Urban myth: illegal downloading stealing legit album sales

Remember when people thought the Earth was flat, or that cannabis was completely harmless, that Terry Wogan did not wear a hair piece, and that Coca Cola invented Santa.

If people hear something often enough, they start to believe it. Album and single sales started to decline around the time the Internet started to grow, ergo illegal downloading took revenue from the music industry. Absolute and utter poppycock, complete bobbins, fabricated nonsense spun by lazy music executives who can't come up with new ways to make money in a rapidly changing world.

Jessie J, she of absolutely amazing talent, was heard saying on Radio 1 yesterday "fans don't realise that if they download my music illegally I won't be able to make a second album". Hmmm, let me get this straight. Firstly, and I've said this before, does she really think that every illegal download would have been a single/album sale? She's damn good, and possibly the best new talent to come out of the UK, but really?! Second, surely her "fans" are actually very likely to buy her music in a legit way, be that download or physical, as well as going to her concerts and subscribing to whatever else her mgmt company has the commercial sense to put out there.

What is definitely progress, is the fact that music you hear on the radio will now be available to download immediately. At last! It's only taken the labels a million years to realise that this is by far one of the biggest frustrations about trying to buy music to listen to as soon as you first hear it. Maybe they are finally starting to think about how people consume music, rather than thinking about the transaction - legit or not - these are two completely different things and probably increasingly unrelated.

Singing for supper on QVC

I've read the article in today's Sunday Times and I'm still not sure what to make of it - artists singing on QVC to sell albums?

For me, Matthew Goodman goes a little far when he calls it 'selling their soul'. No, Matthew, selling your soul is allowing your single, nay, your face, to be used to advertise deodorant. Come on, Alexandra, you are so much better than that.

Is it sad, or savvy, that recording companies are scraping the barrel of recorded music sales by turning to the 'we buy anything on impulse' audience that watch QVC. Sure it may shift a few units, but will these people actually go to the concerts, buy the merchandise, and follow up releases? Unlikely, but still plausible I suppose. Either this is the clever discovery of a profitable new segment, or the last ditch attempt of a dying swan.

I reckon that recorded music is heading one way - free. Or as free as it can be under some sort of subscription, rights, or rental basis. With only collectors, luddites and members of the slow movement regularly buying physical products.

I also believe that there is a big elephant in the room, which the music industry has to acknowledge before it can move forwards. Illegal downloading has not robbed them of income per se, as suggested in the article. There is no way on earth that the quantity of everything downloaded would ever have been purchased. Many illegal downloaders probably don't even get round to listening to half of it. Yes, it will have had an impact on revenues, but what about general social trends. Kids who had nothing else to do thirty years ago except watch TV with their parents, listen to their friends' mix tapes, or play on their Commodore 64 (if they were lucky) now have PSPs, Facebook, iphones, wii's etc. While the grown-ups now eat out, go to the cinema, cook with Jamie's 20-minute meals app. Maybe the time for listening to music has just been squeezed out by our busy, have-it-all lives.

Yes, all creative industries need to tackle the issue of protecting artistic content. But seriously, the music business needs to spend less money on old rope, and put more efforts into making money in the future - be that from recorded music, or something else. And I don't think QVC is the answer. But then what do I know.

Wanted: iphone music subscription

I'm not the first, and I won't be the last, but when will we get more choice around downloadable music on a subscription basis, for iphone??!!

For me, this is currently the biggest drawback with iphone, and was almost a reason for me going with nokia over Apple. I simply must have my music collection with me wherever I am, and I need to limit the number of devices I'm carrying, hence phone must double as an mp3 player.

I chose iphone because I eventually decided all of the other functionality outweighed the music thing (!) But I was ecstatic when I discovered the spotify subscription. My initial take on spotify was that it wouldn't fly unless it could go mobile and I think I have been proved right. That is, assuming they are making money out of this of course. It could not have been cheap to get Apple to agree to an itune 'competitor' on its devices, but then I guess Apple's main thing is not content, because as we all know all digital content will soon be 'free' of sorts (discuss)

So where are the others? I thought they would be piling in? I really don't get it. Perhaps napster have lost the spunk they first started with back in the pirate days, and the new Swedish kids on the block are now the ones pushing the boundaries, even securing the offline access before Rhapsody - the only other (as far as I know) iphone subscription service, in the US.

Now we just need films and books on the same basis...

Jam in Camden

What could be better than a sunny May Day bank holiday mooching around Camden Market? Try a Sunday night at the monthly UK Soul Jam, at Camden's fabulous Jazz Cafe. This was my first time to Soul Jam. Being a school night, Sundays for me normally mean an early night in bed with The Sunday Times for company. Instead, I was lapping up some of the great new talent on show.


UK Soul Jam is a monthly night for showcasing acts, with an open mic/jam session later on. First up was a very impressive, funky, original-sounding singer/song-writer by the name of Raff. So when I got back home to Shropshire I was keen to find out more. Maybe I was too quick off the mark, but despite my finely-honed googling skills I couldn't find anything, nada. Fortunately just over a week later I managed to track down his myspace page with a handy link to his single on itunes.

But I couldn't help wonder why it was so difficult to find details of a really good act, following a showcase night. Contrast this with Kaana Ellie and the Remedies. Now, I'm not even really sure which band they were (the cosmo's are very strong at the Jazz Cafe), but since giving my email address Ive been sent future gigs, myspace details etc, via personal emails from Kaana. But out of the 5 or 6 acts showcased, they are the only ones that collected our details. Another fine example of working it - the supporting act at Basement Jaxx recent Birmingham gig were giving out free cd singles.

So, my point is...wicked night out in Camden and I would definitely recommend it. Undoubtedly, more of the acts need to up their game, in terms of promo. These are tough times for the industry but newbies need to get creative and make better use of modern technology. It's not rocket science, is it...

The Long Tail 2

OK, so you may have clicked from a couple of posts ago, that I just started reading Chris Anderson's book - I know I'm a bit late, but to be fair I bought it yonks ago, and have only just found time to pick it up. It also fell down the reading list order because it was hardback - way too heavy for modern-day, stingy, air baggage allowances!

Apart from being an easy read, full of consumer brands and products that I, and most readers can easily identify with, it's just soooo common sense. The kind of book that has you nodding, smiling and saying to yourself "Oh yeah.." in a sort of light bulb-moment way.

I love the way it was compiled - almost with an open source approach - with lots of view, opinions (both expert and consumer), taken into account. This has probably resulted in the concepts being so clearly explained and illustrated.

My biggest question is why I haven't noticed The Long Tail economics having a massive impact on the way record labels develop and promote new music. I assume there must be more to it than simply giving the kiss of life to the back-catalogue cash cows?? Anyhow, I have a theory, but for once I'm going to suspend judgement and keep reading.

Straight in at number 1...

Selling records appears to be very unlike any other product launch. All those of us that have done GCSE business studies (or a marketing degree) will at some stage have come across the development, introduction, growth, maturity model for products. And for a lot of companies, this is pretty much how it works.
Not so, it seems for the major record labels. It's either instant success, straight in at number 1, or you're toast, unceremoniously dropped or shelved after a couple of go's. This puzzles me. It seems to me that some artists grow mainly through viral marketing, eg. Eva Cassidy, or just a slow burn based on hard work - small gigs up and down the country, and relying on word of mouth, or the odd DJ endorsement. So why are they cast aside if they don't hit top ten single sales in their first week - dunno really.
I am just about old enough to remember when singles were released and climbed their way up the chart as their popularity grew. Nowadays, you hear a song for weeks and weeks before its 'official release date', with all of the promo and advertising truncated to ensure the highest possible entry point and quickest payback possible for the record company. In my mind, this is very much responsible for killing off the organic development of good music, has probably contributed to the declining single sales and is completely at odds with the business digital age, virtual communities twittering and facebooking, and the whole changing way we live our lives and consume music - spotify, owngig et al... Another frustrating example of the industry dragging its feet and hampering single 'sales' is not being able to legally download or purchase a single track on its own, for whatever reason - licensing issues, release date, whatever it may be - it's no wonder peer to peer is rife, and justifiable to some.
Instant hits is what record companies want, while instant access and availability for listeners, is still on the back burner...

What will Spotify do for music?

Wow, either the Spotify marketing team have been doing a lot of schmoozing, or someone very hip, trendy and cutting edge has suddenly declared them as the next best thing. The Sunday Times has dedicated some serious column inches to how Spotfiy might spell the end of ownership (something about clouds), and Sean Adams chips in by recommending Spotify as your music service provider. Hello!!!??? Am I the only person that finds this a bit odd? Unless I am really the technophobic laggard of all of Shropshire and the modern World, I cannot see how I can use Spotify to listen to music in the car, out for a run, or basically without being HOOKED UP TO MY COMPUTER.
Now, I think I'm fairly progressive, as I now use my mobile phone as my only mp3 player (ever since my Creative Zen was stolen from my car!) and I do actually watch programs on demand via my laptop. But... computer, stream, listen, music - i just do not get it one bit.
The Sunday Times pics and Spotify ads showing real people, with headphones on, sitting plugged into their computers is absolutely ridiculous - laughable even.
Here's where I agree with the article - until Spotify goes mobile eg. I can stream it on my mobile phone, and until broadband and wireless connections make streaming seamlessly easy and of the right quality, this will be just another Twitter - totally pointless.
And if anyone thinks this sort of commercial arrangement, in its current form, is going to save the music industry's butt, think again. Just look at the market for illegal TV and movie downloads. Digital accessibility has opened up new markets and uses for music. Unfortunately, like 7 yr old school boys playing football, everyone is rushing after the ball, all going in the same direction, until the ball is kicked somewhere else. At the moment, that direction is big digital music libraries, as the industry tries to tap into revenues from the 'digital generation' and illegal file sharers, thus ignoring the oldies, technologically speaking, like me, who will pay good money for more than just an mp3 file. Or do I just need to get with the program and give Spotify their dues?