Word of mouth advertising is the lifeblood of most businesses. No out of pocket expenses. No need to conduct studies to determine how to target the right demographic. No expensive glossy ad campaigns. Simply one satisfied customer, excited enough about a product to spread the word to everyone they know.
I recently discovered a social networking site called Blip.fm. Blip.fm is a hybrid of interactive sites such as Twitter,& Facebook. It allows brief comments and greetings, mixed with music. The music streamed is selected by the members, who are essentially programming a radio station. As you play a song, (or blip) as they are called, you add a brief intro comment to personalize. As you play more music, you gain listeners who add you as a favorite, while you add others. This is an international community of music lovers numbering in the tens of thousands. Most DJ's are music fanatics eager to spread the word about their latest find.
For the music industry Blip.Fm has the potential to be the greatest word of mouth tool ever. An international market, of music fanatics, connected to each other, and eager to share with new found international friends, their latest music discoveries. Sharing here, does not mean actual ownership of the copyright material, simply the ability to play a song for others. As if it were a worldwide party with thousands of your closest friends. Now with it's typical propensity to shoot itself in the foot, the music industry greed is threatening the growth and success of Blip.fm.
While the exact reason for recent changes has not been shared with the community, it does not take too much imagination to figure what is happening. Recently Blip added the catalog Imeem, a legal music streaming site to their library. The problem is that because of copyright issues, Imeem only plays 30 second clips of the music, for those outside North America. Obviously international users may soon lose interest, lessening the value of the Blip.fm experience for all users.
A small business needs good word of mouth to survive, and a large business needs it to thrive. We have all witnessed movies with huge advertising, open to a great opening week box office, only to crash and burn because of bad word of mouth. Everyone knows that the music industry has struggled for years and continues to do so today. The RIAA has not been able to adapt to the technological changes, and has continually proceeded on a path aimed at collecting every single penny, rather than focusing on the bigger dollars out there for the taking. The attempt to ruin the business concept at Blip.Fm is just another example of this simple mindedness. Instead of cherishing the ability to expose tens of thousands of the most dedicated and diverse music fans in the world to their product, they try to limit product availability. In the name of protecting copyright, they limit exposure and awareness of their product.
I think it is safe to say that the average Blip.Fm user owns at least ten times the music of the average consumer. We are the people to whom the "less commercial" artists in the labels catalog are targeted at. People who are not satisfied with what we hear on commercial radio, or even the broader, but still limited selection on satellite radio. The record labels do not have the advertising dollars to reach this market. So what is the best way to expose these artists at little to no expense? Obviously, word of mouth. So why try to destroy an amazing international word of mouth "free advertising" network? Let the music play, the word will spread, and artists that you have invested time and money in, may begin to get a bigger return on that investment. Probably too much to ask of the morons who run the music industry.
Can't help myself. Gotta comment. Nothing says the music industry won't respond to the opportunities Blip.fm presents them. Blip is a new and evolving site. Music industry executives are not position to just "issue a memo" to change laws that are, at this stage, out of their hands. Copyright laws are laws -- good, bad or flawed, and highly complex -- and it takes time -- a lot of time -- to change them. Think of the number of elements that must come together in order for that to occur. Music executives are but a small part of that.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to copyright laws, each company is bound by contract to each artist. Laws. You might not love 'em, but ya' can't just leave 'em. Contracts help to protect the artists. In decades past, musicians sometimes received very little of the profits of their talent.
Blip has existed for a relatively short period of time. It can't dictate to an entire industry when it hasn't completely defined for itself its own end goal. It is evolving. The industry has a right, and must exercise due diligence, in considering an alliance.
I have no doubt that the music industry will see the benefits of a working relationship with Blip. Just don't expect the paperwork to be done and the courts to be cleared for some time. Take what you can from Blip.fm. We're lucky we found it. I have no doubt the music industry will realize the find too.
You certainly raise valid points. With your experience in the entertainment industry, I am sure you know more about copyright law than I do.
ReplyDeleteWhere I think the model is flawed with music, is that to sell music, it needs exposure. The music industry certainly seemed aware of that fact during the payola scandals. Why did they pay disc jockeys to play records? Because it sold records. Why were the 80's such a golden time for the music industry? A good part of the credit goes to the CD revolution. A lot of credit goes to some great, and innovative dynamic music. Much of that innovation would have sat undiscovered if it were not for a little thing called MTV.
During the late 70's, the exciting, and daring FM radio innovators of the 60's and early 70's had turned into stodgy and staid stations. Playing the same Zep, Who, Stones tracks over and over. With a few Deep Purple & Foghat songs mixed in. Elvis Costello, The Clash, Talking Heads, Joe Jackson, The Jam....etc. were relegated to the once a week new music shows. It wasn't until MTV, that "new wave" took off. MTV was a new entity, a new way to market music, and the industry embraced it.
Blip sells music (can't say records anymore :) ). Certainly not on a level with MTV's impact. Still if I were in charge of promoting an artist, especially an eclectic non commercial artist, Blip would be a godsend. I know I have bought quite a bit of music I never would have known about. If my finances were in better shape, I would have spent a lot more.
I realize may artists and composers were ripped off over the years. I know in the television industry performers from old shows that ran forever in syndication, never saw any of those riches. That has changed a lot, and if an actor gets a hit show that goes into syndication it is like hitting the lottery.
Musicians and composers need to be paid. Blip is not stealing product. We are not sharing the product. I don't think it is much different from when I was a teen hanging out with friends and telling them they have to hear this new album. The only difference is now many of my friends have funny accents and strange names.
So let them get their money from the Blip guys. But make it fair. Realize that a smaller take that allows a site like Blip to grow and expand, will sell more music. Isn't that what everybody wants.
Thanks for being my first comment. :)
I agree agree agree. My only real point was to say, it ain't gonna happen overnight! Who knows what meetings and discussions have been taking place. It can make perfect -- PERFECT -- sense for the industry to embrace Blip. It just might not be legally viable for them to do so in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteI think the tie-in with YouTube was a great thing, not just because we get more stuff to blip, but because it raises Blip's profile. When film producers attempt to find investors for their projects, or try to lock down a big name actor, they do much better if they can say the equivalent of "YouTube is in".
Things have changed a lot since I started blipping. It was in rough shape just 4-5 months ago. Things continue to change, and improve, really fast. That's easy for a start-up website. Not so easy for an entire industry.
(Tired. May not be making sense. Anyhow, love this kind of debate. There will be more!)
Another thought (I have an infinite supply): It's possible that it's not so much a matter of the music industry getting their money from Blip as it is Blip getting money from the industry. You say 'exposure'. That's akin to 'advertising'. It's possible that the industry is the customer at this point - and considering whether or not to drop some bucks on Blip in order to 'expose' (or advertise) their music. Who knows what the deal is with YouTube, for instance.
ReplyDeleteYou should consider getting in touch with the Blip gods to see if you can get some real information about what may or may not be going on. It's one thing to have an opinion (and god knows, I have plenty) but not having it grounded in fact waters it down. Hey, you never know: Maybe you'll get a job out of it! You love music, you have a background in sales (and what else, I don't know), you like writing...Hmmm, interesting prospect.
As for copyright laws: I don't have firsthand experience, but I know that the Directors Guild of Canada (of which I was a member) spent a loooong time trying to hammer out an agreement on behalf of the more creative elements the Guild represents, namely directors. I didn't pay a lot of attention. I just remember it going on forever, and updates appearing in our newsletter for years. Nothing's simple.
More to say on the subject, I'm sure. It's a good one. J.