Archive for the ‘Social media’ Category

h1

How to reach 380,000 music fans in a week – YouTube

January 15, 2010

The brilliant, brilliant video for This Too Shall Pass, by OK Go, has been viewed more than 381,000 times in the week since it was posted on YouTube.

Here is the video (follow the link – it cannot be embedded): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKythlXAIY

X-Factor winner Joe McElderry sold around 450,000 copies to reach number two in the highly contested Christmas UK music charts.

That was almost certainly one of the most promoted releases in the UK in 2009, yet it was ultimately pipped by Killing In The Name by Rage Against The Machine after a social media campaign that was probably skillfully – i.e. quietly – encouraged by the record label.

Social media is becoming such an important part of music promotion, it may be close to becoming more effective than traditional promotional activity.  A band I know, Georgia Wonder, are amazing at promoting their music entirely via social media.  They even funded their most recent single, Destroy, via Twitter.  Remarkable, and brilliant.

I’m now really looking forward to another of my favourite bands, Archie Bronson Outfit, to see how well they can leverage their large MySpace and Facebook followings.  Their new videos (totally home-made by the band members) look superb.  Here is their trailer:

(Disclaimer – I also know Archie Bronson Outfit, though the only personal gain I can expect by promoting their new videos is – if I am VERY lucky – a pint at some point).

Posted via web from The good, the bad and the ugly

Advertisements
h1

Zuckerberg has lost touch

January 11, 2010

On watching this interview, I was struck by the naivete of Mark Zuckerberg’s view of the world.

The Good

Zuckerberg, the 25-year-old CEO of Facebook, argues that privacy is ‘no longer a social norm’.  It’s an interesting proposition, and one that deserves exploration.  Are people’s views of privacy changing?  Was privacy ever a ‘social norm’, and if so what does that mean?  Is there  evidence now that public views of privacy have changed?

Interesting questions.

The Bad

The problem is that these are not simple quesions, and it is unclear whether Zuckerberg’s view is based on anything more than his particular 25-years’ experience.  The closest thing he has to an argument is this:

When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was, ‘why would I want to put any information on the internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?’.  Then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way, and just all these different services that have people sharing all this information.

It’s not an argument, it’s a personal anecdote, followed by a platitude about the growth of blogging and ways to share information online, reaching a conclusion about the views of all the people, presumably, in the world.

Zuckerberg’s argument is further flawed because it is so obviously self-serving.  In a way, no matter the validity of what he is saying (and it is not valid), he of all people just can’t credibly say it.  If Facebook wants to make this case, it should find ways to come across as objective.  Let others say it, perhaps, or provide evidence.

The Ugly

Facebook’s decisions about my privacy, which are taken from time to time without my permission, are simply out of my control.  That is not the same as my not expecting privacy – which is what Zuckerberg is implying by his statement about social norms.  Perhaps he has some evidence that paints me as abnormally focused on privacy.  If so – let’s see it.

The long-term issue here is trust.  The more Facebook fosters distrust among its users, the sooner they will leave at the first genuine opportunity.  Don’t get me wrong – Facebook currently is the best platform in the market for doing what it does.  But it won’t be forever, and it’s popularity can disappear as quickly as it has grown.  Time to go back to having a ‘beginner’s mind’, Mark, and start listening.

Posted via web from The good, the bad and the ugly

h1

Blogging could disappear as quickly as it has risen

November 18, 2009

 

Poll from PR Week: the PR industry should not trample all over social media

When something comes along and breathes life into a staid industry, but has not had time to establish deep roots, we should be careful to preserve it.

Blogging has challenged the media. Every week, bloggers rail against sloppy journalism. For perhaps the first time, there is a democratic and immediate response to any weak-minded argument that makes it onto the pages of a newspaper. It’s David and Goliath stuff, and its refreshing.

Nobody knows how the relationship between blogs and media will develop.  So far, it seems bloggers are becoming more skilled and better resourced, potentially challenging journalists. Meanwhile, most journalists I know are being asked to blog as well as write (or, from their perspective, being forced to write more for the same money!).

But the critical difference is that bloggers have not been confined by commercial interests from calling things the way they see them. This is liberating, and is something the mainstream media, with its vested interests, can never hope to compete with entirely.

Which is why its disappointing that it appears blogging is becoming tarnished by a lack of transparency.

In a nice post last weekend, Laurence Borel asked the question – should bloggers be paid to write blog posts? It’s a multi-layered question. Firstly – why not? Good bloggers should be paid, just like good online media should be paid-for.

But the big question is about transparency and the flow of money. The money should flow from the consumers of the blog, rather than from brand owners or companies. Otherwise it reduces blogging to advertising – undisclosed advertising.  This would be no more acceptable than if an ‘expert’ sold you a mortgage without telling you they were paid to sell you that particular one. Transparency is the big issue.

We should value the independence of bloggers. Sadly, the credibility of all bloggers will be damaged if there is a perception that they are taking money from the brand owners and companies they blog about. This is why it’s so important that we don’t allow this practice to take hold.

And why it’s so depressing to see that the majority of PR people in the UK have got this one wrong in a PR Week poll. The emergence of social media presents an enormous opportunity for the communications industry.  There has never been such demand for watertight strategy and precise implementation of complex and increasingly targeted communications campaigns.

The PR industry should be nurturing social media, not trampling all over it. Under pressure from the media on the one hand and encroaching regulatory scrutiny on the other, blogging is fragile enough.  Let the PR industry take a lead in setting out best practice.

h1

The Moir-Gately debate: impact of free comment

October 17, 2009

I have just read about 200 articles, blog posts, tweets and comments about Jan Moir’s sickening article in the Daily Mail on Stephen Gately’s death.

For the record, I didn’t feel much at all about Gately’s death – apart from the tragic fact that someone my age died unexpectedly. So I was surprised, last weekend, when it dominated the BBC News all day Sunday.

It was still dominating on Monday, which surprised me further. But I figured it was merely a case of an establishment figure (you know, friends with Louis Walsh and Elton John – establishment) passing away.

Moir’s article doesn’t deserve comment. It’s just stupid, and I’m sure she knows that. Her logic doesn’t follow at all, but it doesn’t matter because she’s written something to provoke a response, which is her job. Fair enough, no matter how much I think the article itself is horrendous.

But what has interested me (and why I got sucked in and spent an hour reading literally hundreds of posts and comments) is the response.

I started off reading Damian Thompson’s post on the Daily Telegraph blog.  It’s a fairly balanced piece, and makes an interesting comment about the freedom of speech among those living in the ‘social media world’.  His contention is that these ‘liberals’ believe offense is fine if you are ‘liberal’, but should be closed down otherwise.  Freedom of speech, in other words, should not be gifted to people like Moir.

This is a stupid thing to say because what Moir said was not wrong because of her particular viewpoint, it was wrong because she used a false argument to establish a falsehood as a fact.  There is a case for penalising that sort of ‘comment’.  Journalists have a responsibility not to go down that road – the freedom of the press in this country rests on that responsibility.  Her editor should have been the one to throw the book at her.

That Moir’s ‘fact’ was hateful and deeply prejudiced only makes the matter worth doing something about.  Hence the hundreds of complaints.  I would hope that only a small number of these complainants are actually saying ‘nobody has the right to say something I don’t agree with’.

But don’t say ‘gay people are X’ (X could mean sordid, or licentious, or depraved, or evil, or whatever Moir wants it to be) and assert that people who are X (Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney, Britney, for example) will die in a bad way.  It is not a logical argument that deserves to be aired and debated.  It is a small-minded error.

So what of Thompson’s point about ‘liberals’ and their attitude to free speech?  The reason I’ve added inverted commas to the word ‘liberal’ is because I want to make a point about Thompson’s use.  I understand the distinction between his use of the word, and it’s real meaning, which is to say something along the lines of ‘broad-minded’.  But it’s a bastardisation, and something popularised by right-wing commentators in America, such as Rush Limbaugh.

The irony is that the comments after Thompson’s post – and hundreds of other comments, posts and tweets I’ve read – are full of precisely the same illiberal (that’s how the word should be used) view that Thompson is rightly criticising.  There are always going to be some people who argue against free speech – it’s nothing to do with being ‘liberal’ or not.

But this brings me circuitously to my main point.  What really interested me was the extremity of many of the views I have read, whether extremely against Moir’s article, or extremely in defence of it.  These extreme views would not have had an airing at any point in our history, but today social media gives them oxygen.

There are religious fanatics and small-minded anti-gays, deeply ‘progressive’ blockheads and anti-capitalists, all happily (or more likely, angrily) making their case on the issue of the day.  And the issue isn’t about poor Stephen Gately at all, it’s about socially important issues – what we are entitled to say in public, how we should live our lives, how concerned we are about the direction of travel of our society.

It is the fact that these views are being expressed for free that makes them poignant.  If your livelihood doesn’t rest on what you say, you can say what you really think.  It makes for a noisy debate, and one that contains some outrageous views.  But it is impossible to argue that – if you read hundreds of those views – it is not balanced.  It just takes a while to find the centre ground.

And so I can say, I have found the centre ground, and here it is: the great British public are sad to see Stephen Gately die, they prefer to judge people based on their character rather than their lifestyle, and they think Jan Moir got this one very, very wrong.

Good for the British people.

h1

5 Reasons to Pay for Spotify

July 28, 2009

SpotifyI was recently singled out at a music industry event for being the only person of over 100 attendees to pay for Spotify Premium.

“So you’re the one” was called out. There were suppressed sniggers. One or two people actually booed me – which I still don’t quite get.

But what really hit home was the general consensus that I was naive for paying for something that is available for free elsewhere.

So why do I pay? Here are my five reasons for paying for Spotify:

  1. It’s excellent value.  This may not be true for everyone, but through buying CDs, second-hand vinyl and digital music on iTunes, I have spent between £10 and £30 per month on music since I was 18.  Spotify is, to a slightly above-average music user, a bargain.  And as the library grows, it gets better value every week.
  2. Adverts lead to censorship.  I don’t argue against adverts because of the quality of their content (though people tell me Spotify ads are particularly special in this regard).  Rather, I am opposed to the censorial impact advertisers can have.  It is something that has been well-documented, brilliantly summed up by Naomi Klein in No Logo.  For example, if a brand does not like swearing, and Spotify wants to carry that brand’s adverts, it will have to ban songs containing swearing.  Censorship is always just a dollar payment away.
  3. You can’t lose it.  Contrary to some people’s views, music you don’t own is more secure than music sitting on a shelf in your home.  I’ve lost a least 100 songs that I purchased on iTunes in the past two years – once through a computer failure, once through a relationship failure (the songs went with the laptop, TV and sofa).  It’s nothing new – think of all the fights there have ever been over who owned which bits of the vinyl collection.
  4. It’s going mobile.  It is likely that it will be available shortly on the iPhone and other 3G devices, for Premium users only.  If the user interface on the mobile devices is as good as it is on the computer (with the caveat that content discovery could be improved), it will be a huge winner.
  5. The economic sustainability argument.  The music ecosystem requires people to pay for it.  If everyone pays, the music industry and writers profit and there is downward pressure on the price for the service.  If nobody pays, the market fails.  In between, there is an equilibrium.

So, on the grounds that I really like the service, and I would like to pay as little as possible for it, I have to declare a big and blatant self-interest in urging others to join me and enjoy Spotify ad-free.

Update | 13.45 | 28 July  Official UK music industry figures suggest that I am actually quite a heavy music buyer.  According to a story in The Times today:

…Spotify [asks] customers to pay £120 a year for the service, when, on average, music buyers spent half that amount on music purchases last year, according to research for the BPI, the record industry trade association.

h1

David Potter: there’s value in investigative journalism

July 17, 2009

OK. Here’s the argument:

  1. News is spread highly effectively by people talking (known in the trade as “word-of-mouth”, or WOM, which – preposterously – can be used as a word, to rhyme with “bomb”).
  2. WOM is accelerated by social media, such as Facebook, Twitter or social bookmarking. Social media creates WOM on steroids.
  3. Consequently, the intrinsic value of news diminishes. Newspapers begin to worry about charging for their content (currently, hardly any charge for their web content – though some are experimenting).
  4. Long-term prognosis for newspapers: unsustainable.

Which is why an announcement today in the UK’s Press Gazette could be very exciting, heralding a new niche for newspaper journalists.

The Potter Foundation, run by Psion founder David Potter, has invested £2m in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a not-for-profit start-up designed to support investigative, public interest journalism.

In theory, if demand could be created for purely investigative journalism, there could yet be money in them-thar pages. Or screens. Or Kindles. Or whatever device you choose to mention.

h1

Spotify or Soundcloud: future of music payment

July 16, 2009

Tonight, I was at a great event organised by Chinwag called “Music – who Pays the Piper?”, that examined future revenue generation in the music industry.  It was refreshing that the panel members were unanimous on one thing – music can’t be free.  Or, in other words, artists should be paid for creating something valuable.

But what was most inspiring was the range of ideas put forward about how music creation might be rewarded.  This is a very rough summary of some of the ideas put forward by the panel – Dave Haynes, UK Manager at Soundcloud; Dom Hodge, Associate Director at Frukt Music; Helienne Lidvall, journalist and blogger at The Guardian and a songwriter; Jon Mitchell, Sales Director at Spotify and Richard Jacobs, Head of Radio at MediaCom.

Dave Haynes: the age of the CD is over.  A premium will be put on originality – remixes and music created collaboratively will become more valuable – in fact, music can already be developed entirely in the cloud, enabling collaborative creation of the music itself.  This collaborative creation is where value can be added to the music – what happens then is not important – ad-funding, fan-payments or brand sponsorship – Dave does not really care!

Dom Hodge: one of the most important recent changes to the music industry has been the new emphasis on access, rather than ownership (e.g. the streaming model used by Spotify).  A solution to the stifling of innovation in the music industry would be for the major labels to acquire equity stakes in successful start-ups, rather than to shut them down – an intriguing idea. Fans will pay for music.

Helienne (pronounced as Korean): the obvious revenue generator is touring – but not everyone can make money this way.  The industry rule of thumb is that the break-even point is when you can fill the Shepherd’s Bush Empire (capacity 2,000). Other ways of making money don’t necessarily work: Helienne has received millions of plays on YouTube but been paid only about £30 royalties.  From online sales, record labels make about ten times as much as song-writers.  She argued against flat-rate fees for music.  Brand advertisers will end up funding music.

Jon: Spotify has reached 2m users within five months, but it is still a long way from making money.  The entire room was asked “who has not used Spotify?” – nobody put their hand up to that.  But when asked who pays for Spotify Premium, only one person in the room raised their hand – me.  Jon said artists must be compensated, and alluded to innovations and growth in the ad-funded Spotify service.  He also mentioned that – in the very long term – individuals should have access to Spotify too.  Ads will eventually pay for music.

Richard: brand relationships in the music industry are becoming more important and this is going to continue.  Media buyers such as MediaCom are hearing from countless new music streaming sites every week attempting to pick up ad revenue – but the vast majority are not worth looking at.  Fragmentation is nobody’s friend, and Richard advocated a collaborative approach to media selling among streaming services.  He emphasised that the biggest consideration is the connection between brands and the music site – and in that sense, media buyers are increasingly becoming the financial gatekeepers of the music industry – if the song doesn’t fit the brand perfectly, then it is Richard’s job to pull out of the deal.  He felt an ad- and sponsorship-funded music industry was inevitable.