Music Business – Hindsight 20/20

July 18, 2009 at 7:23 am | In Marketing, Media Business, Music Business | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti has been recently quoted saying:

Looking at the music industry, which has become something of a bellwether for other media businesses, we have a situation where seventy percent of music consumption is digital and yet only about twenty percent of music company revenues are derived from digital.  Music is in demand and the demand is growing all the time, but we’ve clearly lost touch with our consumers.

Not to ‘Monday Morning Quarterback’ too much, but I would argue that in order to lose touch with your consumers, you actually have to be in touch to begin with and that has never been the case.  Consumers are ’song’ driven and have been since the beginning of radio, but it was always the format that restricted consumption.  From vinyl, to 8-track, to cassette, to CD there were always natural barriers in place to restrict unauthorized distribution.  While those restrictions were in place, artists were bloating their records with filler and labels were increasing their profits, compounding consumer frustration.  The Music Industry can claim ‘bellwether’ status all they want, but to miss the potential of the Internet was just ignorant, filing copyright infringement suits against your consumers was, and is, counterproductive, developing DRM technology was wasteful and futile, and to think consumers wouldn’t gravitate back to single consumption if given the opportunity is just evidence that a few key people had their head stuck in the sand.  It was a nice effort, but it was all ‘reactive’.  Nothing was proactive.  Nobody thought to look ahead.  Nobody thought to plan ahead, and for that, let’s take a moment and pause for the 7 Ps:

Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

So…In order to leave you with something other than complaints about the obvious, here are a few things I’ve come up with that I would have done differently:

  • Embrace and build P2P in an effort to monetize, cross-market, gather consumer data, and track consumer behavior
  • Demand variable track pricing from day 1 in order to generate revenue with regard to demand
  • Raise the ‘Standard’ track price
  • Build Label-Owned and Label-Merchandised online music destination equipped to compete
  • Empower a 3rd party vendor where competing labels have an equity stake
  • Bring Booking, Publishing, and Management, Distribution, and Merch In-House where possible
  • Develop a modular and streamlined way of delivering digital product
  • Monetize every Artist website and begin a relationship with the consumer at a transactional level
  • Abandon all DRM efforts
  • Invest heavily in a more positive, artist-driven, public re-education campaign around Intellectual Property and Fair Use
  • Aggressively restructure and reorganize
  • Simplify physical product pricing, promotion, and distribution

You may agree or disagree with many of these, but I encourage you to leave your own ideas in the comments section, especially if you believe I’ve left a gaping hole somewhere.  Not to necessarily ‘blamestorm’, but to better understand where we came from and what we have come through in order to better prepare ourselves for the future.  Also, if you want to a consistently good read from a guy who really appreciates the history of the Music Business and music in general, subscribe to the Clore Chronicles.

Moving on though, I think the real challenge is where we go from here.  Leoni-Sceti’s comments above regarding digital consumption versus revenue is a huge disconnect and a code that isn’t easily cracked.  It makes it even more difficult to dig out given the macroeconomic constraints present in today’s US economy.  From my perspective, I still don’t think we are proactive enough.  I still don’t think we are aggressive enough.  So many people are just clinging to their jobs and trying to manage their daily duties, previously handled by multiple people.  I’m not sure who’s looking ahead anymore.  Godin and Anderson are two of my favorite idea guys, but they aren’t the decision makers here.  To make matters worse, I don’t think the future of the business is going to be as glaringly obvious as before.  In the last year, we’ve watched Myspace rise and fall, Facebook gravitate towards women over 55, and Twitter rise to the top overnight in a manner that screams ‘fad’.  We don’t have time for a slow build formula, technology, model, or destination, but that’s what instills trust, relationships, and ultimately transactions.

To sum it up:

The Music Industry can’t afford people spending time looking ahead, but then again…they can’t afford not too

Music: Its Very Own Loss Leader

June 23, 2009 at 1:07 am | In Marketing, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Consumers want songs.  There are exceptions when it comes to artists like Pink Floyd, but the main reason that consumers bought albums for years is because they had to.  It was the only way to get the song they wanted and there were no easy technological workarounds.  The music industry is fooling itself if it thinks the consumer will ever go back to buying albums or that bundling records up as digital Album Only purchases will actually help.

Pandora’s box has been opened.

It was essentially a race to zero.  The labels began streaming early on.  They could get around publishing fees that way and still expose their artists.  Then there was the “Free Download”, as if that was going to curb the appetite for P2P use.  After the free download, it was the free EP because intuition, or insecurity rather,  said that “One song just wasn’t enough,” and now we have successfully moved to giving away the full album.  From Radiohead to Nine Inch Nails, to Coldplay, and beyond.  These high profile stunts have trained consumers to expect free or at least deep discounted products and to bypass anything at full price.  Each of these stunts were loss leaders for tickets, merch, or future premium products which directly benefited those artists.  The problem is that most labels don’t benefit from tickets, merch, or in some cases premium products.  They only own the content so treating it like a loss leader is counterproductive.

When you go to Wal-mart to grab a deep discounted CD (or loss leader), Wal-mart is banking on you buying a plunger and a toothbrush before you leave.  When you buy an album at a deep discount, the label hopes that you will tell your friends so they go buy it, pack mom’s minivan with friends headed to the show where you all come home wearing the t-shirt.

The reality is that you won’t tell your friends, you’ll just burn them a copy, and the label won’t make a dime off of the ticket sales or merch.  The reality is that you can’t be your own loss leader.  It’s either time for the labels to successfully invest in plungers and toothbrushes (figuratively speaking), or time for management and booking agencies to begin participating in recording costs.  In the meantime, the labels need to be doing everything they can to stop devaluing their lifeline – recorded music.

Ubiquity of “Free”

June 9, 2009 at 9:38 pm | In Marketing, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s only a few reasons left to buy music.  You certainly don’t have to buy it to experience it anymore.  There is more legal music available for free than any one person could listen too in a lifetime, so I’m compiling a list of reasons why people still buy.  I’m sure I’ve left quite a few so I encourage your feedback. 

  • Support the Artist
  • Safety of purchasing from a reliable brand
  • Quality Control
  • Convenience
  • Portability
  • Ownership
  • Album Artwork
  • Collector
  • Commemorating a Live Show Experience
  • Bonus Content
  • Gifting

The Long Tail in Question

May 25, 2009 at 5:00 am | In Marketing, Music Business | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chris Anderson’s Long Tail Theory is under scrutiny, and both sides have reason to claim victory.  I’d be interested in Chris running his numbers again with data from iTunes and AmazonMP3.  If I had to guess, his 98% rule is overstated at best.  Keep in mind he was doing his research on data from 2004, which is way too early to develop a trend rule that will stand the test of time.  Regardless, after analyzing the data that I do have access to, I fully believe in the value of the “tail”, but I’ve come up with a series of x-factors that I believe were underestimated, ultimately leading to a 98% rule in question, and Long Tail under the microscope.

  • Project Studio Proliferation in the 90s:
    • Creative and Financial filters were destroyed.
    • Music creation became affordable…not just consumption.
    • Supply increased exponentially.
  • Digital Content Delivery Services:
    • Popularity of companies like CDBaby and Tunecore provide a quick and affordable way to deliver digital content to retailers like iTunes, AmazonMP3, and others.
    • Increased supply finds distribution
  • The Internet:
    • Destroyed traditional distribution filters
    • Introduced a retail environment absent of scarcity.
    • Distribution products without demand became possible.
    • Consumers given access to their niche
  • The Majors realize value in Digital Distribution:
    • Released a flood of product with little or diminishing demand into the market.  For example, out-of-print titles could be resurrected without the traditional costs of manufacturing, stocking, and distribution.
    • Streamline processes to make extend their “tail”.

I believe we will hit what I call a “Ground Zero” with audio content by 2010.  The Majors will have completed their catalog delivery and any pent up product still looking for distribution will have found it’s way into the digital marketplace.  By then, who knows what new technologies will be available or what challenges lie ahead.  I appreciate Anderson’s work in trendspotting and hope, for the sake of us all working in the industry, he will continue to keep his theory fluid, updated, and transparent.

Newspapers – Daily Circulation Strangulation

May 4, 2009 at 2:57 am | In Media Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

We saw this coming years ago.  At least those of us in the music industry.  Misery loves company I guess.  So it’s no surprise when newspaper daily circulation reports show this depth of decline over the past six months.  The question is whether or not the Internet, the Economy, or a mixture of reasons is to blame.

daily-circulation

I’m out of the print loop, but I’d love to hear any opinions regarding Wall Street Journal’s ability to show an increased daily circulation over the past 6 months or any examples of newspapers re-inventing themselves for the future.

Ships vs. Scans vs. Revenue

January 21, 2009 at 2:59 am | In ...And I Quote, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Ships vs. Scans vs. Revenue.  Only 1 of these is valid in today’s market, but there is a strong resistance against realizing this fact.

Ship numbers give us hope.  Hope that if we put enough product out there, if we just badger enough people, if we just show up for the party…we will have a chance to win.  This is irrelevant and a false sense of security.  Demand moves product, not availability.

Scans give us a false sense of success or even failure at times.  A scan is a unit, but the unit price is variable.  If you scan a 100K units but it’s because your sales team was selling the product in at a greatly reduced rate, success is just a ruse.  On the flip side, if you scan 100K units when you meant to scan 150K, but your tracks sales, which don’t count towards scans (see TEA) tally 500K because you had a hit single at radio, what have you lost?  You may need to readjust your strategy for greater success in the future, but the bottom line is still, at present, sitting pretty safe.

Revenue is the only gauge for success anymore.  The number of revenue streams and channels available for monitizing changes the game entirely.  It’s not about a format.  it’s not about a silicon disc.  It’s about supply and demand.  It’s back to the basics of business.  At the end of the day who cares if your artists sold 50 times more tracks than albums and 100K ringtones instead of cummulative track downloads.  The beauty is that consumers are transacting and every time they do, they communicate who they are, where they are, and what they want.  It’s our job to adjust and maximize the potential in every corner of that market.

I leave you with a quote from Rio Caraeff, EVP of UMG’s Digital Division.

“We don’t focus anymore on total album sales or the sale of any one particular product as the metric of revenue or success.  We look at the total consolidated revenue from dozens of revenue lines behind a given artist or project, which include digital sales, the physical business, mobile sales and licensing income.”

TEA (Track Equivalent Albums)

January 16, 2009 at 4:32 am | In Music Business | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

There is a rather large misunderstanding (at least in my company) regarding how individually downloaded songs scan.  This is a lesson I’ve taught in multiple meetings and I suspect I’ll have to teach in many more.  TEA (Track Equivalent Albums) is only a great concept as long as it is properly understood and communicated.  It helps to quickly estimate the amount of revenue generated by a project, which can help in assessing whether or not a project is successful or not and simplifies most label reporting for easier sales analysis.

So How Does TEA work?

Most corporations formulate TEA by dividing the number of track sales by 10.  Let’s take Coldplay (featured excerpt from Nielsen Soundscan below) for example.  The 2.786 Million tracks have a TEA value of approximately 278.6K Albums.

Track Detail

2.786 Million / 10 (avg # tracks on an album) = 278.6K Track Equivalent Albums

3 Things to Remember about TEA

  • It is only an estimate (Any given album could have more or less than 10 tracks)
  • Single song downloads never add up to equal a real album scan
  • Per the second bullet – Single Song downloads do not help an artist’s record get any closer to gold or platinum status

Bob Lefsetz

January 9, 2009 at 2:37 am | In ...And I Quote, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

“The institution has trumped the musicians”

From his recent blog “Timing“.   While I’d like to read more from Bob about what he thinks WILL work instead of what hasn’t, doesn’t, or won’t, I am grateful for the blunt reality that he brings to the table and his assessments are, for the most part, spot on.  For those of us working in the music industry, it’s difficult to deny that the artist isn’t the focus anymore.  Everyone is in survival mode from the Penthouse to the Mailroom.  Digital will never compensate for physical revenue losses and physical has chosen a slow and painful death, which means there’s still a long hard road ahead.  Headcounts will continue to be reduced and, unfortunately, the Institutions haven’t been starved enough to spawn effective ways to be a successful record label of the future and until then, the musicians will suffer.

Web 2.0 New Marketing 4Ps

November 6, 2008 at 1:53 am | In Marketing, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just Passing this Along.  Another Wikidiscovery

Wikipedia Link

1.  Personalization:  Consumer customization of the product or service.  Opportunities expand and evolve with technology.

2.  Participation:  Consumer plays a role in the direction of the brand, product, service and is a by-product of the democratization of information.

3.  Peer-to-Peer:  “Active Consumer Communities” replacing “Passive Consumer Bases”.

4.  Predictive Modeling – Implementing algorithms that limit risk, maximize potential, and eliminate known problems.

4’s Company, 7’s a Crowd (Service Marketing)

November 5, 2008 at 3:41 am | In Marketing, Music Business | Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I ran across these today as I was researching.  I’m sure this has been around a while, but it’s new to me, so I thought I’d throw it in.  Turns out Service Marketing (over Product Marketing) requires a few extra P’s.

Wikipedia Link

1.  People – mostly referring to people who come in contact with customers and how they can positively or negatively influence the situation

2.  Process – The actual process of providing a service or “How you go about providing your service”.  This immediately makes me think of the old Krispy Kreme stores where you are in an out very quick, but if you do get stuck waiting, your stuck salivating over the hot donuts rolling through the assembly.  Which Wich also comes to mind with there very unique way of taking orders and processing them

3.  Physical Evidence – Turning the Intangible service into something tangible or concrete.  Providing evidence of the service is important.  Wiki notes case studies, testimonials, and demonstrations.

Let’s apply this very quickly to the last blog entry about Digital Service Providers.  It’s more than just Product and it’s certainly more than Price.  These companies like Amazon are providing a service and execution of these 3 P’s will most likely determine their level of ultimate success.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.