that people will go to great lengths to track down a piece of music they hear on a telly advert.
I just wish people who posted erroneous information on the Internet could be as diligent in reporting facts correctly – and immediately amending the information when it’s proven to be incorrect.
Once upon a time there was a Bold Infusions 2 in1 telly advert. It’s the one featuring Bold 2 in 1White Diamonds (sorry, do Diamonds even have a scent!?!) and Lotus Flower. There’s a nice bit of ethereal and floaty music to accompany the advert. People liked the music and they wanted to know two simple things 1) who produced it and 2) where they could get it if it was available for sale.
While there have been posts/comments on YouTube and other sources claiming the music was produced by a company called Aardvark Sounds, the numpty who is responsible for claiming it was Aardvark Records (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722081358AAwAxyy) unfortunately seems to have generated the greater exposure.
Every day our email inboxes are blitzed by two types of emails regarding this matter: 1) Where can people buy the music and 2) Do we realise we’ve stolen a song from The Cocteau Twins and 2b) That we’re a bunch of tw@ts for stealing it?
Now about the whole ‘stealing’ business. The advertising agency that produced the advert is a highly respected and creditable one. So I’m willing to bet they did the standard provenance on the music before releasing the advert for broadcasting. While I’ve never heard of Aardvark Sounds before, I checked out their website and they too come across as highly creditable and respectable people. Honestly? I don’t care if the music is from the Cocteau Twins or merely sampled from one of their tracks or is an original piece of music that just sounds vaguely like a Cocteau Twins track. I’m sure that if a Cocteau Twins song was used that Aardvark Sounds got the requisite licensing permission from the relevant label and publisher.
All I really care about is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Aardvark Records.
Naturally, we’ve repeatedly asked said numpty to please amend his entry to reflect that it is indeed Aardvark Sounds that is responsible for this particular piece of music – and that Aardvark Sounds has nothing to do with Aardvark Records. Has he done so? No.
So we’re left with having to reply to quite a staggering number of emails which is a complete waste of our staff’s time. Personally, I feel like billing the guy for all the wasted man hours his post has caused us.
Well, I suppose I should look on the bright side. This is proof enough, if ever it was needed, that people will go to great lengths to track down a piece of music they hear on a telly advert.
I just wish people who posted erroneous information on the Internet could be as diligent in reporting facts correctly – and immediately amending the information when it’s proven to be incorrect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
