Old acts want to employ a no-camera policy. They want to ban the users. Newbies tolerate it. Why not EMBRACE the audience's activity?
Why doesn't every band have a page for audience uploads? Pics AND clips? Allowing the fans themselves to vote on which ones are the best, which ones are worth viewing?
Of course, you host on YouTube and you embed on the artist's page. If Google can sway L.A. to host its e-mail in the cloud, why can't bands utilize the company's free services to their advantage? Flickr is a great resource too!
The point is we've got it all wrong. We're trying to tell the fans what to do, when they should be telling US what to do!
Did you read the story on Twitter in yesterday's "New York Times"? All its good ideas come from outside. Like search, hash tags and referencing people by using the @ symbol. The company decried some of these innovations, they didn't even want messages to be called "tweets". Then they realized they had it wrong, that they should be embracing third party innovation, not stifling it!
People want to share music. Rather than trying to stop this, copyright owners should make it easier. You want to e-mail someone the track? Let the band's site do it for you! And if the person you send the music to clicks a button on the e-mail, saying he actually likes the new cut, you get points, allowing you better seats at the gig or some other swag.
What, do we think we're going to prevent people from swapping music? If you believe this, you must not have any USB keys, which even come in credit card-sized promotional form these days. It's not about stopping trading, but INCREASING trading!
Eventful has got it right. An act should go where its fans want them to.
Fans want more access, not less. Where is fan access to music business executives? Ashton Kutcher and every musician known to man can tweet, but Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine can't? No wonder the business gets such a bad rap. If it's all about relationships, how about doing a spot of work, helping the cause? Believe me, hiding behind Mitch Bainwol will pay no dividends.
Speaking of Twitter, people like to tweet about tracks. Why not create a service easier than Blip, that allows people to hear what others tweet about? I should be able to tweet about a track, and if you want to check it out, all you've got to do is click the link. And I get the URL for the track from one central, easy to use database. Plug the name into a Google-type search engine and you IMMEDIATELY get a bit.ly shortened url for someone to hear the entire thing. This is better than radio promotion. You're getting people truly interested in the music checking it out right away. They're pulling it, you're not pushing it. And pull is where all the money is. It's just like Google AdWords. The people who click WANT TO BUY!
The fans want to hook up at the gig. Can't you make this easier? A special meeting station, with free wi-fi for iPhones. Believe me, you can get a sponsor to cough up the free wi-fi.
We've got it all wrong. We've been FIGHTING the customer instead of EMBRACING HIM! So worried about losing money, being unable to sustain the nineties model, we're closing the door to the future. The more you can get people excited about music, the more you can increase their access, the more money you ultimately make.
Sure, Twitter itself may not yet be profitable, but the tweets are evanescent. Music is not. Get someone hooked on an act, and they'll go see them live, buy merch, buy the music, whether it be the track outright or listening on a paid streaming service.
For over a decade, the technology's been more interesting than the music. Because music has been putting up barriers, refusing to play in the new world. This makes no sense. Instead of telling people how to use the music, let them tell US!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/technology/internet/26twitter.html
No comments:
Post a Comment