Vevo CEO and President Rio Caraeff more or less confirmed on Wednesday my suspicion that the music service was not created to serve a new need for consumers. Rather, it was built to help advertisers and content owners (including labels, artists, and music publishers) capitalize on music videos, and to help Google (YouTube's owner) offload some of the cost associated with administering rights to them. In other words, this isn't a business-to-consumer play, it's more of a business-to-business arrangement.
As he put it: music videos are popular online, fans like them, and content owners think of them as premium content. But they're too widespread, appearing on YouTube, AOL, and many other sites, and the user experience is way too varied--when a user searches on a song name at YouTube, they might get multiple copies of the exact same music video, plus user-posted remixes, live versions shot with a cell phone camera, and even parody versions. More generally, music videos grew up as a promotional tool for albums, and advertisers and users have come to see them as a commodity rather than prime product. Consequently, advertisers haven't been willing to pay much to place their messages next to them, and online music videos have lost money at a "staggering" scale.
Vevo is meant to provide an online clearinghouse for label-approved music videos--the kind of professionally shot videos that often cost half a million dollars or more and used to form the backbone of MTV. Vevo will be the exclusive distributor of these videos, and will handle all licensing and ad sales, although partner Google is handling the actual video hosting and streaming. In other words, if you're running a video site and you want to post a video that's in Vevo's catalog, Vevo will be your only source. By enforcing scarcity, giving advertisers a central place to buy ads, and controlling the user experience--for example, ensuring that there aren't many copies of the same video on YouTube--Vevo believes that advertisers will be willing to pay much more to appear next to these videos. So far, this seems to be true: according to Caraeff, advertisers have been willing to pay between $25 and $40 per thousand views (CPM, in advertising parlance) for Vevo-provided videos, compared with average market rates of $3 to $8. Caraeff claimed that artists and publishers will get about 50 percent of all revenues from these ads--a much higher percentage than they earn from recordings. This is why Mariah Carey and U2 were so excited about the launch.
Interestingly, Vevo will also curate unlicensed videos. For example, if somebody creates a remix of a Beyonce song with an associated video, and it becomes a runaway hit, Vevo might try to claim the video, add it to the Vevo catalog, and handle licensing for its content owners. Caraeff claims they're not going after the home video of your dog skateboarding to your favorite song, but professional-looking videos that have never been claimed, and therefore aren't making any money for anybody. (YouTube doesn't sell ads against unclaimed content for fear of copyright liability.)
So what's in it for Google? Simple--although YouTube has tons of viewers, it also has more inventory than it can sell advertisements against. Licensing for music videos is complicated, and not in Google's core area of expertise. Google is happy to hand this task off to Vevo and accept a lower percentage of advertising dollars because it believes the cost savings and higher CPMs will eventually make business sense.
Finally, about the botched launch: As Caraeff explained, Vevo was basically a B2B play, and the company didn't expect many users to visit its site on the first day. But the publicity created by the big launch party drove massive interest, and the company got more traffic in its first hour than it expected for its entire first year. For what it's worth, the company has added 32 servers in the last 24 hours, and I'm now able to get videos to play on the site with no problem.
In addition, Vevo didn't think it was critical to launch with a full complement of content--remember, it's mainly a back-end and clearinghouse for YouTube and other sites, and if you were watching videos there yesterday, you'll still be watching those same videos there tomorrow (as long as a takedown notice hasn't been issued). So Vevo launched with only about 15,000 videos from Sony and Universal Music. In January, it will add about 30,000 more from EMI and several independent distributors.
I still don't understand why they launched Vevo.com as its own Web site, but at least I understand the thinking behind the company. It won't change my behavior--I'm still going to YouTube, and if a video happens to be provided by Vevo, I'll know that the artists are making some money from it. Fair enough.
Vevo, the new music-video site operated by Google (which owns YouTube) and co-owned by three of the four major labels (EMI, Sony, and Universal; Warner Bros. not participating), launched on Tuesday to some fanfare in New York. Big music celebs rubbed elbows with Google and label execs in the kind of self-congratulatory bash that only the entertainment industry can pull off.
This is as far as I got when I tried to play U2's video for "Even Better Than The Real Thing" on Vevo.
Maybe that's too harsh, but I visited the site on Wednesday and I quite honestly can't figure out who or what it's for. It's got music videos, but only from three of the four majors and some independent distributors, which leaves huge swaths of the entertainment landscape blank. As far as I could tell from a search of the site--and the search engine should work, given that Google's behind the site--Vevo is sadly lacking in classic rock and modern indie rock, which are the two genres I listen to most.
There's no Roger Waters or Pink Floyd. No Pixies. No Grizzly Bear. No Led Zeppelin. No Animal Collective. No Beatles. No Eric Clapton. And on and on and on. Go ahead and try your own, you'll get the idea--if you can get the site to work to work at all. (It's been plagued by glitches since launching, and my effort to play U2's "Even Better Than the Real Thing" around 1 p.m. Wednesday met in failure--the video froze around 80 percent loaded.) Apparently, if you can get a video to load, you'll probably have to watch a video advertisement before it starts.
The aforementioned artists are all over the place on YouTube--a site that everybody knows and loves and is largely free from video advertisements. And because Google is behind both sites, videos licensed for Vevo will also appear on YouTube, with Vevo getting the credit (and ad bucks) when a YouTube viewer watches a Vevo video. So why would anybody go to Vevo? Why bother building it, instead of just making it a new channel on YouTube? Who is this for?
The music industry, that's who. It wants to control the online music video experience--Universal Music Group CEO Doug Morris flat out said so. They're tired of mean old Google using its content to sell advertisements. But I honestly can't imagine why Google agreed, unless the labels held it over a barrel, refusing to license their content for YouTube unless Google agreed to help them create a music-industry answer to TV-streaming site Hulu.
Here's the thing. The big winners in the old music industry of yesteryear don't like the Internet. U2 manager Paul McGuinness has said that Internet service providers should bear part of the blame for piracy. Doug Morris earned some scorn two years ago for a Wired interview in which he revealed that his label didn't even try to come up with a digital strategy in the early days, when P2P file-trading networks first started becoming popular.
If you don't like the Internet, you're not going to be able to create an Internet service that people like. More than 15 years into this Interwebs thing, some people still don't understand that if they create an experience that users don't like, it won't get used. It's like they're still living back in 1973 when we only had three TV networks and one or two daily papers and a handful of local radio stations. We now have unlimited choice. Offer me something better than what's out there now, or please, save yourself some money and effort and get out of my way.
Hulu succeeded not only because the TV companies played hardball, refusing to license their content too broadly to other distributors, but also because it launched strong, with a big selection of desirable content. Vevo could certainly turn itself around, but its launch doesn't look very promising. I suspect it'll end up like every other entertainment industry effort that offers no clear benefit to users: on the digital scrapheap.
Here's an interesting study in contrasts. When MySpace acquired iLike back in August, MySpace left the site mostly intact. The iLike home page is still there, you can still add iLike's music-finding and sharing application to your Facebook page, and iLike is given prominent placement in Google search results for music-related queries, thanks to an October deal between MySpace and Google. (That deal also included several other companies.)
On Tuesday, MySpace completed its acquisition of Imeem, a service that used to let users upload music and videos and share playlists. In the press release announcing the finalization of the deal, MySpace noted that it will be "working as quickly as possible" to migrate "aspects of" Imeem to MySpace Music.
What does that mean? As of Tuesday, it means that Imeem's gone. Imeem.com and my personal Imeem profile both redirect to MySpace Music. The press release promises that MySpace will "be working to offer users the Imeem playlists they've created on MySpace Music," but the phrasing on the FAQ doesn't leave me much hope--"will attempt to transition" leaves a lot of wiggle room.
The free Imeem app for iPhone is still in the iTunes Store, but it's going to be inoperable until MySpace pushes an update out, and there's no telling how close the new app will be to the old one.
I always found Imeem a little confusing--especially in its early days--but I did like its user-contributed content model, which gave it a large selection of music, and I personally used it to post a lot of recordings from long-dead bands I used to play in. But I suspect that user-contributed content is one reason why MySpace is treating Imeem so differently than it treated iLike: some of that content may not have been properly licensed from content owners. In contrast, MySpace boasts that its content is "fully licensed."
Unfortunately, using MySpace Music is still a pain. It's gotten a bit better since the last time I took a close look, but I still can't find the home pages for certain artists using the MySpace search engine (Google works), the advertisements are still annoying and intrusive (text ads above search results; audio ads on a music site), and there are still no playable Led Zeppelin tracks. (Although MySpace does have The Beatles and AC/DC, which most other services don't.)
There's no free lunch, and the recent consolidation among free online music sites is beginning to look like a crackdown.
MOG offered me a free trial to its subscription-based streaming music service, MOG All Access, which launched on Tuesday. The service costs five bucks a month, and gives you unlimited on-demand streams of more than six million songs from all four major labels and plenty of indies. The site is trying to differentiate itself from competitors like Rhapsody and Napster with high-quality streams--all songs are 320kbps MP3s--and some fairly sophisticated music discovery features, like playlists posted by musicians (David Byrne got the featured spot on the day of launch) and other fans with similar tastes to yours ("Moggers like me").
(Credit:
Screenshot)
I've been sampling the service for about an hour, and I do appreciate the sound quality (although better volume-leveling between songs would be nice) and recommendation services. And I'd like to thank the designers personally for the ability to add any song to the already-playing queue--a feature I love on Grooveshark and my Zune HD and that I always miss whenever I use one of my iPods. But there's one big problem: song selection.
Because MOG is licensing content directly from copyright owners, there are big gaps from artists who simply don't want to participate in online music. The usual suspects like AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and the Beatles are mostly missing in action. There are also strange gaps elsewhere. For instance, half the songs on the Pixies' "Surfer Rosa" are unplayable. Compared with Grooveshark, which relies on user-posted content, MOG has too many holes. And of course, Grooveshark remains free (although a $3/month subscription gets you a version without advertisements).
Song selection could improve over time as MOG signs more licensing deals, but I found some other related glitches as well. For instance, '70s folk artist Roy Harper, whom I often use as a test case to see how well an online service does with relatively obscure old content, has almost no playable content, but does offer a nice list of albums with links to Amazon. The only problem: when you follow the Amazon link on unplayable songs, it takes you to the Amazon Music front door--most of his songs aren't available for download there, either.
In its demonstration video, MOG touts its online radio service as a unique feature. When you're playing a particular artist, a slider lets you control how much variety you want, from "play only songs by this artist" all the way up to "play mostly songs from similar artists." It could use some fine-tuning, however. When I started a queue with a Modest Mouse song, it used Modest Mouse as the basis for its selection. Fair enough, but when I added songs by Talking Heads and Public Image Limited, the radio algorithm didn't account for those artists. It simply switched my radio playlist completely when the new songs started playing, showing all Talking Heads songs, all PIL songs, and so on. Pandora and Slacker do a much better job of creating custom stations based on multiple artists. (Although, of course, those services don't let you play individual songs on demand.)
Finally, as I wrote last week, I still think MOG's lack of mobile support is a fatal flaw, but one that could be easily remedied: Apple's approved iPhone clients for subscription services Rhapsody and Spotify, so why not MOG?
All of these flaws can be fixed, although licensing content takes time and convincing. I'm a big fan of competition, though, and MOG takes many of the best features of a lot of other services, combines them in one place, and improves on some of them. For that, the company should be commended.
Start-up company Gigzee recently updated its free gig-finding iPhone app. I love live music, and I'm always happy when there's another iPhone app to help me find out what's going on. But Gigzee's competing in an already crowded space, and it doesn't have much to set it apart from its competitors.
The concept's familiar enough: Gigzee uses the iPhone's GPS transceiver to detect your current position, then lists live music gigs happening in the next two days, within a certain distance (the default is five miles). You can also enter a ZIP code to get gig listings for another area, view gig locations on a map, and customize the date range to show all gigs within the next month, for example.
Unfortunately, that's about all there is. There's no way to track favorite artists, which means it falls short of the free JamBase iPhone app. JamBase lets you track favorites on its Web site, then link the iPhone app to your account to see a list of gigs only by those artists. (My absolute favorite app in this category, the $2.99 iConcertCal, saves you this manual process by automatically pulling favorite artist information from your iTunes library, but apparently it has a bug and has been removed from the iTunes store for now, and I can no longer get it to open on my iPhone. Bah humbug!)
More importantly, these apps are only as good as their databases of concert information, and here Gigzee appears to fall short. In a quick test, the JamBase app showed me six live gigs happening within five miles of my location tonight. Bandloop, which is also free, showed me a remarkable 12 gigs. (But Bandloop can only show gigs in the next two days--there's no way to get a longer-duration list, which is why I don't use it.) Gigzee? Only three.
I've spoken to Gigzee founder Anurag Jain, and he's a big-time music fan with lots of interesting ideas, like letting artists link their MySpace profiles and automatically post gigs to the site. But so far, the service still looks like a work in progress.
For the last year or so, it's become clear that the economics of ad-supported streaming music services are not good for their creators or investors. As CNET's Greg Sandoval reported last week, the acquisition of streaming service Imeem by MySpace Music for pennies on the dollar is the latest bad news for the sector, following the bankruptcies of SpiralFrog and Ruckus and the similar fire sale of iLike to MySpace.
Offering your music via Spotify might help you fill up your piggybank.
Who's left? In the U.S., we've still got LaLa, which has the blessing of the major labels and seems to be enjoying dramatically increased traffic (as measured by Alexa) thanks to its recent deal with Google, and Grooveshark, which has kept a low profile. Neither of these services is purely ad-supported--particularly LaLa, which hopes to charge customers for downloads and "permanent" streams once they surpass a quota of 50 free streams a month.
But the service most often cited as the future of online music is Spotify. It's only available in Europe right now, but it seems like everybody who tries it loves it, myself included. Spotify offers a premium service as well, which offers portability and higher-quality streams, but the free service offers unlimited ad-supported streams, and that's the service that has everybody so excited.
But there's one small problem with the Spotify-as-savior story: it doesn't pay artists very well. According to this story in a Swedish publication, as translated and explained by the TorrentFreak blog, Spotify delivered more than one million streams of Lady Gaga's hit single "Poker Face" over five months. From these streams, she reportedly earned about 1,150 Swedish kronor--about $167--from the Swedish agency responsible for paying royalties. That's not even enough to cover the cost of four tickets to her upcoming concert in San Francisco.
If this story's true, why would any artist agree to make songs available on Spotify? With these kinds of payouts, it looks like music business expert Donald Passman is right--advertising is never going to support an online music service.
If you work in the music business, you probably already know the name Donald Passman. For the uninitiated, his book "All You Need to Know About the Music Business," which was first released in 1991 and comes out in a seventh edition today, is the book on how the music industry works. If you ever wanted to know how major and indie label deals are structured, the different types of royalties that musicians can earn and how they're calculated, what a personal manager does for a band, how much money artists make on tour, where your ticket fees go, or any of countless other nitty-gritty details, this is the book. Music industry people sometimes call it the bible, and they're not joking.
The seventh edition contains numerous updates since the last release in 2006, including the final resolution of the battle over Internet radio royalties, details of how royalties are calculated for iTunes and YouTube, and the latest developments in label deals. I had a chance to talk to Passman on the phone on Tuesday morning about the changes he sees in the music industry and where he thinks it's going.
Q: Since the last edition of the book was published in 2006, what's the biggest change to the industry?
Donald Passman: 360 deals [in which record labels get a cut of the artist's revenue from touring, merchandise, and other sources apart from record sales] are a tectonic shift in the way record deals get done. There was a smattering of them three years ago, but now it's become the norm. Early deals with Madonna and other established artists were really banking deals, where everybody knew the artist's track record and they were making a bet on what the future would be. Deals with new artists are quite different. The labels are saying that they're the only ones really willing to spend money on a new artist's career, and they can no longer make money just in the record business, so they need a cut of this other income.
We're also starting to see some industry patterns in how royalties and payments are calculated for digital music. So far, none of the business models have made a lot of money. Even iTunes doesn't make a huge profit. But part of the problem three years ago was that if you started a streaming music service, you had no idea what you were paying. Now we're starting to see industry patterns.
Do you still think it's worth an artist's time to pay or find funding for a professionally recorded demo in a big studio? Or would you recommend that artists invest that time and money in buying a computer and other home recording gear and learning how to record themselves?
Passman: There's no one-size-fits-all answer. The software that's available now is better than what professional studios used to be like 10 years ago. You can create an extraordinarily good demo in your house. The key is to create a demo that sounds like a hit so they don't have to use their imagination to hear it. People will tell you they can hear a diamond in the rough; they can't.
Do you think the rise of do-it-yourself online services like CDBaby, Tunecore, and Sonicbids will lead to a new thriving "middle class" of musicians--folks that aren't signed to a label, but spend most of their time recording and touring and make a decent living doing it?
Passman: It's a reality today. If you're a niche-type artist and you don't mind staying in your niche, you can make a perfectly good middle-class living that way. If you're more mainstream, you can use those techniques to build buzz and attract a label. Nobody's yet had a major career without a label behind them. I'm certain that's going to change, but for bands that want to be truly international and mainstream, they still need a label.
In your book, you mention that you favor unlimited music-streaming--the "celestial jukebox"--as the most likely future business model to succeed. Do you think ad-supported free services (like Imeem or Grooveshark) will ever be viable?
Passman: I'm skeptical that ad-supported music services will work in a major way. People have had a hard time monetizing music to advertisers because the music is so diverse. Advertisers don't know what type of music they're going to be associated with, so it's hard for these services to get high enough CPMs [impression-based advertising rates]. YouTube's had the same problem: you don't know what kind of video's going to pop up next to your advertisement. Free services will probably be a model, but I don't think they'll be the model.
Why do you think subscription-based services (such as Rhapsody) haven't really taken off?
Passman: They're not convenient enough, they're not truly cross-platform. For me, the ultimate would be anytime-anywhere access to any music for one subscription. On my computer, in my car, on a connected device, whether it's an iPod or something else, on an airplane when I don't have an Internet connection. Not just tied to one or two devices. I'm personally a believer in subscription services. People don't think twice about paying for cable, and when you stop paying it goes away. But with music, there's a kneejerk reaction because we're used to owning it.
We hear a lot of doom and gloom about the death of the music industry. Are you still optimistic?
Passman: I'm optimistic in the longer term. Not for the next few years. I think it'll probably get a little worse, and then we'll bump along the bottom for a while. I don't think we've hit bottom, and that's because I see the trends that are happening now. CD sales are declining and will eventually disappear, and retailers are making it happen. They're cutting back the floor space they devote to CDs, which means less CD sales, which makes them cut back more.
But the digital opportunity is huge. We can sell music to people who've never gone into a record store, people who never listen to music because they stopped listening to the radio at a certain age will now have access. Unfortunately, we're not there, technically or legally. The more pain the industry feels, the easier the legal side gets. The better the technology gets, the closer we get to delivering an experience people want.
Wolfgang's Vault, which offers high-quality digital recordings of rock concerts, has been trickling out updates since I wrote about its new iPhone app last month. On Tuesday, the site will begin to offer a new optional membership model where $48 a year gets you $50 worth of merchandise, plus discounted downloads and other benefits.
Wolfgang's Vault offers free streams, and downloads that cost up to $12, of professionally recorded concerts, in various formats up to and including lossless FLAC files. The Vault got its start by buying the recorded archives from San Francisco concert promotion company Bill Graham Presents, and added to that with the King Biscuit Flower Hour, a live concert radio show popular in the 1970s and '80s. That means the vault is pretty heavy on music from the classic rock era. However, the same company also owns Daytrotter, which invites touring bands into a studio in Illinois to record a session, which adds nearly 800 sessions from modern, mostly independent acts to the archive.
Starting last week, the company began releasing hundreds of new recordings under a promotion called Cracking the Vault. It expects to add more than 1,000 new concerts over the next three months, including 150 shows by the Grateful Dead that have never been officially released. (Although, knowing the Dead, bootlegs probably exist.)
The new membership model allows true fans of the site to show their colors and become WVIPs. It's strictly optional--this isn't a new subscription service, but more of a fan club. An annual fee of $48 nets you $50 in merchandise (including posters, T-shirts, and other memorabilia) from the Vault Store, plus 10 percent off on all merchandise (you can take the 10 percent before you reach $50), 30 percent off on all downloads, unlimited streaming access from the iPhone app (non-members are limited to 10 hours a month), special offers, and exclusive download packages. Perhaps most interesting: if you're ever in San Francisco, you can arrange a tour of Wolfgang's Vault headquarters, which the company claims contains the world's largest collection of concert memorabilia.
I had a quick conversation with Lala co-founder Bill Nguyen this afternoon, and he filled me in on some of the company's plans to expand its presence in Google's new music search feature. Today, when you search for an artist's name, Google uses mathematical algorithms to determine which songs to display--no editor is involved. But eventually, artists will be able to use Lala's platform to ensure that specific content, such as a new song, shows up in the music search results at Google.
An example of Google's embedded Lala player, which appears on a search for "Joy Division."
Artists and labels will also be able to work with Lala to sell products other than MP3 downloads through Google's search results. For example, Lala is working on a deal with Rhino Records where users will be able to buy vinyl Joy Division records directly from Lala. Eventually, the offer will appear within Google search results on queries like "Joy Division" as well.
For Rhino, this kind of deal is a no-brainer: they're suddenly getting free placement for a relatively high-priced physical product in Google's search results. But it's also beneficial to users: if they buy through Lala, not only will they get the records, but they'll also get all the digital tracks on the LP immediately added to their Lala locker, which lets them listen to those tracks from any PC with an Internet connection. (I've been using Lala's excellent locker service for about a year. Basically, it uploads your entire music collection to the Web, then lets you add additional songs for only $0.10 apiece.) And if users like the deal, then they're more likely to use Google for future music searches. Wins all around.
And that gets me to the most exciting Lala announcement of all: The company has submitted its iPhone app to Apple and hopes to have it approved some time in November. The app will allow users to stream any song in their online Lala locker to their iPhone, over both 3G and Wi-Fi connections. Conceptually, it's similar to iPhone apps from Spotify (in Europe) and Rhapsody, but without the subscription fee; any song you've uploaded to your music locker will be available on your iPhone. And of course, you'll still be able to buy streaming-only versions of new songs for $0.10 a piece. (Lala might charge something like $5 for the app itself, but the company hasn't decided.) I'm getting an early look some time in the next few days. I'll try it and report back on how it works.
How far we've come in such a short time. When I began this blog in 2007, finding a particular song online was an exercise in frustration. You could subscribe to an all-you-can-eat service like Rhapsody, but cheapskates and occasional music listeners either had to dig deep, engage with a questionably legal file-trading service, or settle for 30-second previews from iTunes or one of its Web-based competitors.
Search results for "U2 Beautiful Day" earlier today. The box at the upper-right is an embedded version of the Lala player, which let me play the complete song multiple times.
Since then, as readers of this blog know, dozens of sites offering free streaming music have emerged, from the dead-simple like Songerize and its successor Songite (enter a song title to play it now) to the fiendishly complicated Imeem (whose original user interface gave me a headache, although it's since gotten much better).
But, let's face it, most people don't read this blog. Again and again, nontechnical music fans are blown away when I show them a site like Grooveshark, which lets you play any song, any time, and even arrange songs in queues and playlists. "Is that legal?" they often ask. (Answer: it depends.)
Today, that all changes. Google announced the integration of playable songs into its search results yesterday, and is slowly rolling the feature out to U.S. searchers. I finally saw the feature in action this afternoon, when I ran a search on "U2 Beautiful Day." (You can test it here.)
To an experienced online music listener, the feature seems a little bit random because Google is using both iLike (recently acquired by MySpace) and
Some searches also give you links to Imeem, Rhapsody, and Pandora, each of which offers yet another experience--Rhapsody lets you play up to 25 songs per month for free, Imeem is best for finding unusual versions of popular songs (like live takes), and Pandora requires you to create a virtual radio station based on a particular artist or song, which can be useful for discovering other music you might like, but doesn't give you an instant fix.
Whatever. For the average Internet user, this distinction doesn't matter. What matters: when users go to Google to search for an artist's name, song name, album name, or even a snippet of lyrics, they won't just get random text links or YouTube videos. Instead, the first set of links will be to the audio recording itself--in many cases, the entire song. Everybody knows that there's free music available on the Internet, but most casual listeners don't bother to find it. Now, the most-visited site on the Internet will put it right in front of their faces. As awareness spreads, it'll be another nail in the coffin of traditional music media--why listen to the radio?--and a boon for the five companies who signed this deal with Google. Artists and record labels might also get a shot in the arm, as users discover new music for free and perhaps eventually buy a copy to keep.
As for the rest of the online music start-ups out there? They better be on the phone right now, looking for a benefactor.
