Any hope for UK Music?

Today’s launch of UK Music – a collective group pledging to fight against piracy and represent a “united front to the challenges facing the industry” – represents the industry’s inability to tackle the problems of the new media age (now well into its second decade) by huffing and puffing around the issues raised and promising to do something about them rather than actually doing it.

Of course, there is something positive to be said about the BPI, Association of Independent Music (AIM), MCPS-PRS, the PPL and other UK music organisations coming together and working for a solution: the possibility of some of the most important musical heads in the world finding a forward-thinking agenda is one to salivate at, where concern does arise though is that the actual aims and agendas of those individual organisations will not meet the needs of the artists and labels at the bottom of the industry food chain.

Having worked in the independent music industry for a number of years now, AIM have been fantastically supportive of my work to try and generate more media coverage for independent labels and their artists. What I have been concerned about during that time though are some of Alison Wenham’s declarations at AGMs and other industry events about fighting piracy.

It is absolutely right for the head of AIM to be fighting for her labels’ rights to earn a decent living, but this entire argument about ‘piracy’ as a means to rip labels and their artists off is entirely short-sighted – something that many of AIM’s members have expressed in conversations I have held with them.

Not to get into the age old conversation about the internet as a marketing and distribution tool that actually saves small independents a whole heap of cash in exchange for more coverage and – ultimately – more profit, what does concern me about where Wenham’s thoughts come from (and I know her opinion on blogs so I’m sure she won’t care what I say) is that the more senior and powerful members of the AIM stable may have had a word in a certain ear. Labels like Domino, who are the only major independent not to offer their music to the non-DRM site eMusic, can kick and scream and have the financial and legal muscle to upset the AIM apple cart if they so wished. I’m not suggesting this is the case, but in conversations with labels, it is usually the bigger ones – the ones who can afford to do it for a living – that seem to have the most backward opinions.

Similarly with organisations such as the MCPS-PRS, who try to scrimp money from every corner of society in order to pay it to those owed but usually end up making it very difficult for small independent artists to recoup the £100 fee they are forced to pay. You have to wonder what their business in fighting piracy actually is. The internet has provided them with many more sources from which to generate cash for artists, ‘illegal’ p2p sites and file-sharing has given smaller artists a chance for more exposure on more levels and, as such, the MCPS-PRS has been given an opportunity to actually help those artists who most need it. It strikes me as more than a little strange that the organisation are now signing up to fight this.

I would have thought, and liked to see, organisations such as AIM, the MCPS-PRS and the PPL striking out against people such as the BPI and declaring that the internet gives opportunities to independent artists and labels that have never been possible before. They can make more money, get more coverage and finally have a much more level playing field with the majors than ever before. It is time to encourage this new world where artists get rewarded for the work they do rather than fight it in the name of a few influential moneymen.

Then again, they may all surprise us yet.

Open response to Keith Jopling

Following this week’s MusicTank event, Keith Jopling, one of the members of the panel, has written is summary of the goings on and a few afterthoughts on his blog.

Now, despite a few semi-decent worked through points, Jopling spoils any sort of sensible argument by declaring that, with legalised file-sharing, for artists, “the incentive to create anything of real quality just isn’t there.”

This, of course, is rubbish. If he was a journalist I’d think he was looking to get a reaction. Unfortunately, as someone who has worked with the likes of SonyBMG and EMI, I believe he is deadly serious and, even more worryingly, he gets paid to convince others he’s right.

Here is my response, posted on his blog.

Keith, how are things in the clouds? Seriously, you really do live in some sort of bubble that is detached from the real world – artists only motivated by money? Jeez, perhaps every single open mic night should not bother, perhaps karaoke bars should close since nobody enjoys singing, perhaps all those DIY artists making music in their bedrooms should give up because they won’t make a fortune, perhaps that guy scrabbling away in some dingy flat trying to put together a 7” that 3 people will ever hear should just not bother – after all, if there’s no money in it, why bother at all?

One thing is for certain, the answer isn’t easy. Another thing I am sure of but willing to be proven wrong is that online digital media can never successfully replace the turnover generated by physical media. If you have P2P sites (I’m not talking The Pirate Bay here) that give you a whole host of brilliant, rare, unreleased, live and alternative albums unavailable from anywhere else in a whole range of formats for free, isn’t that a good thing? If people can get their hands on brilliant music and share it with others, isn’t that what the music industry was built on?

This is the case as I see it: consumer paid for online digital music is unworkable because there’s always a free, better quality option out there for anyone who bothers to look. Therefore the labels need to focus on what will generate money. Perhaps ISPs is the answer, perhaps taxation is the answer – the government and local authorities pay for an element of our musical entertainment as it is, why not a little more paid for via tax? It may work, it may not, but I’m sure the general public wouldn’t mind a tiny addition to their bill in exchange for such a free service. It is an option that the record industry might have to face.

One thing I can’t get my head around is why aren’t people in the industry talking to the real innovators? I’m talking about, and you’ll probably not agree with me, people like Alan Ellis who, instead of being asked ‘how did you get 180,000 people together to talk about and share music?’ is being taken through the courts on unwinnable charges – wasting taxpayers’ money while they’re at it. Ellis invented something bigger and better than Napster and even had Trent Raznor – who until last year was signed to Universal – singing his praises, declaring OiNK “the world’s greatest record store.”

The key points to this quote are the quantity and quality of titles on offer, the recommendation services of fellow consumers and – of course – the price.

The other great quote he pulled out: “I’m not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.”

And that is the whole point: give the people what they want rather than punishing them. The only important people (really) in music are the artist and the consumer. The artist provides something beautiful and wants the consumer to listen to it. All we need to make those two happy is a distribution network that gets a-to-b. The only issue is that in the archaic industry a middleman has emerged – the record label – and they still want their plush office and nice dividend.

I think what we’re seeing is that few people actually care about record labels, they’ll buy the vinyl if they love physical records and like something enough but that small minority has always existed and always will, therefore, in all likelihood, so will smaller independent labels. What has been removed is the need for mainstream distribution and now that people don’t need it, they’re more than happy not to pay for the privilege of it.

As for artists who are only in it for the money, there are plenty of ways to make money from writing and performing music. In fact, I don’t think any artist in the world (one who writes their own material anyway) makes the majority of their money from record sales, all that this argument is about is big record companies wanting to keep their slice of the pie big and juicy and just because their existence is obsolete now, they’re trying to cash in as much as possible by kicking and screaming on their way down.

Of course you probably wouldn’t say that, I mean, they pay your wages after all.

How to get through the wall

Last night I attended the first in a series of events set up by MusicTank to discuss the possibility of “effective legitimate alternatives” to illegal music downloads – welcome to 1999 people.

This first event, entitled ‘Here we are now, entertain us’ was advertised as looking at what music consumers actually want and comparing that to the new services on offer.

Unfortunately, the organisers probably selected a handful of the most misinformed, self-righteous and short-sighted people in the music industry to be a part of the panel. Entirely self-obsessed, the majority of the panel seemed to be the back-slapping stereotypes of major label representatives portrayed in the likes of Spinal Tap. With a collective resumes that includes work with Orange, SonyBMG, EMI and Live Nation it was no surprise that the loudest voices in the room came from those who either had something to sell or a naivety about the subject that was supposed to be under discussion.

The main crux of the discussion seemed to be about giving customers (that’s you and I) bells and whistles to their download sites, different pricing models and getting control of the sale of recorded music back in the hands of those who – so the law tells us – own those recordings.

The one subject that got rapidly skated around when I dared mention it in a positive light was that of ‘illegal’ download sites and, more accurately, peer-to-peer (p2p) tracker sites. Amongst all the huff and puff of what probably constitutes constructive and open discussion in big office blocks in Central London, all the people with the loud voices and big paycheques were ignoring what was staring them in the face:

An item that can be perfectly copied by anyone has NO value

In longer terms, if you can copy something, why pay for it? If you can buy a DRM-riddled, poor quality download from iTunes OR you can get it from somewhere else in better quality for free – what is the average student (the largest market for popular music) going to do when they’ve got bills to pay (I’m not even going to use the term cr***t cr***h, although that is another argument)? Simple, they’ll ’steal’ it without any thought at all for the artist, the label head’s cocaine habit or the production staff that also need to be paid. They have their music in the format they want, it can go on their mp3 player and it can enhance their life.

Now, that ‘format they want’ comment is vital here, and another misinformed opinion the panel had was believing that consumers want quantity over quality (yes, really). Worldwide, music downloads generate around $2 billion in revenue whereas physical sales of music in 2007 generated $19.6 billion in revenue. So, almost to illustrate the major record industry’s appallingly slow – shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot – embracement of the new media age (something they’re still not managing entirely positively), legal downloads equate for less than 10% of total record sales.

What I don’t believe is that downloads have the right to replace pound-for-pound the revenue generated in the past by physical record sales. What I do believe is that there will always be a market for physical records, it will just be more niche and more independent market focussed. I mean, what will DJs spin if they can’t spin vinyl? What will music collectors and music lovers caress in their living rooms if they can’t stroke a hand screen printed 12″ sleeve of which only 100 are in existence? Vinyl, at a quick glance, has survived the birth of CDs, minidisks and cassettes since its commercial release in 1948. It is a format loved by millions, and that is the market that will probably still last into the foreseeable future.

Of course, it is more than naïve to suggest that any physical audio format will be able to generate enough income for the mainstream music industry to ignore the development of online technologies. What isn’t naïve is suggesting that theoretical art – that being art that you can’t hold, see or touch – has no monetary value. Of course it is valuable – but only to the artist and the listener – and it is this emotional value that removes the requirement for most record labels in their current state.

So, back to the title of the series – ‘let’s sell recorded music’ – the answer to the question ‘how?’ is, quite simply, look elsewhere. Terry McBride’s ‘Meet the Millennials’ report is a fantastic read for anyone trying to make money in this industry and tells you more than I could probably learn about modern day revenue streams. For this point on yesterday’s discussion though, innovation of music services by the likes of Apple will never work, the only chance labels have of squeezing money out of their recordings catalogues is by liaising with those they fear most – the pirates. Work with their fantastic distribution channels, learn from them what your customers want, offer your music up for free sharing and hope you can pick up fans that want to donate money or by the nicely packaged physical copy, don’t rue what you give away for free, embrace those who care enough to pay for your efforts.

For an example of how this could work, and why all people should avoid iTunes, read the story of The Flashbulb.