famebook™

Saving Aspiration - Time for a new musical uprising?

Prompted by a Quora question below:

How will music labels make money, if at all, over the next five years?

As a manager for much of my career, who started literally in the back of a van with one act to working fifteen years later with some iconic names, I can say with some confidence that the big problem for the industry today is not the method of delivery and new ways to monetize this long tail model; it is the destruction of aspiration which has not been properly appreciated yet. Kids playing air guitar in their bedroom dream of being rockstars, living in mansions and ruling the world of popular culture. They don't dream of a viral hit on YouTube or Facebook, whilst they still pack the shelves at the mall and the former take the lions share of the meagre spoils of their effort. The idea that their page on Facebook will ever stand out from the crowd is of course an oxymoron by definition and if their only route is via a TV show and phone votes, then their music can never be considered a new wave, it will always be a sanitised and manufactured career based on back catalogue covers as a measure of their ability and not a great route for break out artists who are doing something original and creating their own momentum.

Artists need a head to the global long tail business of today to aspire to and it doesn't exist (yet - ;-), rather in the current evolution, the old ones are being destroyed & those 'mountains' are being flattened, to crowd level by those that would control the income stream via phone votes and social control systems.

We need a new break out wave of popular culture like Punk or Hip Hop which transcends all the current business mechanisms out there, driven by the consumer and on the back of which the industry re-aligns itself and does what art is supposed to do; which is to reflect the mood of generations not just line the pockets of those who think the chicken came before the egg, but the artists themselves and our cultures in general.

Do you really want your musical choice in the future to be chosen by phone vote and based on an architected selection of acts whose life expectancy will be in single digits in terms of albums if that? Fast food, fast music... what next? You may like the occasional Maccy D's, but what if that's all you could eat?

Personally I have faith that popular uprising in music is timeless and I would love to see an artist or band take off, that acts as an antidote to the current status quo and rather than see millions of people waste their dwindling money on phone voting, lotteries and virtual goods, they buy that artists' material directly and watch him/ her or them get rich. That is the only way you truly know you made that artist happen and make aspiration for future musicians mean anything.

If you think I'm wrong, then ask yourself which artists of today will be remembered by your great grand children. In my opinion they will still talk about The Beatles, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe etc. etc. but not many of this generation I venture. #saveaspiration - all roads lead to Famebook of course ;-)

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times!"

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times". Peter Kafka - All Things D

My response:

Peter,

Nice article. I understand Bruce’s response above, but imho it’s reactionary and though in the moment may have merit, it is based on too narrow a vision.

The latter ‘vision’ being the operative word…Richard has seen that traditional media isn’t necessarily broken, it is just going through a Star Trek style transporter and is still all in pieces mid journey. His model is based on the notion that all the pieces will still come back together on content and we are gradually seeing the evidence of that materialise.

DM have placed themselves at the forefront of that whilst all eyes are still on pure user-generated models and cheap self-serve advertising. DM are the biggest single contributor of content to You Tube for example.

If FB holds a valuation of 6.5bn which has evidently decreased from more than twice than that, then in a recession, my bets are on a more modest but tangible valuation slowly going upwards. DM’s assets may be of varying IP value, but they are genuinely all owned and paid for. The big social networks, only ‘own’ the inconvenience of their users migrating away, not the content itself.

I hope Richard hold’s on to his baby for a few years so his vision is truly born out. Personally I’d invest in whatever he does now or next!

Jan

More information about Demand Media at Demand Media Website

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Attn: Jeffrey Bewkes @ Time Warner - The answer is right under your nose!

According to Wikipedia today, Time Warner Inc. is the THIRD largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world, behind News Corporation and Walt Disney and I have to confess, (which some may say is a little strange), that ever since I was child, I have dreamt that I might one day build a company which I might sell to one of the above for gazillions and perhaps earn myself a seat on the board, where I may then have the opportunity to contribute on a much bigger scale again, to the kind of magic I grew up on... for my children and grandchildren. I'm afraid I didn't dream of being a footballer or astronaut rather, I have always wanted to make dreams come true for others and be at the heart of one of the few industries that defines and challenges who we as human beings are.

If you write down a list of say 20 of the biggest moments in your life and then think of the music that you associate with those moments; or the news at the time; the hollywood star of the day...etc.etc., it is nigh on impossible that one of these names isn't responsible for providing a backdrop to those moments in some capacity.

So what's the point?

Because ideas are two a penny and execution is king, together with the fact that I have my own agenda for our current business which down the line I believe will realise the dreams mentioned above anyway; I believe it is in all our interests that the dreammakers like Time Warner, Walt Disney etc.  survive, thrive and preserve all that experience and history and not allow the current media equivalent of an ice age to destroy them.

In less than ten years time, it will be the 100th anniversary of Warner Brothers and this year on 4 February 2009, Time Warner posted a $16.03 billion loss for the final quarter of 2008, compared with a $1.03 billion profit for the same three months of 2007. This doesn't bode well for my shamelessly stated ambitions above in about ten years time, so here (finally) is what I think could make at least part of the difference...

TIME - The media landscape is changing at break neck speed and as every day goes by, the previously incumbent positions taken for granted by the old guard of media conglomerates are being eroded right in front of our eyes as the likes of Google, Facebook et al plant their flags on ever growing swathes of the new frontier. Some have tried to buy into this space, but not necessarily in the right places and most importantly, the world's audiences will, especially in brand recognition terms, more and more be thinking Google, Microsoft and Facebook first and Warners and Disney et al as subsequent and hardly recognisable mere content providers, assuming you can still provide that content in such a way  so as to keep your brands visible.

The one thing that every individual on the planet owns and we media creators buy, borrow or steal from them is their 'TIME'. Social networking, communication, entertainment, news, work, play, sleep, love, family, travel etc. etc. is all routed in TIME, and the one thing that noone has yet done successfully is stake a claim on helping 'me' or one of my fellow human beings manage our TIME.

I'm one of those people who, for better or worse, always looks objectively at everything, so to me this seems a pretty obvious opportunity to use a brand you already own to create perhaps the most appealing and unifying platforms possible and cement your future in the process. People will always assume AOL still means America Online only and Bebo, simply can't in its current guise hope to do anything other than spiral in the wrong direction. Imagine however a single online window, which I can log into and work, connect, stay informed, play, buy, be entertained, learn, give, create and so on...but above all be somewhere I can trust to make the very most of my TIME.

Now I know that Time as a magazine format has a long history of its own and so the thought that the brand might be sacrificed for a higher cause will scare many of the old school, but let's face it, losing a brand name in favour of a refreshing new alternative is better than losing their job surely?

I'm not about to describe what this should all look like, because I'd expect to be paid a king's ransom for that, and in a quixotic sense, I'd prefer to see this as a collaboration between otherwise competing content providers or even some of the current enemy too. I can in any event see, as clear as day, a vision for a brand that is right under your nose, defines in itself the necessary journey you so need to take and ensures that on your 100th anniversary for Warners, your wider reputation becomes again one that; my son as he grows up and then his children, still believe is synonymous with trust, magic and that noblest of all things; serving the human condition.

We are not far off our TV's and PC's being one and the same, and all our media will be cloud based and delivered at will wherever we are and whenever we want. Whose name is going to be on the screen when we turn on or log in???... I personally wouldn't mind if 'TIME' was one of the options... but it will take a few phone calls and some pretty radical new thinking before that happens I suspect!....and if you need some suggestions for how to re-align the magazine as well, just give me a call.

Jan