Australia-based online service Guvera (http://guvera.com) has been making waves among the music industry recently. It offers free high quality (256kbps) downloads to consumers, which are paid for by advertisers who can match particular artists to their brand’s ‘personality’. As you can see by the image to the right, Guvera is not particularly subtle when it comes to marketing.

Waycooljnr editor Andrew McMillen spoke with Guvera CEO Claes Loberg a few days ahead of its worldwide public launch on March 30, 2010.

Andrew: Hey Claes. Can you summarise what Guvera’s all about?

Claes: Here’s the gist of it: advertisers paying for downloads. There’s nothing new about the idea of advertisers actually paying for content. That’s how we’ve been receiving TV for free for all these years. What’s wrong with television at the moment, is that advertising is actually starting to lose value year, on year. People have got the power to click past it, sort of get around the advertising. That’s a reflection of all advertising across the board.

Now that the people are in control, Guvera’s business model is a reversal of the advertising process. Instead of advertisers being the annoying thing they used to be years ago, now they can be a channel that people will want to go to, to get content. It’s trying to change the value proposition away from ads-as-disruptors. It actually pays the artists for the content it’s created, and the people still get it for free.

Why should the average 21-year old digital music consumer give Guvera a chance?

Realistically, the person that we’re targeting is the person that’s currently getting it illegally. Guvera is not a streaming service, so we’re not one of the other different clients that exist that you can jump onto and create your own playlists, and listen to the music. Instead, we’re a client where you download music and stick it onto your iPod and then do your own playlist and do whatever you want with it.

Why we’re asking you to give Guvera a go is if you’re currently stealing the content from LimeWire, or BitTorrent, or any of the places that go to for peer-to-peer content: nobody is getting paid for that. Yes, you’re getting the content for free. Yes, it’s easy. But Guvera provides an opportunity to get it free, and the artist gets paid.

We get the argument all the time: “why wouldn’t people just continue using [services like Limewire and BitTorrent] because those services are so easy?”. The reality is that the people who want to use those services still can. What we’re trying to do is just implement something that creates an option for the music industry to try and monetise the free stuff that everybody’s already getting, by getting advertisers to pay for it.

How do the artists get paid?

We pay the labels for each download in exactly the same way as iTunes pays the labels for each download. It’s a pretty similar deal. It’s basically a transaction for the downloaded file, as if the file was purchased through one of those services. You just get the raw MP3 file that you can do whatever you want with. The transaction from the music label to us is exactly the same as if the end user actually bought it and somebody else paid the bill.

Which Australian labels are involved?

Of the global, major labels, we’ve got EMI and Universal, and IODA (Independent Online Distribution Alliance), a music group out of the U.S. Here in Australia specifically, we have Shock Records and a couple of smaller independent groups, but underneath your EMI, for example, you have Capital Records and Virgin Music and EMI represents about 15% of the music that exists. Universal represents about 35%+ of the music that exists.

Between just those two labels, that’s 50% of pop culture music. It’s not just your current pop. The content that we’ve got ingested into the system ranges from everything from the 1920’s up until now, so you’d be able to find a big chunk of what you’re looking for. But that in itself, the whole concept of Guvera when we launch, we know there are going to be issues with the system. We know that we have to create a balanced model: 1) We don’t have a 100% of all music. 2) If we don’t have enough advertising to support the number of users, that will limit the number of people that come in so we can guarantee the experience to as many people as possible.

Also, when you come onto Guvera, you may only be able to download 20 songs for free, and then maybe tomorrow you have to come back and download a couple more, and then maybe there is no brands the next day, and then maybe after that there is another 10 created. We see Guvera as sort of a stopping point; as we start growing and really becoming mainstream, and bigger, we have a vast array of advertising dollars to support unlimited downloads. We eventually see Guvera as a way for you to actually support the artists that you want to download their content from.

You just go check on Guvera. If it exists it’s in the catalog, and if it does, there’s a brand that pays for it and you get it for free. If it’s not, maybe you use the traditional method you would have used whether you go buy from iTunes or whatever it is you do to get the track. Think of it as a first stopping point.

I only say that because I recognise that when we launch, Guvera is not built around this idea of having 200 million people using it, and then figuring out how to generate revenue afterwards. Guvera is built on the idea that we only open the doors to as many people as we think we can give a good level of experience to. At the moment, we have 27,000 beta users, and that just keeps inching up each day as we just add more people into it, preparing for launch. We should have about 100,000 people in there at launch.

I’m interested to know how you pitch the service to advertisers. For example, what value does McDonalds gain from knowing that they have a lot of Lady GaGa fans?

At the moment, McDonalds runs an ad on television and it speaks to everybody that watches television. Or they run an ad in the newspaper or they run an ad wherever they do it and they present their message to everybody. Traditionally, you have 30 seconds to get somebody’s attention and to present your message to them by disrupting what they’re actually doing.

What we’ve presented to the advertiser is, first of all, because we know who our members are, you can say “I want to only pay for music to be downloaded by 25-30-year olds in Brisbane,” or whatever it is target that you want to promote to. So advertisers in Brisbane might pay for just that group, or regional advertisers in Melbourne could pay just for the downloads to those groups.

The secondary thing is that instead of disrupting the customer, you’re engaging them and you’re showing them the songs that fit with your brand personality. You get to say that, for example, Levis stands for a certain type of rock music. The advertisers themselves start to become this useful thing where it’s almost like a tag for a sub-genre or sub-classification of content. I know what rock music is, but do I know and understand all the different sub-genres? Whereas somebody could easily explain to me what “Jack Daniels country” meant, or what “Levis rock” meant, you know. These brands could actually present themselves as a grouping or personality subset.

The other thing is that your average person at the moment stays on each one of the channels for about 6-7 minutes. Instead of the advertiser having to try and get an ad in their face, stopping them from what they’re doing to watch an ad, they’re actually inside the brand’s world for 6-7 minutes, and they get a look at the brand’s personality. All they’re doing is they’re actually looking at a selection of music but by looking at that selection of music inside the world of that advertiser, it’s like looking at their personality.

The value proposition there for the advertiser is you’re actually allowing the customer to understand the sort of emotional or personality aspect of the brand, and then therefore look at the offers as you see fit, versus them trying to get it all rammed down your throat in 30 seconds.

On the flipside of that, can advertisers refuse to be associated with certain artists?

There are rules on three different aspects of the engine. Number one is the advertiser can say “I don’t want to be associated with any explicit content”, or “I don’t want to be associated with any rap content”, or country content, or whatever they feel sort of goes against their personality. They can also choose specific artists if they don’t ever want to distribute that artist’s track.

At the same time, we’ve got the same rules set up on the reverse side, where the actual label for the publishers or the artists can work either a track, publisher, artist or album level, and they can apply rules to say “Coca-Cola is never allowed to distribute this song” because they may have a deal with Pepsi, for example; or “no alcohol brands are ever allowed to distribute my music”, or no “brand X”, which you may think is doing something wrong in the world. Artists and labels can actually have that moral judgment. The artist can choose and apply rules, and the advertiser can choose and apply a similar set of rules.

At this stage, you’ll only be dealing with artists who are signed to labels?

Yes, that’s what we start with. All the artists that we have, and our whole catalog is obviously as big and wide as possible to try and handle everybody in there. We’re working with all the major labels and independent groups. The ultimate picture is a new unknown artist could sign up to Guvera themselves and upload their music. If their music starts becoming shared and appears on channels, then they receive a check for their music.

It creates this opportunity for unknown, unsigned artists to actually generate sales. We had a pre-event launch party in New York a few weeks ago. At the party, we had Alice Cooper standing there talking about how when he sold a few million records, his whole life changed as he became a platinum [seller], and everything about his lifestyle just branched up as a result of the sales.

Then on the flipside of that we had a girl called Marié Digby [pictured left] who had something like 80 million views on her  YouTube channel. On all accounts she would have been a platinum artist and should have been this hugely recognised, known, and her whole world should have changed as a result. But she never generated any revenue from that.

You’ve got this sort of world that even if you’re a struggling musician now and you think one day you’ll become a huge-selling musician that everybody is interested in. Chances are, you’re not going to generate any revenue any kind of physical sales. The only way you can make money is if you’re actually doing 3 shows a day, 365 days a year. Guvera represents, in that aspect, the ability for a new artist to actually start generating sales, by generating revenue for music.

I see. That sounds, cool Claes.

We’re hoping so. At the end of the day, every new business, regardless of how much we believe it’s going to work and what we know it can do, and where we see the actual issues, it’s in the hands of the customers whether this is a success and whether advertisers will support it enough to give us the dollars to promote the thing. But we feel like we’ve got everything sort of answered.

Good luck with it, and thanks for your time. I look forward to seeing how it goes for you.

Cool, thanks very much Andrew.

++

Guvera’s worldwide launch is Tuesday, March 30 2010. Try it for yourself at Guvera.com.

{ 7 comments }

Wavves recently raised $1.5M in seed funding from a group of angel investors including Ron Conway.

I’ve been thinking about the applicability of early stage investment as a model for the next generation of record labels.  Here’s a summary of my thoughts.

Similarities

Barriers To Entry

For business and music, the barriers to entry are now lower than ever.  The digital opportunity is that an artist can cheaply record an album and a start-up can cheaply build a product - the demo - to prove what they can do.  For most startup companies/bands - 50k-500k will allow for a solid first product/album/tour to get off the ground.

Product/Market Fit

When a start-up is focusing on building its product or service, it’s the same as a band writing songs and touring.  Once they have something to take to market, a start-up will iterate on that product according to the market’s response, just as a band will take a bunch of songs on tour.  A product/service without a market is a band with no fans.

Funding

What funding enables is growth that would not otherwise be possible.  Funding for servers, staff or hardware is the same as funding for live shows, touring management costs or recording equipment.  It speeds the process of bringing a higher quality product to market.

Access

Ideally, early stage investment is also about access.  Access to people who know people and things that the start-up doesn’t.   Connecting start-ups with business development contacts, legal and financial advice or new staff is the same as labels putting bands in touch with promoters, festival organisers, producers and managers.

People, not ideas.

Investors sometimes talk about investing in people, not ideas.  They admit that start-ups often change course as the product evolves.  @Ev making Twitter was the equivalent of Luke ‘Sleepy Jackson’ Steele writing ‘Walking On A Dream’.  It wasn’t in the plan, but it became much bigger than the original plan ever could have.

Differences

Funding Tied To Milestones

Providing funding relative to progress or milestones is a way to protect an investment and provide incentives for action.  This happens explicitly in early stage funding and less strictly in the current label model.

Multiple Funders

Funding rounds allow for new partners to be brought into the mix, adding new funds and skills.  There’s the potential for a future model where EMI invests in the band’s first funding round and Universal comes in as a partner on a second round after seeing tangible progress or potential.

The Board

A board gives feedback and advice.  It talks through problems and tilts projects in future directions.  This structure is clearly laid out in business and informally defined (if at all) for most bands.  I imagine many bands could benefit from a more formal advisory board.

Corporate Bodies

A company is an entity.  It’s a registrable, definable body.   Bands aren’t so much.  This poses a challenge as it increases risk for labels when the band breaks up.  There’s the same risk inherent in a business breaking up but the process for hiring and firing staff is well defined.  Dismantling and recreating a band is more difficult.

Products Vs Services

In some cases, start-ups will rely on selling services to get them through the early days.  Ultimately though, most startups prefer to build products because, if they sell at volume, they provide a greater return.  Touring and live shows are services.  The music is the product.  The difference is that bands can continue profitably doing both throughout their careers.

Questions

The Exit

Where does a label exit in the label as investor model?  Can they ever?  Or do they just take a percentage of profits ongoing?  Can labels on-sell a musical product to a multi-national?  Other labels could be future purchasers or components of the artist package - touring, publishing, back catalogue could be sold off to other entities wishing to exploit them.

Art Vs Commerce

The performance demanded of start-ups is high.  The start-up identity is associated with long hours, tireless commitment and down to the wire negotiations, launches and capital raisings.  The artist identity is associated with sitting in a dark room with a candle, strumming chords from the depths of the soul.  Can great art be made under the same intensity that’s found in start-ups?  Will long hours of practice, endless touring and repeated recording make for better music?

Stepping Away

The biggest step in the process of labels becoming early stage investors is the step away.  Early-stage investors typically don’t take an operational role with the businesses they invest in.  Conversely, labels take an operational role with the artists they invest in.  Taking labels out of artist operations and making their role purely strategic and financial could be a good thing.  New industries would emerge - label management would be eaten by an expanding concept of artist management, music marketing would become the role of outsourced agencies.  Managers would become COOs, label managers would be operational staff.  The band would be the founders, in charge of product, the heart and soul of the undertaking.  Pitchfork would become Techcrunch.  London and New York would become Boston and Silicon Valley.  Labels would shrink by 90%.  They’d just be small teams of A&R guys with some financial backup.

Funding Sources

Often the best early stage investors are those who have had their own success in business.  Could successful musicians prove to be the best source of early stage investment for new bands?  Surely Bono could have got a better return investing in young bands than he did from his investment into Elevation Partners?

+++

All this is a simplification.  But it’s worthwhile thinking about.  From some angles, labels as early stage investors might be a more efficient means of creating and profiting from great music.

{ 3 comments }

Andrew McMillen, a previous contributor here and prolific contributor elsewhere is Way Cool Jnr’s new editor.

As well as his writing as a freelance journalist, Andrew is one of the organisers of Unconvention Brisbane.

Andrew will be managing more regular posts, guest contributors and tips and tactics for musicians wanting to make the most of digital opportunities.

I’ll be staying on as a contributor and look forward to adding to the discussion on a more consistent basis.

With that - I’ll hand over to the Fuck Buttons.

Cheers.

{ 3 comments }

A Day In The Life of an A&R Scout

by Nick on December 4, 2009

EMI have just launched a new initiative to open themselves up to conversation with artists and fans.

Mark Holland is an A&R Scout for EMI and in the video above he talks about a day in the life of an A&R guy, whether he uses MySpace and his favourite Australian producers.

I think this is a good thing.  You can email him (details here) with questions.

{ 1 comment }

The first One Movement For Music Perth ran October 16-18 2009. The event was a bold combination of music industry summit, artist showcase festival, and local artist street performance. Think of it as a nascent SXSW for the Southern Hemisphere.

Between July and October 2009, Nick and I ran One Movement’s blog and social media presence.

Located at onemovementword.com, the One Movement blog became the central hub of online activity surrounding the event. We published interviews, festival announcements, guest posts, a ‘four questions with‘ series, and event coverage.

From July-October, traffic looked like this:

One Movement promoters Sunset Events handed over the event Facebook and Twitter accounts to us in mid-September.

By the end of October, our Facebook fans looked like this:

And our Twitter followers looked like this: (Source: TwitterCounter)

So, what worked for us when blogging for One Movement?

  1. Short, sharp posts that featured the input of festival artists. The ‘four questions‘ series proved particularly popular and attracted the attention of the fanbases surrounding the dozens of bands we profiled. (Witness the Big Day Out blog successfully replicating our formula here)
  2. The guest post by Kyle Bylin of Hypebot, and the couple of One Movement-related placements we coordinated on their site.
  3. Our Indonesian music industry feature, which was the second most popular entry on the blog.
  4. Embedding music videos wherever possible to encourage visitors to stay on-site. This was especially useful during ‘four questions‘, as we asked every respondent to name their favourite song of the week, and included the music videos where we could.
  5. Seeding exclusive content among fan communities. This involved posting links to the blog articles on artists’ Facebook pages, fan forums, and Last.FM profiles as soon as relevant articles were published. We also used artists’ Twitter usernames where possible to notify them of the new content, and encourage them to retweet the content.

Why did these work?

  1. Put simply, people want to read artists’ opinions. They also want to know what artists are listening to; what’s influencing their work. The ‘favourite song of the week’ offered a quick snapshot into the artists’ mind, and offered a talking point for their fans.
  2. Hypebot is a popular music news destination, and my relationship with associate editor Kyle Bylin ensured that he directed traffic off-site to provide OMW with the exclusive on his latest article, which we used as a guest post.
  3. Indonesians are interested in reading about analyses of their music industry, since it appears that such articles are few and far between. Check out the response on Indonesian band The Super Insurgent Group of Intemperance Talent’s Facebook page.
  4. Most users will stay on the blog to watch the embedded videos, which increases ‘time  on site’ metrics. And obviously, a combination of image, video and text makes for a visually appealing blog.
  5. We decided early into the ‘four questions’ series that it’d be valuable to make each artists’ fan communities aware of the new content by posting the link on the most popular Facebook page/group, their Last.FM profile, and by including the artist as an @reply in our One Movement Twitter updates whenever we posted new content. This ensured that any switched-on fan (or fansite/forum operator) could easily find new content relevant to their artist, and reblog it wherever possible.

Facebook and Twitter

Once we were in charge of the event Facebook and Twitter, we built communities by posting daily updates based on the blog content, as well as responding to @replies and Wall posts as they happened.

Project Outcomes

What did this mean for One Movement?

  • Within four months, a thousands-strong community of passionate music fans built around a new event on the Australian festival calendar.
  • Accolades surrounding the construction and ongoing maintenance of the first popular blog built around an Australian music festival.
  • The ability to listen to, and learn directly from these engaged fanbases. (see below; click for full-size)

{ 2 comments }

In October 2009, I interviewed Michael Entwisle [pictured below right] for a Rolling Stone story. He’s the founder of Genero.TV, a website that allows fans to create music videos for the chance to win prizes and produce bands’ official videos.

Michael, how did the business idea for Genero.TV come about?

The first time I thought of it was sitting at the Tropfest short film festival many years ago and I thought that something similar involving music videos might work. The idea started as an annual music video competition where winning videos for each song would be screened at an outdoor event where some of the featured artists would also play live. That was well before the growth in online video though and after a few years on the shelf the idea evolved into the online business that you see today.

Which elements of the ‘fan-sourcing music videos’ concept appealed to you?

It has a lot of appeal from a number of different angles really. For artists and labels they involve their fans in the creative process which is a great way to connect with them and to strengthen the artist/fan relationship. It also generates more music videos that can be shared online to help promote the artist and their music and one of them can be used as the official music video.

For video creators it’s a platform to share their music video talents and be rewarded for it. We’re really hoping to help advance their careers as well by giving them an opportunity to make official music videos for international artists that can then be seen on TV, online etc. and that’s obviously going to help build their profile internationally.

For fans it means there are going to be a lot more alternate music videos they can watch so they’re not limited to the one official video that might not have been for everyone. It gives them the power to choose which video they want to watch when listening to the song on their computer, phone, iPod etc.

Who did you target first, bands or labels?

It was really a mixture of the artist’s management and the labels depending on the specific artist really. We wanted to put together a diverse group of artists from around the world for the first competition round and it was really about who we could first get in touch with for each artist we wanted to feature. We had a fantastic response from both labels and artists/management so we’ll go with that approach for the next round too.

Can you explain the business model that the site operates on?

We’ll initially be looking to sponsorship as the main revenue stream. That could be in the form of prize contributions, sponsorship of song competitions and overall site sponsorship. We haven’t focused on that yet though so we could concentrate on making the first competition round as successful as possible. The business model will definitely evolve over time as well – there are a lot of plans and ideas we have that we’ll implement down the track.

Who funds the site?

It’s all funded by us internally at the moment.

Is Genero.TV profitable since its launch in early September 2009?

No, but we were happy to launch without focusing on profitability for now. We’re comfortable we have a viable business model and if we can make the site as successful as possible on all other fronts then we’ll be profitable before long.

Do you view the Genero concept as just a way for bands to save cash on video production, or was there a more profound reasoning behind the decision?

Definitely not. Saving money was really one of the last benefits we identified for an artist or label and hopefully the music industry agrees. From our perspective the main benefits for our featured artists are to allow fans into the creative process and to deepen the engagement with them. More engaged fans are going to be the ones who will pay more money for concert tickets, merchandise etc. and those elements are obviously really important revenue streams for artists and labels today.

We also think that the old model of producing one video for a song was outdated and really didn’t take advantage of the growth in online video being produced and watched. Getting a larger amount of quality videos made for a song means there is a lot more content that can be shared online to help promote the artist. One video alone has the power today to be shared between millions of people on the strength of the video alone and that’s what we’re trying to help the music industry tap into.

Do you think that fan-sourcing the creative content of music videos devalues the music video medium?

No not at all. There is always going to be official music videos being made and we see this as really being complementary to that. Labels often want to position an artist in a certain way and an officially produced music video is a great way of doing that. It’s also sometimes important for the artist to be featured in the video so people can get a feel for who they are visually and big budget music videos can’t really be replicated through this approach either so they’ll still be around as well.

What we’re doing really shouldn’t be seen as a disruptive model for the music video industry. We’re hoping it just becomes a complementary platform that suits some artists, songs and labels. By allowing people around the world to also showcase their music video talents we think it will acts as a catalyst for the music video industry in general to help improve the creativity and quality across the board.

What’s next for Genero.TV?

At the moment we’re really just focusing on making our core business work as well as it can so our artists, labels, video makers and fans love what they get through us. Over the next few months there are a number of things we’ll look to do to improve the current offering and that’s really the priority.

Down the track there are a number of other opportunities that we’ll look at to expand the business but we’ll wait and see which ones make the most sense once we’re happy enough with the current service.

Michael can be contacted via email and Twitter. Read filmmaker Paul Rankin’s counterpoint to the notion of fan-sourced music videos.

{ 0 comments }

Tuesday, 10th November 2009. 7am. A phone call wakes me, but I let it ring out. Listening back to the voicemail later, I learn that it was Alex White from Next Big Sound calling from the States to verify the account I registered for Hunz, the Brisbane indietronic act who I co-manage.

Next Big Sound is a music analytics site that allows artists, managers, labels and the public to see who’s listening to and interacting with bands online.

Alex, I caught your interview on Gaebler. It seems like the site was in its early stages at the time. What’s changed with Next Big Sound since then?

That interview was conducted roughly a year ago and things have changed quite a bit! Our old site let anyone play the role of a record mogul and “sign” bands to their own fantasy record label. We then awarded points based on the number of people that signed a band after you to reward those who were able to spot the best talent before anyone else.

After a little less than a year we decided that we no longer had an interest in fighting to become an online streaming music destination site. However, the high-level idea of the initial site still got us very excited - how does a band become famous? How does a band go from 50 plays a day online to headlining a nationwide tour? We decided to change directions in June of this year to a more encompassing site. We now measure the growth and popularity of roughly half a million artists across the major web sites where people are already engaging with these artists.

I’ll re-ask a question from the interview, then: who are your main competitors, and how do you compete against them?

There are definitely a handful of people working in this area but fortunately we were early out of the gate with our public launch in August. To be honest we are focusing much more on building out what we hear from our users than what our competition is doing. I’m on the phone with regular early users of NBS every single day. Everything we are doing is so new, hell the list of band’s on Twitter a year ago was about a page long.

Can you describe some of the challenges you’ve faced with NBS so far?

Beyond the traditional startup challenges of being taken seriously, raising capital, and hiring a competent team we are struggling with the massive scale we are working on. We are quickly approaching half a billion data points. That’s in less than 6 months and we haven’t even released the YouTube integration.

Another challenge was dealing with media, which I’d learned first hand in college when I ran the biggest student group at Northwestern. We had a huge budget to book and produce acts like Kanye West, Counting Crows, Flight of the Conchords etc. and I was frequently interviewed for all the college publications. I quickly learned that after an hour-long interview they would take the stupidest thing you said and make that the center of the piece. When you’re words are published immediately to your peers, and they make fun of every quote in the article, you learn to think carefully about what you say and how you want to come across.

In your mind, what are the most important conversations within the music industry taking place online, and where are they taking place?

I’ve been living in this space for about a year so have kind of figured out how I like to keep up with things. I read Digital Music News every morning. Someone sent me a dashboard that The Orchard made on Netvibes that provides a great overview that I also skim each morning. I subscribe to dozens of industry blogs; Lefsetz, Music Think Tank, Hypebot, Derek Sivers, The New Rockstar Philosophy and of course Way Cool Jnr!

I appreciated the personal touch when you called me to verify my account. Do you take this approach for every account on the site?

Yeah, sorry again I called at 7am Australia time! I thought it was 9am. I suck at figuring out time zones.

Hundreds of artists have now verified accounts so I can’t call every single one, but I do try to touch base with as many as possible.

How did you decide upon this tactic?

It was never a tactic in the business plan, we aren’t that smart. We actually only built the verified accounts program after it was heavily requested. I saw all these requests coming in from individuals with their contact info and often they would ask a question or say how much time NBS has been saving them. I started calling a few and it led to very interesting and insightful conversations. People are all super surprised that someone from a website actually called them!

It’s all part of being close with our users. The industry is changing every week and people want to get a handle on how they can maintain their livelihood and thrive in the new world. We haven’t released our premium paid features so it’s hard to say its impact on us financially but it’s not about that at this point. I love talking to managers, bands and labels about the challenges they face and how we can help them.

Stepping away from the site - how do you find new music?

I use Hype Machine and We Are Hunted all the time. I subscribe to blogs like Crazed Hits and Kings of A&R.

I’ve fallen back in love with Tuesdays because I stream all the new releases on Lala each week (you can stream any song once in it’s entirety) and I read the reviews on All Music Guide. I then buy the albums I need to listen to over and over again.

It’s awesome plugging new artists into our system and tracking their rise.

Do you have a daily routine?

When I’m not on the road I like to wake up at 7 or 8 and read all the industry news over breakfast. If I’m feeling motivated I’ll go for a run through on one of the beautiful trails out here in Boulder, CO. Then I’ll usually head down to the office for calls, meetings and work late into the night.

How often do you get the chance to listen to new music through the site?

We blast music all day and night. Well we just launched a verified accounts program that allows artists and industry folk to verify the profiles for their artists. I get all those requests so I try to listen to as many as I can. I can’t wait for us to build our own fastest-rising charts from the data we are collecting, but we have a lot of work to do before we get there.

Get in touch with Alex via email or Twitter, and go try out Next Big Sound for yourself.

{ 1 comment }

Nick O’Byrne is the 25 year old General Manager of The Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR). AIR is a non-government, non-profit industry peak body representing independent labels, distributors and musicians. Nick commented on last week’s post on labels servicing mp3 blogs, so we invited him to answer a few questions.

Nick, you mentioned that you targeted music bloggers to vote in the AIR Awards. Why?

The AIR Awards aren’t a popularity contest; nominated artists are shortlisted when they appear in the AIR Charts but then judged on artistic and career achievement. We know that there’s a lot of widely read Australian bloggers and I can only imagine how much music they get in their inboxes. They’re more likely to have their finger on the pulse than traditional media and they’re in a great position to vote intelligently, with perspective and a good overarching view of independent music in our country.

We also recognised that there’s a bunch of Australian blogs that are quite influential (i know dozens of industry reps that check in on Who The Hell on a daily basis). Blogs are a valuable avenue for media coverage for indie artists and as an organisation that represents independent labels and musicians, it’d be downright stupid of us not to engage them.

That said, we’re not ignoring traditional media, we also asked a lot of broadcast and print media to vote, as well as retailers, AIR members and broad spectrum of people working throughout the Australian industry.

Why did you ignore label blogs?

We did invite AIR member labels to vote, just approached them as AIR members rather than bloggers.

How many label blogs do you know of in Aus?

If you check out Dew Process, Elefant Traks, Spunk, Head Records, Love and Mercy, Popboomerang and Future Classic you’ll see that they present their news in blog format and often use a blogging platform. A lot of labels blur the lines between blog and website.

Not many label websites in Australia go the extra mile of including extra non-musical content just because they think their adoring public will dig it… (They ain’t Matablogs or Sub-Pop yet). Maybe they don’t feel it’s their place. Room 40 is an exception but I suspect that’s because Lawrence English who runs the label is an artist too.

Anyway, doesn’t a record label just sell music? Isn’t that personal touch meant to be the domain of the artist? There’s some cracking artist blogs out there and I imagine a lot of them are set up at the behest of management and labels. Most fans have an attachment to the artist, not the label. I’m not sure that many Australian labels have reached the cult status of say, a Warp Records, Kitsune or Epitaph.

I’m a big fan of EMI’s The In Sound, particularly their A&R dropbox. What a great way to find new music, what a great way for a label (especially a major) to stop looking like a monolith and start engaging with the music community! I do wonder how much music is delivered to them through the dropbox though… do people use it, do thousands of people use it?

You used our top 25 list of Australian music blogs as a starting point. Which other sites took your fancy outside of that list? Would you mind sharing your findings with us?

Just had a look at your top 25 again. You’ve almost got me covered!

I Am Faux Pas is one of the most entertaining and attractive blogs I’ve seen. Silence Is A Rhythm too, A-Reminder (even though it’s not Australian anymore), Cyclic Defrost (sort of a website more than a blog though innit?) and Twelve Major Chords… all fantastic.

Of those not in the top 25, the Home and Hosed blog is great and I like to read anything that Clem Bastow writes or posts. Besides that, I spend a bit of time reading music biz, marketing and tech blogs. Again though, there aren’t many of them based in Australia. Those blogs are my first stop when finding news regarding online activity and industry developments that may effect the independent sector.

You wrote that you pay more heed to recommendations appearing in a favorite blog than you do the printed music press. Why is this?

I tend to like music that doesn’t get much coverage in the mainstream press. It’s not meant to be a reflection on the quality of journalism in my local broadsheet, in fact I used to read music reviews in magazines and newspapers vociferously. These days though, I’ll rarely find a review of my favorite niche artists in EG (The Age’s Entertainment Guide), it’s not that they’ve changed, I have.

It’s also a fact that the web is a better platform for music criticism. Read a review, listen to the song and watch the clip. In a very short space of time you can read a review, decide whether you like the music and (importantly) decide if you agree with the reviewer. If you like the reviewer you’ll return to them for more recommendations in the future.

Do you think there are any gaps or weaknesses in the Australian music blog community?

More industry specific music tech and music marketing blogs would be fantastic in Australia.

Also though, I’d love a really good blog about the Melbourne music community/scene (that’s where I live). I want regular pictures, reviews, discussion, issues, funny stuff, issues facing music in Melbourne. (Brisbane’s got Before Holywood which is great) If anyone wants to start a Melbourne version, I’ll contribute for you! If you don’t want to start one then I’ll try and set one up myself.

It occurs to me that there’s a great opportunity for Australian street press publications (Inpress, Beat, the Brag, Drum etc) to maintain their own blogs and fill that local scene blog niche, it seems such an easy fit, they’ve already got most of the content prepared on a weekly basis.

What’s thrilling your ears this week, and why?

Oh Mercy - Privileged Woes: No tricks, no gimmicks, nothing but great songs and great performances. They’re very charming live too. The Go-Betweens of 2009.

Oh Mercy: Pitchfork wielders.

The Nation Blue - Rising Waters: Smart, visceral, raucus and worldclass punk rock… I reckon they’re one of the most underrated bands in Australia.

Also, while I’ve got your attention, Chasm and Vida Sunshyne is (as far as I know) the first non-hip hop focussed album released by Obese Records. It’s dubstep/urban/reggae music and deliciously-produced, I feel like I’m going to play it a lot over summer!

You can read the AIR Independent Music Blog if you want… it’s at the AIR Charts website and features great Australian Independent Music that we’ve stumbled upon and posted.

How do you find new music?

I follow a lot of indie labels on twitter and if I’ve got a spare second, I’ll check out whichever act they’re tweeting about. I also read blogs; usually the name of a band reaches a critical mass where I just can’t ignore them anymore so I check them out. Then there’s good old word of mouth, an enthusiastic “dude, you’ve gotta check this out!” goes a long way.

Also, sometimes I’ll just take a risk, I buy a lot of music so sometimes I feel like going online and looking for some obscure Punk, Electronica or Jazz to buy it just to challenge myself… I’m always looking to remain musically stimulated! eMusic - which I don’t think you can use in Australia anymore - used to be great for that.

You can follow AIR/Nick on Twitter (@ozindies). More about AIR below.

Independent music is estimated to fluctuate between a 25% and 35% market share of Australian music sales. At the same time, independent music makes up approximately 80% of the total number of Australian releases. AIR represents a broader spectrum of genres and niches than major labels and a market share equal to, or more than at least two of the Australian major labels.

While the strength and variety of independent music here is heartening, it remains under-represented at a political level (the major’s 50% representation on PPCA and ARIA boards will effectively veto any decision that suits hundreds of smaller labels over the four majors) and is often neglected and undervalued by media and multi-nationals looking to license independent content. (MySpace music’s launch in Australia without licensing Merlin’s Australian member labels and AIR’s current collective bargaining negotiations with MTV are perfect examples).

It is AIR’s job to improve business conditions for indies through providing advocacy, collective licensing, support, advice, professional development, service provision, business networks and publicity for the independent sector. AIR publishes the Australian Independent Charts (The Jagermeister AIR Charts) and holds the annual Australian Independent Music Awards (The Jagermeister AIR Awards).


Jagermeister: AIR rider-approved.

You can buy Tickets to the Jagermeister AIR Awards at Ticketek. Less than $30 to see Dappled Cities, Bertie Blackman, CW Stoneking, Bridezilla and more… Plus some of the sponsor’s product thrown in as a bonus!

{ 1 comment }

This is a guest post by Paul Rankin, a Brisbane-based filmmaker.

There appears to be a growing trend in the filmmaking world of the Make Us An Ad (or Music Video), Win A Prize style competition. The caveat of course is that you only win a prize if your video is selected, the rest of the entrants (i.e. the losers) don’t get their costs covered, but can sleep soundly knowing that their work and valuable ideas are now the property of some corporate entity. Overlooking the fact that these competitions are judged by people who lack the intelligence to know the value of concept creation (i.e. the importance of sitting down with a client and shaping the concept until both parties feel it is the best concept with which to proceed) it speaks of a deplorably dismissive attitude towards the value of the work of filmmakers.


Paul Rankin.

A friend recently directed me toward one such music video competition, Genero.TV, its point of difference being that there are sixteen songs, each from a different artist, to choose from. However, there remained only a single cash prize of $4,000. (There were some incidental prizes like DVDs, the total value of which is not worth detailing.) This means that fifteen other bands get a free music video, hand-picked from the selection of entries, which becomes a promotional tool (arguably a band’s most useful promotional tool) with no revenue going to the filmmakers, the ones who did all the work. That is to say, while your music video may be good enough to have the honour of Official Video bestowed upon it, it’s not good enough to warrant pay. There’s also every likelihood that the bands will then sell the music videos on iTunes, the revenue from which you’ll never see.

Bend over, assume the position.

But of course there is the one lucky winner who walks away with $4,000. Let’s do the math here: the best music video out of sixteen (not including the unsuccessful entries) deserves only $4,000? If the video is going to beat out the competition, it’s probably going to cost — that old chestnut: you can’t have good, cheap, and fast, only two — so $4,000 might just cover costs. Where’s the actual prize? Let’s assume that one-sixteenth of all music videos are great, and considering that in order to beat out however many other entries, the winning entry must be really great — are we to believe that the going rate for making a really great music video is $4,000? I must have just fallen really fucking far down the rabbit hole because that doesn’t cover much in the way of rent and food. And remember that these competitions are being judged by people who lacked the foresight to see any value in developing a concept with the filmmakers, so they’re probably not great judges on the whole. So, what happens to the other entrants, who, in all likelihood, are more talented and have better ideas than the victor? Well they’ve just wasted a bunch of time and money that they could have spent making something that directly furthers their career, something that they’re truly passionate about, that adds to the world rather than markets to it. And free from the guidelines of the competition, these filmmakers could have been making something that allows them true freedom of artistic expression, because let’s face it, the opportunities for personal artistic expression shrink dramatically when you’re making a film with someone else’s money.

Fan-sourcing music videos: opportunity, or rip-offortunity?

The counter argument is that the filmmakers are gaining “exposure” (a term that should be understood with such sarcasm that the quotation marks should be a mandatory fixture). Sure, maybe for the winner the champagne flows and the lucrative offers come rolling in. Maybe. Probably not. The “exposure” thing doesn’t make sense to me; I’m a subscriber to the Field Of Dreams business model: “if you build it, they will come”, and if you build something great (the kind of one-in-sixteen great) you won’t have to worry about some middleman providing this elusive “exposure”. Instead these style of competitions are unscrupulously peddling the filmmaking equivalent of the Get Rich Quick Scheme — they’ll provide the ready-and-willing recognisable brand (be it commercial or artistic) on which you can piggyback your talent and ability, and fast-track your way to filmmaking stardom. Just like those pyramid schemes, these should be avoided. Working on spec is nothing new, it’s not working for free, it’s the simple exchange of work for scarce opportunity. However, in these competitions there is no guarantee of opportunity — if you win, you receive opportunity but if you don’t, you’ve just done a whole lot of work for free.

But it’s not that much work. Music videos and TVCs, these are just things that one throws together in a weekend, right? Whether or not those who create these competitions understand the amount of work that quality music videos and TVCs demand (they likely don’t) is irrelevant — these competitions push a belief into the public consciousness that filmmaking is a throwaway hobby, something done in one’s downtime from earning money at a “real job”. The idea is that it’s great for the winner and no great loss for the losers, because filmmaking is a cheap and easy pastime, and hey, it’s just another weekend.

Paul Rankin is a Brisbane-based filmmaker. His latest work is ‘Shakeytown’ for Brisbane indie pop band I Heart Hiroshima (embedded below).

{ 3 comments }

Is Music Getting Better?

by Nick on November 6, 2009

This is a guest post by Julian Ensbey.  Julian is a lawyer in London and one of the smartest people I have met.  I am very grateful for his thoughts, which are in response to my past assertion that music has never been better.  Julian puts forward a framework for measuring whether this is true.

The question of whether today’s music is better than that of any particular past era is one of those lazy lines of enquiry that can pad out twenty minutes of conversation between two fans without ever going anywhere.  Just like most conversations about sport (Punter v Sachin? 2006 Storm v 1998 Broncos?), the point of the conversation is ultimately for the participants to show off how much they know, rather than any expectation that the debate will go anywhere.


Punter. Sachin. Who’ll it be?

At least in music though, the question matters. The entire intellectual property law regime that defines the music industry depends on it.  Governments grant musicians a statute-enforced monopoly on the commercial distribution of their music only because the “State” accepts that it provides an “incentive” for the production of better music.

The logic seems simple. If talented musicians can cash in on their talents because they know they are entitled to sue anyone who distributes their music without permission, then in theory, those talented musicians have an incentive to work harder and turn down other careers. They can be confident their labour will be rewarded. The consumer pays a little more at the register, but if it wasn’t for the intellectual property protection, then high quality music would never be made and all of society would be worse off.


Pictured: modern man without music.

Is this hypothesis actually true? Much more than most other areas protected by intellectual property legislation - research into herbicides, design of microconductors - performing music has enormous intrinsic appeal. Many more garages are filled with talentless rock bands than talentless electrical engineers.  Perhaps money is not the key motivation.

It is true that musicians who earn enough to be able to work on their music full time have a big advantage and will, on average, produce more or better music than those who have to keep a day job. But beyond a minimum level of financial security, does more cash for the musicians actually lead to better music?  Would Kanye have thrown it all in to become a merchant banker if his only revenue was from gigs?


Kanye: letting Taylor finish.

The implications of this should be obvious. The debate over intellectual property rights and pirated music becomes redundant if no link can be shown. If there is no benefit to society, the government has no justification for keeping the laws on the books, let alone enforcing them.

Yet, there is no precise way to measure if music is getting better.  It is inherently a subjective assessment. Even if a measure existed for a statistical assessment, the number of external variables to control for is vast.

Nonetheless, because the question matters, it is important to try. Even an imprecise measure could inform the debate.

This disclaimer in mind, here is one attempt at how to approach the issue. Arguably, one legitimate measure of the quality of music is how many people go to see live performances.  Possibly it is the only one - radio is too often background noise and record sales numbers are undermined by piracy.


The crowd at your show. The only true measure?

Attendance at live music has risen in recent years. This in itself means little. It may reflect changes in income and lifestyle preferences rather than the quality of music. For example, it seems that the GFC has reversed the trend. A second measure is needed to control for these external variables.

One suitable control might be the live performances of old music - covers bands, opera and classical recitals. More or less, changes in attendance at these performances will be driven by income, lifestyle preferences and recessions, as the underlying performance is about the same. This change in attendance should be a rough measure of the impact of the changes in everything affecting the audience except the quality of the music.

If this holds true, then the percentage increase in attendance at new music, less the percentage increase in attendance at old music, is a rough proxy for the change in quality of music.

A graph of the change in the quality of music shown alongside a graph of changes in revenue would show a measure of the relationship between changes in revenue and changes in quality. If the lines on the graph don’t move together, then the case for copyright looks much weaker. If they track one another, then we should all care a lot more about what a post-piracy revenue model might look like.

{ 1 comment }