ContentSphere - Music & Media in an Online Culture - Business Models

The Pirates’ Good Deeds - Tomorrow’s markets: How the Internet is shifting powers between artists and companies. [by Kolja Reichert]

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:42:41 +0200

“The Pirates’ Good Deeds” (© Kolja Reichert) has originally been published under the title “Die gute Tat der Piraten” in “Der Tagesspiegel” issued on 26.07.2009. Translated into German by Wolfgang Senges. Translation and publication on ContentSphere.de by courtesy of Kolja Reichert.

Please notice: Different to other articles on ContentSphere.de, this translation has been published under an “All rights reserved” licence by Kolja Reichert.

German version/original text: “Der Tagesspiegel” issued on 26.07.2009.

The New York Times’ online archive holds the oldest message in regards to the topic of piracy in music industry. It originates from 13 June 1897, the founding time of music industry. „Canadian Pirates“ mailed counterfeit records across the border and sold them for a tenth of its real price. Newspapers printed lists of songs available – a kind of early Pirate Bay. The industry bewailed a 50% loss in turnover demanding the postal sevice to filter items out. A rather mild measure compared to the three-strikes-out model the media industry longs to achieve for filesharers today.

The politics response to online piracy is not rigorous enough, claimed Dieter Gorny, CEO of Germany’s Body of Music Industry BVMI (Bundesverband der Musikindustrie) when justifying the cancellation of industry’s Popkomm conference. It’s been widely shared disconcertment his statement earned him. Mark Chung of the Body of Independent Labels VUT (Verband Unabhängiger Tonträgerunternehmen) says: „Strong generalisations are helping no one.“

Actually, Internet is not music’s enemy. It merely is the hard copy industry’s enemy. After the wax cylinder, vinyl, tape and CD, music now has been separated from a physical carrier and can be copied endlessly with little effort. Legal downloads in Germany do not yet reach US numbers that account for 39% of the market. However, first quarter revenues in 2009 are up again by 16%. Despite all arguments dealing with illegal downloading, it’s not about a conflict between artists and audience. This is the showcase the industry raucously propels for years. It is their interests that can be brought together in the most wonderful ways online.

Continue reading "The Pirates’ Good Deeds - Tomorrow’s markets: How the Internet is shifting powers between artists and companies. [by Kolja Reichert]"

DIY-Marketing #1: Amanda Palmer's Basics in Donations

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:48:49 +0200

CC-BY-NO Karola Riegler

Actually, I intended to start out with suggestions in DIY marketing for artists today. Suggestions I would have come up with by myself.

Then Amanda Palmer posted her response to the feedback her posting on donations generated. Anyone: Read her response. In full. It is essential and the basics to everything I can tell you. Some of it she already mentioned at Berlin’s all2gethernow.

For all those who don’t have the time to read through Amanda’s terrific response I’m going to highlight some parts.

On her website, Amanda has a page called “The Till”. Anybody who’s willing to can pay any amount as a donation. If you pay you will get no CD, merch or whatsoever.

Why to pay anything? Does she really think there are people crazy enough doing so? - That’s what you might think.

my cellist friend zoe keating (@zoecello), who more or less runs her own business out of her house (and isn’t signed), told me a few days ago on the phone that people have been ordering multiple CDs directly from her website and simply putting, in the comments section of paypal “PLEASE DON’T MAIL ME THESE CDS - i just wanted to send $40 because i want to support you!”.

Please note: Zoe Keating is a rather unknown artist. If you’re regularly reading liner notes though, you may have read her name on covers of Amanda’s works as well as Rasputina’s and others.

Continue reading "DIY-Marketing #1: Amanda Palmer's Basics in Donations"

MIDEM & Nielsen Confirm the Need for Mobile Apps for Artists

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:46:00 +0100

Just a hint to another article this time. Referring to my last posting on ContentSphere, I wrote an article for Music Think Tank, “Mobile Connect-with-Fans for DIY Artists - Why, and How?”. Please feel free to comment there.

After having posted on some forums, googling around etc., I finally was able to find services of the kind I was in search for - offering artists apps which they can share with their fans to directly connect. Also, one the companies (Songpier) commented on my article. Other ones are listed in my article on Music Think Tank.

Now, if you needed any further confirmation - please immediately go visit Midem’s website. The Midem blog features an article on “Music mobile apps and music streaming services”, including an excellent study compiled by Nielsen for ~~MidemNet Lab~~ MIDEM (link to download form).

Actually, it’s the result of a survey of well beyond 25.000 online consumers in more than 50 markets worldwide. Do yourself a favour, fill-in the form, and download the study. If you had any doubt about my article - read it.

C3S: Creative Commons Verwertungsgesellschaft - in Gründung.

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:04:42 +0100

CC-BY by C3S

[An English version of this article is due soon] Anlässlich der all2gethernow 2010 wurde das Modell einer Verwertungsgesellschaft für Musik unter Creative Commons Lizenzen vorgestellt – eine CC-VG, Arbeitstitel C3S. Initiiert wurde die C3S von Michael Weller (Europäische EDV-Akademie des Rechts / EEAR), Meik Michalke (Open Music Contest e.V.), mir und weiteren Kollegen aus dem Umfeld der Creative-Commons-Supporter. Die Wurzeln, Beweggründe und Ideen hinter dem Projekt sind vielfältiger, als bereits dieses gemeinsame Engagement zeigt.

Die Ernsthaftigkeit des Ansatzes und vor allem die realitätsnahe Möglichkeit der Umsetzung zeigt nach ersten Andeutungen anlässlich der SIGINT2010 und in verschiedenen Interviews und Gesprächen die Präsentation des Konzepts im Rahmen der all2gethernow 2010. Im nächsten Jahr erfolgt der Schritt in die breite Öffentlichkeit. Interesse und Resonanz von unterschiedlichen (teils unerwarteten) Seiten belegen die Notwendigkeit unseres Schritts.

Warum eine Verwertungsgesellschaft für (Musik-)Inhalte unter Creative-Commons-Lizenzen?

Deutschland hat bereits eine Verwertungsgesellschaft für Musik, andere Länder in der Regel meist mehr. Dieses Quasi-Monopol ist vordergründig recht bequem für Lizenznehmer, braucht man sich doch nur an einen Gesprächspartner zu wenden, die GEMA. Warum also eine weitere?

Bei der Verwendung von Creative-Commons-Lizenzen stellt sich die Frage, ob der Künstler eine kommerzielle Verwertung überhaupt wünscht oder nicht. Gerade im teils ideologisch geprägten CC-Umfeld sind Motivation, Ziel und Erfolg unterschiedlich und oft kontrovers diskutiert. Warum dann eine Verwertungsgesellschaft für Creative Commons?

Neben Creative Commons existiert die Art Libre als weitere freie Lizenz; zudem nutzen die weitaus meisten Kreativen in Deutschland und weltweit – schließt man Freizeitmusiker ein – weder freie Lizenzen, noch sind sie Mitglieder einer Verwertungsgesellschaft. Warum sollte man dann eine Verwertungsgesellschaft ausschließlich für das Segment der unter Creative Commons lizenzierten Werke benötigen?

Kultur, Ökonomie und Recht

Jeder der Initiatoren der C3S bringt eine unterschiedliche Schwerpunktsetzung ein. Es ist jedoch die Gesamtheit der drei Aspekte Kultur, Ökonomie und Recht, die uns motiviert und den Nutzen einer Verwertungsgesellschaft für unter Creative Commons lizenzierte Musikwerke unterstreicht.

So ist es die in der deutschen Rechtsprechung bislang bestätigte GEMA-Vermutung, die trotz der Komplexität des Tarifkatalogs die GEMA-Großkunden Radio und TV meist auf das GEMA-Repertoire zurückgreifen lässt. Denn jede öffentliche Aufführung muss der GEMA gemeldet werden, und somit ist die Infrastruktur des Lizenzmanagements darauf zugeschnitten. Eine Vielzahl an Lizenzanbietern als Partner kann im Gegensatz zu einem einzelnen Partner nur mit erhöhten Kosten abgebildet werden. Selbst Lokale, die ausschließlich CC-Musik spielen, zahlen bevorzugt die GEMA-Pauschale, um dem hohen Verwaltungsaufkommen einer kostenlosen, aber detaillierten Meldung zu entgehen. Fazit: Die Distribution und das Marketing für CC-Inhalte ist verschwindend gering. Die GEMA-Vermutung entpuppt sich als höchst effektive Markteintrittsbarriere, die juristisch zwar nicht gesetzlich verankert, aber in der Rechtsprechung bestätigt ist.

Im anderen Extrem setzen sowohl ideologische Verfechter der Open-Source-Community als auch die Vertreter des „alten“ Musik/Content-Business die Creative-Commons-Lizenzen mit einer grundsätzlich kostenlosen Verwendung gleich. Dies ist falsch. „Free Culture“ steht für eine unabhängige Kultur, die im Sinne des Künstlers verbreitet wird – ob kostenfrei, kostenpflichtig oder gar beides parallel. „Free Culture“ steht nicht für eine „Kostenlos-Mentalität“. Künstler, die ihr Einkommen mit ihrer Musik bestreiten möchten, müssen sich häufig rechtfertigen und gegen eine Stigmatisierung angehen. Völlig zu Unrecht, denn weshalb nutzt eine Vielzahl von Urhebern, unter die Non-Commercial-(NC-)Varianten? Im Fokus stehen die legale und in der Tat kostenlose Distribution und Verwendung im privaten Kontext, sowie die davon zu trennende, je nach Wunsch des Urhebers kostenlose oder kostenpflichtige kommerzielle Verwendung der Inhalte. Aufgrund der zugegeben unscharfen Formulierung des „NC“-Begriffs ist der Künstler hier gezwungen, einzelne Verhandlungen und Einschränkungen mit Lizenznehmern zu führen und zu vereinbaren – doch genau dies ist der Vorteil der CC-NC-Lizenz. Die Freiheit, die Lizenz im Detail in eigener Verantwortung anpassen zu können.

Die Wahrnehmung der Verwertung darf nicht eine ausschließliche Bindung an das jeweilige System bedeuten. Für Freizeitmusiker heißt das: Erweisen sich einige oder nur ein einziger der selbstverfassten Songs als erfolgreich, ist die Übertragung der Wahrnehmung auf eine größere Entität sinnvoll, d. h. auf eine Verwertungsgesellschaft. Dass hierbei auf vorformulierte, an die jeweilige Rechtsprechung des Landes angepasste, juristisch geprüfte und international verwendbare Lizenzen zurückgegriffen werden kann, ist ein entscheidender Vorteil. Größtmögliche Sicherheit bei gleichzeitiger Freiheit im Umgang und höchster Praktikabilität ist notwendig. Unter dieser Voraussetzung kann auch „Breitenkreativität“ in Nischen finanziell anerkannt und Kultur gefördert werden.

Kernziele

Im Umkehrschluss ergeben sich für die Gründung der C3S folgende Kernziele:

Loslösung der Künstler von ökonomischer Fremdbestimmung
Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung bei der Lizenzierung eigener Werke
Öffnung des Musikmarkts für CC-Inhalte
finanzielle Anerkennung von CC-Künstlern
Förderung der Kultur durch vereinfachten Zugang und legale Nutzung von CC-Musik
Aufklärung hinsichtlich Zweck, Nutzung und Verwendung von CC-Inhalten

Links und Material

Bevor die C3S in Kürze mit einer eigenen Site präsent ist, eignet sich als erste Anlaufstelle die aktuelle Domain “cc-vg.de”. Dort kann sich jeder Interessent in eine Mailing-Liste eintragen. Konkrete Anfragen darüber hinaus können über das ebenfalls dort verlinkte Kontaktformular der Site des Open Music Contest e.V. an die C3S gerichtet werden (oder auch direkt an Michael Weller, Meik Michalke oder mich.

Aktuelle Events und Beiträge könnt Ihr hier verfolgen:

Michael Wellers Beiträge auf Lawgical.de
Meik Michalkes Beiträge auf seinem Blog reaktanz.de
meine eigenen Beiträge natürlich weiterhin unter ContentSphere.de

Des weiteren findet Ihr unter folgendem Link das Konzept der C3S, wie es zur all2gethernow vorgestellt wurde. In Kürze werde ich zum Thema C3S weitere Artikel posten, darunter auch eine Erläuterung zum Konzept.

Nicht offizieller Teil der C3S, aber sehr hilfreich ist der Blog von Fabian zum Themenkomplex Creative Commons und GEMA.

Obwohl nicht Teil der Creative Commons als Organisation, wird die C3S als sich etablierendes Thema sicher auch Erwähnungen auf den folgenden einschlägigen und höchst empfehlenswerten Blogs finden:

© by Flattr
You might have noticed I dropped AdSense. Feels a lot better. Instead, I added a link to Dreamstime for picture licensing (check my articles, I used them more than Flickr I think). Plus, I implemented a plug-in from AdTaily. Nice one, you can have ads on your site and – even more important – you decide whether to accept or to decline.

If you’re asking for the result:
- AdSense: 0.57 € (used for a total of 5 months)
- AdTaily: 0.00 € (online for a week, no customers yet – of course)
- Flattr: 5.24 € (revenue for second half of October)
Well, the Flattr bit kind of surprised me. 6 clicks, 5.24 €. Honestly, I expected something around 0.30 €… I’m flattered (no pun intended). So, thank you very much, dear reader!

From a business point of view, I think when distributing articles or ebooks a PayPal button might be a good option to add. Either you can download the file for free, or you spend some fraction of your Flattr amount, or you are free to spend any amount you think the article is worth.

The currency you are paying me with is your esteem of my work. But your esteem may materialise in different ways. I don’t think that the more esteem you have for my work, the more you will pay. Yet, what you pay certainly is not hard money.

You subscribe to my feed.
You tweet my article.
You recommend someone to read my blog.
You pay me a share of your monthly flattr amount.
You might even sometime donate an amount via PayPal.
You might contact me to collaborate with you on some project.

It is about the relationship.

While esteem is the currency, relationship equals the amount. Relationship means you are willing to purchase services from me. The better the relationship, the more valuable the revenue from the services will be to me.

It’s a vast array of options from free to project payments. This is how to learn to appreciate someone’s work. This is the way to build a business/customer relationship based on credibility, reliability, and confidence.

Now, translate this to making and sharing music.

Artists Can't Maintain A Good Relationship With Fans - Or Can They? But how?

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:58:57 +0200

Oh my… I simply can’t make it to my other posts that are in the pipeline. Studying my reader this morning, there was a post at hypebot, leading me to a blog on Seattle Weekly written by John Roderick, singer for The Long Winters.

Interestingly, it’s about the artist/fan relationship. Does that ring a bell? Yep, in the comments to my “Ads vs. flattr” posts I mentioned another article coming up on that issue. Now, before I even could post that, here’s that one by John Roderick. Plus, no other than Suzanne Lainson from BrandsPlusMusic (brilliant writer & strategist) commented on the column. And so did I.

Maybe you’d like to first read John Roderick’s article - that’s best to start with. Here’s the part I added:

There are several points to be made. As Suzanne mentions, the career of the musician and closely linked to that, the relationship between the artist and the fan develops. You can’t accuse Amanda Palmer for working with a growing team of people, including management. Still, she is in contact with her fans (online & offline). Though, there might come a time she can’t afford to write her blog herself.

Suzanne is right - you can’t ignore the correlation of success and fan relationship. More success means more fans, more fans means thinning the relationship. So, what to do to maintain the personal aspect between fan and artist?

In times of Social Media, it’s not only an issue in marketing. It’s also about balancing your career (as an independent artist) and the bad conscience you might have for your loyal fans. Though selling your highly valuable time at “Meet & Greets” appears to be an easy way out, it just deepens the gap.

There you are, the artist, most probably disliking those events. Maybe even more than interviews. Regarding bad conscience, there might even be the scent of prostituting yourselves. Then there’s the fans shelling out the money - I remember numbers of up to beyond $ 1,000. For ONE Meet & Greet. And go figure, fans are happy.

Though, there are fans supporting you in another way. They provide constructive criticism during your career instead of worshipping you. Maybe they won’t pay for Meet & Greets, but they are willing to support you in lots of other ways. These are the people to cater as being your Street Team. This is the core of your fanbase. Sure, they might be intersections, but I think you might divide your fanbase into Street Team, paying ones, and the ones who just like your music.

Again, there are interesting points to be learned from artists like Amanda Palmer - some people in her team have been fans. Core fans. Now they are rewarded. Hell, even Prince did that when he recruited people from fansites. Ok, that’s long ago and may I assume he just did it to achieve more control? Whatever.

It’s time to become aware of the fact that bands & artists are more than those 1 to 5 people. From a certain stage on, they are building hubs. And a hub is more than just a network. A network is what it starts with.

The artist, once established (though not necessarily making a living from music) is surrounded by people supporting him and pushing his career. Before there’s even a manager, there’s backup musicians, or a producer, someone texting at Twitter, someone designing the site. Plus, there’s the core fanbase. All of these are building up to the entity called artist. Of course, the musical creativity part still is up to the musician.

Conclusion: While developing your career and building your hub remember to reward them. Sometime later on, it might be money. Before that, it starts with credits, you might help them in their projects, doesn’t matter. That’s nothing too strange for a designer or producer you work with. But remember your core fans, the Street Team, too.

AdSense vs. flattr, Ads vs. Donations - What's Best? You Decide!

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:32:37 +0200

Not long ago, ContentSphere saw a comeback of GoogleAds. I just wanted to give them a serious second try. Yet, now it gets a new twist. As you can see, I also added flattr buttons for the entire blog as well as separate ones for each entry.

That means: I’m having two additional streams of revenue. Maybe I should replace the term “streams” by “drops”. However. I’m running a kind of study. What’s the best choice to achieve better revenues? Not that ContentSphere has that much readers (360 feed subscriptions). That’s why I’m not expecting big piles of money.

What’s the most attractive and acceptable to you – that’s the question. Ads, or directly asking for financial support?

Plus, as you will see later on in this article, it helps me in advising my customers. Artists, most prominently.

Ads and donations - both approaches might be seen with mixed feelings.

Ads, the way that AdSense provides, rarely meet the requirements the author of a blog has set – no matter what restrictions you define, many advertised products, services and companies appearing on your site you simply don’t really want to see there. Moreover, it distracts from your site’s layout. In particular, it’s the picture ads that do so. Actually, if they were reasonably professional, they would be more useful for integration.

flattr, on the other hand, might be dismissed as begging for money from your readers – or fans. This is something which is discussed quite controversial. Just have a look at older entries at Amanda Palmer’s blog. In my opinion, no matter if you are an artist, journalist, blogger or whatever – as long as you offer anything you are allowed to ask for a price. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be high quality content. Just look at the charts and you will see it’s not always quality that sells. In the end it’s up to you to decide whether to pay anything. Don’t you forget, in the case of flattr you are almost entirely free in deciding how much you are to spend at flattr. The minimum to spend per month is 2 EUR, and each content you flattr receives a fraction of the monthly total.

I don’t want to discuss the issue of ethics here. Similar to the use of Creative Commons licenses, there are artists who are convinced that art should be free for everyone. No work of art should be sold. Though, artists need to make a living. Even those artists who’d like to give away all or parts of their work for free.

Fact is, the most reliable income is based on several streams of revenue. It’s not necessarily a high income allowing for a life in luxury. Yet, it’s more securely distributed over several resources.

Advertisements along your work, sponsorship, endorsement, patronage, donations – any of those and even more should be seen as complementary resources of financial support. Pick the ones that suit you best, and remember to pick those that work for you.

And here we are. I want to be sure that I’m advising artists and customers the right way. Do advertisements help to generate additional income? Is flattr (or any other form of donation) more acceptable? Of course, it depends on your fans and customers, your image and your profile etc.

I’m curious to see how it works in the long run.

Free Music Archive Hosts all2gethernow Compilation of Creative Commons Music

wolfgang.senges@contentsphere.de (Wolfgang Senges) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 12:37:00 +0200

Recently, I introduced you to all2gethernow’s Creative Commons’ compilation. I told you, we soon would change the main host for the files - due to GEMA (Germany’s collecting society). Hosting the files myself would make my blog a shop - even if the download’s for free. Plus I would have to report the hosting to GEMA, despite the fact it’s all Creative Commons music. It’s crazy but it’s a fact.

And here we are! At the a2n event, I met Jason Sigal. He’s the man behind Free Music Archive. FMA is based on a brilliant idea: archiving free music under making it accessible at a kind of one-stop service. He opened the archive for our compilation of Creative Commons music and invited us to being hosted at Free Music Archive. More than that - he blogged an article featuring all2gethernow. Thank you Jason.

I changed the link to all2gethernow’s Creative Commons music compilation in my post, but here it is once more for direct access at FMA.

Just have a look yourself at the whole thing - currently, there are about 25.000 (!) songs available at FMA. It’s legal, and it’s free. All curated by different people like netlabels of course, Creative Commons, and a whole bunch of others. So you will only find selected content. Music that is worth listening to. There’s charts, information on the artists etc. - it’s beautifully done by people like Jason. Guys who love what they’re doing.

Take your time and enjoy FMA.