Sunday, July 29, 2007

Radio = Sales?

As has been contended by indie folks for years, the answer is not necessarily yes! It has long been our contention that iTunes typically benefits only singles, not album sales. Singles then get cut into so many slices that the amount paid to the artist is (at best) less than fifty cents.

In my words: the study shows that radio (i.e. singles you hear over and over until you don't want to listen to it any more) does not help album sales.

Read it for yourself here.

Play:STL Festival

We are helping with the Play:STL Festival!

September 21-23. Bands from all over are asking to be in it, but it will be a large mix of local "Missouri/Illinois" talent.

Should be a blast. We are also hoping to launch a limited access version of the site by then.

SoundGreen, finally settled on a compensation structure we are pleased with. Should be a shocker to no one that we think current compensation is out of whack. We will begin to provide more details in the coming weeks.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Art or Sales?

No one who strives to make a living in "Art" appreciate it when one states you have to be good at sales. This is because of all the good things associated with Art compared with the bad associated with Sales.

Would you rather associate with an Artist or a Salesman? I guess it depends on what you need at the time... entertainment or a deal.

But why do you hear about Fallout Boy and not Wide Awake? Some would say it is talent, showmanship, song writing. But the real answer is perhaps an "unspoken"... Management and Resources. ???What you ask...

I would challenge anyone to listen to a Wide Awake album and say that Fallout Boy is better! It is not fair... no offense to FOB or whatever acronym their management pushes...

Anyway... we are hoping to help bands such as Wide Awake and The Meanwhiles create art that fans and consumers like. More on the differences between fans and consumers later...

fans are leaders, consumers tend to be followers

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

About Net Neutrality

Good short film about Net Neutrality... and "NO" I don't think Al Gore invented the Internet.

Welcome Back

So… long time no talk?!?

I have:
  1. Moved to St Louis
  2. Continued to work with great programmers
  3. Talked on and off with Laura, owner of PlaybackSTL
  4. Begun a new job, second job to this… but it pays the bills
  5. Got married to a fabulous woman

Back to a little thing called copyrights… What the hell is Google talking about??? They are breaking the Supreme Court decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster. Like it or not, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM saying Grokster was not protected under Sony v Universal Studios (which allowed Sony to continue to produce Betamax). Side note, Betamax
was not the ultimate winner (JVC was with VCR). Grokster was
making a profit from advertising while allowing free access to pirated
intellectual property (songs, movies, et cetera).

So… what is different now? I’ll tell you… Google paid $1.65 Billion for YouTube and needs to make their money back on adwords and other annoying ads that pop-up all over YouTube. (really they didn’t pay, they diluted their company to acquire YouTube,
but that is a separate topic all together)

Sour grapes? No! Google has more money and better attorneys (or at least they can hire better attorneys) than any property rights holder who sues them. This is why so many have “reached deals” with Google.

Bottom line: YouTube is a powerful new media for dissemination of videos, which if harnessed properly can lead to future or increased profits for artists. As long as there are AdWords or other revenues being generated through YouTube, Google is in direct violation of US law. They purchased YouTube with the intent to break the law.

Just a few thoughts to charge the blog back up. The author does realize Blogger is owned by Google, and doesn't care.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]