This google docs link has the same content, but it just looks cleaner:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hoEY_rhjUmvr8ng6cL0CfzoJTI8T7Pwc6IehdO0SMAI/edit?usp=sharing
Streaming Portion:
Streaming has not been around as long as everybody thinks. Some Millennials and most Generation X people were born in the full bloom technology era, so they had it access to all of it. Some millennials saw and experienced the shift from pre-technology era to the technology era. Streaming takes on multiple forms: radio broadcasting, television, motion pictures, video games, online video, etc. YouTube, “founded in 2005,” took over the music television, MTV, and ultimately had a higher consumption than MTV. Streaming created multiple chances for companies, artists, and consumers – it was a “culture of opportunity” (The Economics of Music). With secondary music markets, there needed to be a consensus amongst the streaming services, music labels, publishers, artists, and countries. Music-sharing services included Ireland’s Tape TV, China’s QQ Video, and now international YouTube.
The motion pictures had one of the biggest impacts on the music industry economy. The music was either composed for the motion pictures or pre-existing music was licensed by the companies and artists. Video games created a “relevant revenue source for music publishers and composers and function as an important music licensing market” (The Economics of Music). With such contracts for using music in other forms other than CDs and live music, they bring attention to the topic of copyright infringement and piracy laws. YouTube was not the first that attracted controversy; it was Napster.
The original Napster was established in 1999 by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, and it was a peer-to-peer file sharing network, specifically sharing digital music files in the form of MP3s. As long as people created their own accounts, they had access to a large amount of free audio files that any members could share with each other. At one point after the creation of Napster, there were around 80 million users registered. It got to a point where colleges had to block this site on their internet network because it was overbearing the school’s connections. One could find almost anything on this service, from recent chart toppers to bootleg recordings. However, it did not survive on this world for long because of the copyright infringement laws. The acts the service was committing in general quickly were focused on by the Recording Industry Association of America or RIAA. They quickly filed a lawsuit against them for “the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material” (History of Napster). Ultimately, Napster was forced to shut down in 2001, only three years after its creation, and the owners had to pay millions to artists, companies, and copyright holders.
Many artists were not fond of Napster because they felt as if they were being cheated by their listeners since they were not being paid. Musicians saw the service as a thief because consumers were not paying for their music. However, some believe that Napster pushed the music industry into its next era. In “15 Years After Napster: How the Music Service Changed the Industry,” Alex Suskind pointed out that Napster “deserves credit not just for being the first, but for revolutionizing a new frontier in music consumption. Even today, its legacy and its effect on the industry are still very much in play.” Suskind interviewed multiple people and asked their opinions on the original Napster, and not only did many of them have similar ideas but also they had interesting comments regarding the service and its hand in the current music industry. Kurt Loder, a former MTV News anchor, pointed out how Napster was a major marketing service for both new and old artists because people would share music files with each other. Additionally, Loder pointed out that consumers sometimes did not want to buy the whole album just to listen to only two songs. With Napster, they were able to choose the songs they wanted and nothing more. Brian Hiatt, a senior writer for Rolling Stone, said that Napster could have been the current Spotify - the RIAA missed their opportunity to make Napster into a paid service. Spotify is one of the major services now that changed the course of business and music industry history, regarding royalties, and Napster could have been that. Napster itself proved that people not only like free goods but also love easy accessibility. Dan Reilly is a freelance journalist who was also a former editor of AOL Music’s Spinner. He said, “To blame Napster for all the industry’s ills is a reflection of people’s unwillingness to let go of the status quo and not admit to a lack of foresight of how the digital universe would change music, not to mention other ‘dying industries’ like print news and book publishing.”
The music industry has always been resistant to change. Companies and some artists have never been fond of the streaming services because they believe that that are stealing from them – that they are not receiving as much as they provide. However, the streaming industry is not as simple as supply and demand. There are three roles the music industry in general: consumers, artists, and the companies, and their perspectives and decisions play a major role in the music market.
There are the false ideas that consumers only want free goods; however, that is not completely true. Looking at the article, “An Analysis of Music Fan Towards Music Streaming Purchase Intention of Thailand’s Music Industry,” it is the fans’ love and support for the music and the for musicians that continuously brings in revenue for the artists and the companies. They increase sales for concert tickets, merchandises, and music tracks, such as CDs, digital albums, etc. At times, it seems as if the music industry forgot that it is the fans that are making their world go around. A lot of labels and artists tend to only focus on their self-image and forget that they need to keep up with their fan communication, even at concerts. In this study, it points out that the reason why there are people willing to buy their products is that the “artist’s passion for their music fans is the key factor in music lover’s intent to download and pay for digital music.” For a long period of time, the RIAA, music companies, and artists struggled with consumers illegally downloading music – getting music without purchasing it. However, there are fans who continue to support their artists by actually paying for their goods because it may benefit the artists. The study also suggests that “entrepreneurs and music industry leaders” should be aware of the different types of fans because that can also make a different in the consumers’ willingness to buy their music. In a different study, “I worship, so I Download? Idol Worship, Music Purchase and Piracy by Young Consumers in Taiwan,” two objectives were assessed: “the effect of parental peer norms on idol worship and the effect of idol worship on the intention to purchase and obtain the idol’s music products legally and illegally.” The results suggested that “social worship and personal worship have a significant and positive impact on the intention” to buy music. [I plan to add statistics] Person worship tends to have a negative effect on buying pirated music whereas social worship leans more towards the positive side, so social worship actually benefits the artists and companies. Social worship is simply basic interest. Fans tend to learn about, read about, and listen to their idols, whereas for personal worship, fans have intensive and compulsive feelings that lead to infatuation. The researchers claimed that the “more extreme dimensions of idol worship lead to compromised identity structure in some individuals,” so as seen from the results, personal worship had a higher percentage of piracy than social worship’s percentage.
[I want to do more research for the artists-and-companies section because I want to look for more sources regarding independent artists and companies]
OTHER STREAMING SERVICES
YouTube →
YouTube took over the music television, MTV. It had a higher consumption than MTV.
YouTube “founded in 2005 … is a user-generated platform and has attracted controversy over the copyright-infringing practices of users who upload content without the permission of rights holders”
They have a Content ID system that identifies any copyright material and gives the artists/creators the power “either to enforce the removal of the video or to sell advertising around it”
https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_stewart_how_youtube_thinks_about_copyright/transcript?language=en
Example: Forever by Chris Brown
At least 18 months after Chris Brown released “Forever,” a wedding couple used that song and danced to it. They got 40 million views and Sony didn’t block it because their video was marketing the song and bringing in a lot of revenue. The song was brought back to top 5 on iTunes, so not only is Sony getting money from YouTube but also iTunes.
This is a win-win situation
Streaming created a “culture of opportunity”
ARTISTS AND COMPANIES → STREAMING PORTION
Artist’s Perspectives – How are artists reacting to the streaming services?
Some artists would like to be paid more if they were to use the streaming services to market their music
Taylor Swift actually restricted a lot of her music from Spotify as the royalties that she got weren’t as much as album sales
From previous articles, they mentioned that artists also want to have interactions with fans that way the consumers are more inclined to continue to support them and buy their music – physically and digitally
However, artists are stuck in the middle between creating music for the fans and creating music that will bring revenue in for the company
There are some artists who prefer to produce money that will bring them money
Other artists want to create music that their fans will like and that fulfills their own happiness
Just from artists, there is also a difference between the companies they represent: Major vs. Independents
Jack Conte is the creator of Patreon and he was pointing out how artists and creators need to be paid the appropriate amount for their works
One of the shocking points: compare 20,000 views on YouTube vs. 20,000 people in a concert. But artists/creators who upload on YouTube are not paid half as much as the money made from concerts
Music Companies’ Perspectives – How are they responding to the rise of streaming services? Why do they react negatively when the streaming services are technically marketing their artists’ music?
Main point – THEY ARE NOT MAKING ENOUGH REVENUE
Although streaming services can help market artists’ music, artists and companies are not gaining the same amount of revenue as they do through physical album sales
‘Let's keep music special. F—Spotify’: on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties
Big controversy “criticizing the low levels of royalty payments”
This article focuses on independent labels and musicians
Streaming is actually utilizing the same expansion concept as major record labels
“The success of major labels has always depended upon ‘consumption-based’ rather than ‘unit-based’ profits; their strategy was to release lots of records in the knowledge that only a small number of them would be successful but that the rewards from a small number of hits would outweigh the losses of the remaining releases”
Which is why although major music companies are bothered by it, they are still making some form of profit; however, independent record labels are actually struggling as they have different rules they live by compared to the major ones
Spotify’s payment is targeted towards major labels
There is a lack of transparency in the music industry, however, they still don’t try to resolve the issue. They still keep everything bottled up.
Concerns with Spotify is very similar to the concerns from the past (record industry) -> it seems as if the music industry simply has concerns with the improving technology society if they previously had problems with the record industry and now concerns with the streaming services that, from some perspectives, is actually helping the artists and the companies out with advertisements
“The recorded music landscape in the streaming era is beginning to bear many similarities to that of the CD era: financial success depends upon scale and catalogue, the major labels have a stake in music distribution networks, and the vast majority of artists do not make money”
NEW DISCOVERIES:
Copyright enforcement – “while still publicly criticising piracy and campaigning for improved copyright enforcement, the record industry apparently accepted that it would have to adapt to consume behavior”
MARKETING ASPECT
How has the music industry been affected by the changing marketing scene, especially since digital marketing has grown so much throughout the years?
Cueno, Alice Z. “Microsoft Changes Its Marketing Tune for Lackluster Zune.” Advertising Age, vol. 78, no. 44, Nov. 2007, pp. 4–39. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27403198&site=ehost-live
Zune = “an MP2 player that competes with Apple’s higher-priced products”
How to increase revenue? “Raise its ad budget considerably, ditch its tagline and turn to a new ad agency”
The Zune’s launch campaign focused on a different way of marketing → their arts program that features short films and music from rising artists, revolving around sharing
This is more of a unique strategy because iPod is more individual whereas Zune is all about sharing, which obviously helps artists since music is being distributed by consumers
“Taking on Digital Disruption.” Music Trades, vol. 166, no. 2, Mar. 2018, pp. 86–87. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=128230701&site=ehost-live.
Internet and technology in general disrupted the way of things, in particular traditional business but it shoved society into a different age
Technology is “changing how consumers shop and how retailers” are handling their business
Micro-transaction = "the brief connection that’s achieved between a company and a consumer every time that consumer, say, views a social media post or watches a video from that business”
Macro-transaction = “Analytics can show business owners which of these micro-transactions translate to … sales”
Messaging lets consumers request or purchase a product without really having to explore a website
Voice-controlled (Amazon’s Echo) = a better way for people to simply request what they want without having to look at a screen → so they can technically be cleaning or cooking and then scream at their Echo to find and order something
“Technology has taken the technology out of technology” = mobile and voice devices are now the older generation’s go-to technology
And looking at the shift in digital marketing, music is now one of the major products that everybody wants to get their hands on
The search for music is like never before
JOHNSTON, JOHN. “Why The Sound of Music Was Right (About Content Marketing).” EContent, vol. 40, no. 6, Nov. 2017, pp. 26–27. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126048204&site=ehost-live.
Marketing = it’s all about the content. What do you want read, heard, and seen?
The goal is to advertise the message, the event, etc.
Who’s the audience? Where do they usually go, such as what sites do they go on? Whom do they trust, such as trustworthy people or sites?
Listening to the consumers → as they are very, very vocal.
Kipnis, Jill. “Digital Hollywood Tackles Online Music Marketing.” Billboard, vol. 116, no. 42, Oct. 2004, pp. 35–36. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14803048&site=ehost-live.
“Digital music providers believe that if they differentiate themselves from the prominent digital service … consumers will eventually explore music online”
Consumers are very picky, so they choose platforms that they are comfortable with – that matches their taste – just like dating
Many online services are actually promoting and advertising for rising artists based off of consumers’ taste in music through some fancy software that filters genres and artists by the consumers’ listening patterns and habits
Price also determines how well their services attract consumers
People need to take advantage of technology right now, especially since everything is practically digital
The music industry, specifically the companies, are so stubborn
They need to be more active with the digital era
If they participate in the digital space, it could actually benefit them
Because as of right now, since they are going against the flow of things (specifically the technology) they are not getting the most out of everything
Branded media marketing → the game plan
PHAM, ALEX. “Discovery: The Key To Digital Fortune.” Billboard, vol. 124, no. 43, Dec. 2012, pp. 18–20. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=83762307&site=ehost-live.
The music industry needs to start investing in new technologies to push not only their business but the industry in general forward
There is so much room for improvement but they are so resilient
First of all, they can convert consumers to start paying for listening to music by convincing them that in order to get the most out of a service is by paying
Innovation
Incorporating bots into tech in order to understand what each consumer wants and prefers
Artist Power
Music; Photos; Videos; Bios; Shows
ADVERTISE AND MARKET THEM ON THE WEB
Encouraging listeners to look at other artists
In a sense, record companies and artists need to work together to help boost each other’s businesses and make the most out of their career
Commenti