The Music Industry isn’t listening, and it’s costing them
The music industry is fuelling a war. And the music industry is losing the war. The war will be lost because, thus far, the industry has concentrated on battle strategy rather than address the actual conflict. In order to survive and even flourish in the new technological terrain, the music industry need not surrender—it can call a truce and reunite with the community of online consumers.
Thus far, the music industry has used expensive technology and increasingly costly (and decreasingly effective) legislation to create (or force) “treaties” with listeners. Treaties unfortunately, are finite. Treaties become obsolete as soon as conditions change, such as the arrival of a new form of music or musical interface. Listeners resent the controls and the “tyrannical” punishments meted out by industry executives in response to online innovation. Sites wage digital warfare on industry alternatives, hacking into systems to “liberate” musical content. Fans listen for free. Covert artists online “re-innovate” (e.g. mash-up) musical content and post it like popular graffiti scattered across the net.
This doesn’t ‘feel” wrong to thousands of online listeners. Before online p2p and legally vague file sharing sites, listeners complain that they bought cds for one or two songs. This waste of money enriched industry execs, according to consumers, and now thousands view downloads as payback against once greedy and exacting industry dictators.
Believe it or not, listener pro-activity can be good for the industry, if not so great for the artist (who must now produce a CD worthy of the full purchase price). Online radio sites already offer options encouraging listeners to customize personal channels. If a listener hears a song that they like, the name of the artist and the music is available at the click of the mouse, along with recommendations from like-minded listeners online. In the tradition of sites like Muzak and Amazon, samples, second opinions, and references are expected rather than requested. Just as Todd Storz capitalised on the concept of Top 40 radio in the 1950s, the industry can now tailor CDs and downloads to an audience. As for the online auditory graffiti, the industry risks isolating and infuriating potential investments—making guerilla rebels out of possible patriots. If indeed the industry has the capacity to make the content available without legal repercussions, why not fortify the arsenals of musically minded talent and see which re-innovators produce content worth promoting?
Buzz is essential in reaching out and re-involving listeners. Instead of engaging in protracted conflict, the music industry needs to begin re-constructing its community online. The industry needs to monitor the Buzz surrounding sound in order to attract the social capital that will create and evolve online investment. Listeners want new content mixed with personal favourites. Listeners want affordable music (in compatible formats) that is worth every cent. Listeners want to participate in crafting and evolving new music. Most importantly, listeners know what they want and what they like and they are it online. Currently, the only people not listening are members of the musical industry, and this is costing them the creative (and lucrative) future of the musical community.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Apparently, Universal Music Group has reduced play time for its songs on You Tube to 90 seconds rather than the full run time. UMG is also suing MySpace for copyright infringement. I wonder how much exposure UMG artists and songs recieved from MySpace exposure, and if this will be factored into the money requested? Read more at: http://blogs.mediapost.com/online_minute/?p=1619