How Free Has A Greater Value

Chris Anderson's latest Free (which finally came out in paperback in the UK) is an essential read for anyone involved in the new music industry. He positions the psychology of the £0 price tag in the digital economy, dissecting the reasons why media has rushed towards a free price.

The tension that exists between the artist and free is often not based on the gross margin of their material. In fact very few discuss (or even understand) the full potential earnings from making music. It is complex - with a myriad of revenue streams, collection agencies and stakeholders, all of whom are usually managed by someone else (the label). The primary concern of the artist is that free "de-values" their work.

Anderson explores many arguments that counter this perception of free. Primarily he points out that an artist's true intention should be to deliver their work to as many people as possible - and that free, if used correctly, offers the best strategy to acheiving this. If this is the case, free holds a very high value.

I've held this belief for quite some time (here's something I wrote in March 2009), which has lead to another question that I don't think many people have gotten to grips with - how do we measure success in a free economy? Our belief of an artists stature has been related to chart position and sales - this seems no longer relevant.

I noticed a recent Independent article stating that Microsoft's share value has slumped below Apple's - prompting Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to state that despite this his company will "make more money than Apple". It strikes me that this mark of success - the total amount of cash you bring in - is now less important. The need to "win" by selling more is not a building block of a great 21st century business. Apple has value because it is a brand that is loved passionately within it's community - and that community is growing bigger. I don't think I've ever met someone that was a zealot of a Windows product.

The lesson here is not that artists need to sell more, or accumulate more fans. They must set their own measures of success and work towards building a strong community that will support them. The liberation and opportunity that "free" can offer, along with the potential of the Internet to connect artists with millions of fans around the world, should be welcomed as a foundation of a new start for the industry.

Image on Flickr by : : w i n t e r t w i n e d : :

Ricky Martin's Revelation

It's quite shocking how Ricky Martin's "coming out" announcement this week has been handled. Along with the support was indifference and criticism for taking so long to tell the truth. It demonstrates how little we really understand about the pressure of coming out - and how far we still have to go before being gay is accepted in our society.

Most fail to see the music industry for the beast that it is - one that strives to shift as many units to as wide an audience as possible. It seems rational to argue the poplarity of Elton John, George Michael or Michael Stipe - which should appease any fears that the industry may have about gay popstars. But we forget that these individuals also hid their sexuality for years until their fanbase was sufficient enough to protect their ability to continue to have a career.

You may think times have changed, and so the pressure or fear on artists coming out should be minimised. However, George Michael started as a teen idol, and so did Ricky Martin. His sense of self - and indeed the brand created around him as sex symbol - is positioned within this market. Those that dismiss Martin's actions this week as cowardice due to coming out so late in his career neglect this fact.

We like to believe we exist in a liberal, tolerant world, and using the handful of mainstream artists who are open about their sexuality to support this is purely confirmation bias. It is the equivalent of assuming there is universal racial equality because there is finally a black President in the White House. In fact we know that prejudice continues to exist - and while society has moved significantly, equality is still not the norm. Indeed one only needs to look at Ricky Martin's primary audience - North/Latin America - to see that being gay is not accepted by the majority.

The industry also does little to stamp out prejudice. Radio One DJ Chris Moyles can hold a primetime position on the air despite re-introducing "gay" as derogatory playground slang. From personal experience I can assure you having a label named "Gaymonkey" within a heterosexual male dominated industry has rarely won us favours.

However, any artist could choose to rise above these obstacles, to put fear of retribution aside and ignore the prejudice that still exists in society. There are still two main reasons why a new artist today would choose to hide their sexuality:

To avoid being labelled as niche

If your ego - and the industry - expects you to be instantly huge, it will not be satisfied with a niche audience. A "gay artist" has traditionally found themselves building their career within the gay community. Greedy egos and labels strive to bypass this step and aim straight for the mainstream.

This pressure will continue until long tail thinking is encouraged and major labels discontinue the practice of dropping artists who fail to reach the top ten with their first release. Until then, no level of perceived acceptance will satisfy an artist whose intention is to be an instant superbrand.

To have your art accepted for what it is

For those that can quell the ego, a further barrier exists. While they themselves may have no apparent problem with being labelled as gay, they believe their art stands outside this and wish their creation to be judged on merit without bias on either side to their sexuality.

Aside from the blatant prejudice that continues to be rife within the sports community, athletes must also consider this factor to be one that stops them from coming out. No one with dreams of being a top footballer would like to be remembered as a "gay footballer". Our visions of our legacy shape our present reality - and for the ambitious the choice to come out will be influenced by this factor.

Until every musician, athlete, actress, teacher, politician and parent feels that their opportunities in life will not be threatened by how society perceives and labels them, we must only be proud of everyone who has the courage to step forward despite whatever makes them different. Each individual that takes that leap makes it easier for the next. Ricky Martin is a leader - and should be applauded as such.

Lessons in Hype: The Next Big Thing

"Get your hands on the album everyone has been talking about."

This is the strapline from a recent TV ad campaign for a brand new artist. It is running in conjunction with an album launch, nationwide print ad campaign (including billboards and tube posters) and bit of a tour.

Sound familiar? We hear this all the time from the music industry - in fact, its pretty much a standard campaign and message kit. But is it relevant anymore? 

The old way of marketing involved creating The Next Big Thing, with a big splash of hype. Drive the kids to the shops, get them to buy the record FAST - and watch it sail to the top of the charts. 

But now, none of those things matter anymore. The charts are irrelevant, and the kids aren't consuming in the same way they used to. So why do the big guns continue to play this game, and why are they so shocked to see this strategy is no longer working?

The Next Big Thing is now about taking small steps, and building slowly with commitment and belief. Its about building up the artist and community together and nurturing a relationship. One step and a time. Small really is the new Big.

How many times have we seen an artist thrust into the status of Next Big Thing only to fall away without a trace months (even weeks) later? We only need to look at the various Pop Idol/XFactor winners to see that unsupported hype doesn't equal success. 

Seth puts it perfectly in his blog this week:

"A few brands pick out tiny dominos instead. And topple them. And they do it again. They do it so often they create noise, momentum and most important, a sense of inevitability. That's how you win."

Image by Likemindedstudio.com

EgoPR

One of the biggest issues in the music industry is this tension between niche and mainstream. For the niche to work - and it can work, for both the artist and the label - the players involved must consciously accept that it the niche does not require the mainstream, full stop. In fact, denial of the mainstream is almost key to psychologically getting over this hurdle.

To grow within the niche means nurturing a community that does not look to the outside for validation. The artist must trust that their community will grow organically, through peer-to-peer interaction, and make appropriate steps to make this happen.

Where the tension becomes disruptive is when we seek to fast track this growth through mainstream channels; by traditional media exposure, for example. Often this is simply what I call "egoPR" - seeing ourselves in press which has high status, but translates to little exposure of community expansion, and thus a limited impact for the artist overall. If the community does not require validation, then the artist/label must also accept this premise.

We saw this in the swedish campaign for Sara Berg. Huge mainstream exposure with a successful traditional PR campaign , for a sound that wasn't mainstream in the ears of the swedish public. So it didn't work. Outside Sweden her community of loyal fans continues to grow, oblivious to the previous PR. Was the investment in traditional PR worth it?

I'm not suggesting that mainstream PR be shunned altogether. But use it wisely - and not just to satisfy that overactive ego. And not at the expense of the community which matter most.

Image by redxdress on Flickr.

We're Shopping

Back from a great xmas trip to the US - with some mild jet lag that sees me up at 5am. But more on that later ...

On my marathon journey home I noticed an article in The Times on music sales revenue, which is reportedly down 32% from five years ago. This is mainly attributed to deflation, as bigger retailers (like supermarkets) discount their product. According to the report, the volume of music has actually increased - although album sales are down 5.6%, single sales are up 36% due to the availability of solitary track downloads.

So despite the industry's insistence that piracy is killing music sales, it is clear that people are still buying - they are just being more selective with their choices, possibly by shopping down the long tail.

This comes with the news that hideous UK retailer Zavvi (or what-ever-happened-to-Virgin?) has gone into administration. We'll have to see if they find a buyer and bounce back - but it doesn't bode well for high street music retail. We're left with HMV and a handful of Fopp locations ... 

The question remains - why shop in these stores? With the internet making infinite choice available - in best case scenario, direct from the artist or label, thus bypassing the tedious middle man - why bother with high street stores at all? Bargain bins, limited choice, having to sift through Akon albums - surely we have evolved passed all this?

Image by roughdrft on Flickr.