“When the history of our digital times comes to be written, one of the questions that will puzzle historians is why the record companies missed the significance of the internet.”

What a great thought (and a very catchy headline). Here is a summary of the article, with some commentary.

Since World War II, the record industry had a total monopoly on the recording, packaging, and distribution of music. They controlled the careers or artists, the way the music was disseminated, and dictated terms to music retailers. When the CD came around in the early 1980′s, and as the article says “recording studios converted the sounds made by musicians into bitstreams – long sequences of ones and zeroes – while, at the consumer end, CD players converted those bits back into high-fidelity sound.”

The sales model for this era was to create the plastic disks and packaging, ship them distribution houses, and then off to retailers. While this model proved to be profitable, the overhead costs were astronomical, with up to 50% of the retail price of a CD eaten up by production costs.

The internet was poised to change all of this for major labels. It presented the opportunity to drop production costs to the floor, while expanding profits. But the internet was ignored at first, and then it was treated as a realm for legal prosecution. Even bands chimed in, complaining about the evils of the internet. This practice got so widespread that the RIAA began prosecuting teenagers and single moms. And as the industry resisted the internet, CD sales bottomed out.

To put it simply, the major labels did not want to let go of CDs in the face of an evolving marketplace. Rather than adapt to the climate, they attempted to maintain the status quo. The writer of the article states “The obvious hypothesis – that the senior executives of all the record companies were idiots – has always seemed implausible to me. Or it did until I read the recent interview in Wired magazine with Doug Morris, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group.”

Because CDs were so profitable, the music industry turned a blind eye to what was next, and settled into a short sighted approoch rather than looking at the big picture.

Bottom Line: The record industry can turn itself around virtually overnight by embracing and adapting to technology. Welcome to the Future.

Ghosts is a variation on a theme created by Radiohead. The latest NIN album is part free, part paid, part digital, and part traditional. And a broad range of consumer preferences and budgets are accommodated by the initiative.

Reznor and Radiohead are important market-movers and fearless risk-takers. But are these experiments really relevant to the broader music industry?

The problem is that only part of the consumer population is going to play along. Radiohead found that a disproportionate number of fans downloaded In Rainbows for free, an offered option. But an even larger number of fans downloaded the album for free outside of the Radiohead page, on BitTorrent, P2P, and other sharing protocols.

These fans wanted the album on their turf, not Radiohead’s. And that has been the bigger story for the recording industry for the past ten years. Sure, the iTunes Store has sold 4 billion downloads, but that is just a tiny fraction of the free downloads obtained from other channels.

Outlets like Limewire offer instant, on-demand bulk downloads and comprehensive recording catalogs for free. The iTunes Store offers a cleaner copy, but for a price that makes collection volume difficult to achieve.

Now, Trent Reznor is about to learn a similar lesson. Most likely, fans will grab the first, free volume of the album in heavy numbers, and a smaller percentage will pay for the expanded collection.

But that is only part of the story. Outside of that sandbox, volumes II-IV will quickly creep onto Gnutella, BitTorrent, and IM. Sure, Reznor seeded the first volume onto BitTorrent. But who are we kidding? Fans are in charge of this channel, not Reznor.

That means far lower volumes for NIN, or any other established artist, compared to the 90s. Other factors are also sapping energy, including an increasingly-fragmented media market, and the lowered attention spans that come with it.

Then again, who needs 90s volumes when the major label is suddenly optional? After all, Reznor can now keep the revenues (almost) all to himself, and achieve robust revenues on far smaller volumes.

The math is alluring, and a major disincentive for signing with a label. Marketing specialist Seth Godin urges artists to cultivate targeted, niche audiences, and any business school graduate will lecture you on the value of consumer targeting. Why not translate those principles and percentages into a healthy, more controllable career?

The question is becoming less and less academic, and artists like Trent Reznor are putting the possibilities into motion. But it remains unclear if artists can healthily sustain themselves using this philosophy, at least in scalable numbers.

And smaller artists will have difficulty applying the Radiohead model, at least until their recognition grows. Why? The reason is that most lesser-known artists have trouble getting people to download their content for free, much less pay for it. Why pay for something blind? That is a game for pre-2000 consumers.

In contrast, Reznor and Radiohead have established names, thanks to a massive, major label publicity machine. That tailwind is a critical component of the current models – and a major reason why media outlets are focusing heavily on their initiatives.

In the middle are artists like Saul Williams, a poet and rapper that exists outside of the mainstream. Reznor actually helped Williams create a Radiohead-like model with the help of Musicane, and the results were mixed. Less than 20 percent opted to pay $5 for the album – a total of nearly 28,000. Then again, that translates into roughly $142,000, a revenue total that easily pays the bills.

And any starving artist knows that six-figures is a goldmine for a life in the arts. A major would drop Williams in a heartbeat after a performance like that. But sailing solo, Williams could command a decent and consistent payout.

So is the Radiohead model relevant? For more established, post-label artists, the concept probably maximizes recording profits, and creates momentum for other revenue generators. And the results are boosted if the recordings are dispersed across a broad number of sales outlets, including the artist page, iTunes, Amazon MP3, and even traditional brick-n-mortar.

Sure, the result is smaller than 90s recording sales potentials, but it is something nonetheless. And if the consumer elects to pay, they have the opportunity to do so.
What about everyone else? For mid-size artists, the concept can translate into meaningful revenues, and for smaller artists, the idea is probably premature ahead of broader audience awareness. But more than ever, artists have the potential to reach super-targeted audiences, and that greatly increases the chances of a paid transaction.

Here’s a paper titled “Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-Generated Content on Music”. It’s a study in how blogs and and social networking sites are impacting music sales. The study did not include any analysis on radio or internet broadcasting as a variable. Since this a very long and convoluted paper, I’ll give you the highlights.

(a) the volume of blog posts about an album is positively correlated with future sales
(b) greater increases in an artist’s Myspace friends week over week have a weaker correlation to higher future sales
(c) traditional factors are still relevant – …a number of reviews from mainstream sources … tended to have higher future sales.

People naturally look to others for opinions. Music recommendation is part of this phenomenon. When people put time and effort into good blogs, readers find value in the content and message. With MySpace, the promotion of music in top friends can be a powerful recommendation tool. And album reviews and ratings are factors in people’s buying habits.

The study was conducted for four weeks before and after an album’s release, and the sales data was based on Amazon’s top sellers of physical units.

The study discovered that mainstream album ratings did not relate to online or consumer ratings. Blog postings had the strongest relationship to sales. Higher blog post volumes and higher percentage changes in Myspace friends corresponded to increased weekly sales in the future.

They also concluded that blog posts had a larger impact on sales than MySpace, and they hypothesized that was due to a credibility gap. MySpace allows for passive involvement, while reading blogs is a more active pursuit. Also, critical acclaim in reviews did not have the impact on sales that they expected.

Ultimately, the study was unable to determine whether or not blog chatter actually causes sales, as there were too many undetermined variables. Blog chatter does on some level represent the buzz around an album, making it an expected phenomenon that it had an impact.

Here’s a quote form the conclusion of the article:

“We analyzed the usefulness of blogs and social networks, as well as reviews in
consumer, online media, and mainstream media, in predicting album sales in the four weeks before and after the album’s release date. We found that the most significant variable is blog chatter or the volume of blog posts on an album, with higher numbers of posts corresponding to higher sales.

Higher percentage changes in Myspace friends may also be significant, although the results here were not consistent … We find that the average consumer rating is significant, while the number of consumer reviews is not … Average consumer ratings better predict[ed] sales than average mainstream media ratings.

Although we found that user-generated content is a good predictor of music album sales, our analysis showed that traditional factors cannot be ignored. While independent label releases with extremely high blog chatter can sell even more units than major label releases, our findings estimated that the average major label release sold approximately twelve times more than the average independent label release. We also found that the higher the number of mainstream media reviews, the greater the sales.”

Bottom Line: The results of this study suggest that user-generated content should be considered seriously by record labels.

Here’s something novel:

Dependent Records recently uploaded their entire catalog on Pirate Bay (Dependent specializes in aggrotech, electro-industrial and futurepop). Well, sort of. Apparently a group pretending to be Dependent posted the albums on the p2p site.

The quote from label head Stefan Herwig – well, an impersonator – is “I closed down my record label Dependent Records for good. But since I want my music to be heard by the people out there, everything I have ever published is now available on The Pirate Bay.”

While artists are turning to file sharing networks for promotion, it;s unusual to see a label do this (although there are some net labels giving away music, such as Kikapu and Lacedmilk).

Herwig (or his imposter) feels that p2p technologies are killing labels, not boosting sales. However, this article claims file sharing is a boon for new music. Perhaps availability adds to desirability.

Do you think file sharing is boosting or dropping album sales?

Here’s a great article about the new marketing methods we’ll be seeing in 2008.? We will begin to see large scale experiments in subscription based music distribution and other models which eliminate a pay by the track model (such as Imeem).? The death of DRM may come this year, as three of the Big Four labels are already in the process of abandoning it.? There are rumors of deals in the works between major labels and ISPs (internet service providers) to offer unlimited downloads or more bandwidth, and we can expect to see multiple collectible versions of albums released.

As the shift in music sales hits overdrive into the digital realm, 2008 is shaping up to be the year the major labels begin to adapt to environment.? The big question left is: how will artists break into the big time?

Bottom Line:? The Big Four are finally entering the digital revolution.

A new idea has surfaced in the music business this year: giving away tons of free CDs. First Prince did it through UK newspapers, causing quite a stir in the industry. Now Big Head Todd and the Monsters are giving away 500,000 copies of their new album to radio stations and fans, splitting the cost with radio to get the copies out there. The albums will be available as giveaways from radio stations, and on the band’s site. The album is available as a free download for fans, and according to the BHTM site, the physical album is “Available SOON from our merchandise store for just $5 or FREE with any merchandise purchase of $15 or more.”

At first glance this appears to be another groundbreaking model for the industry. BHTM used to be on a major label, and has the industry recognition and viability as a touring outfit (they are preparing for a 60 city US tour as we speak) that comes with major label artist development and promotion.

Looking closer, even at dirt cheap prices (including postage), the investment here would be a minimum of $200,000. Apparently, fans are jumping at the bit to get the free album, a testament to the credibility of BHTM. But what does this action say for the rest of us in the industry? Although not as widely recognized as Prince or Radiohead (and few artists are), BHTM has the credibility and resources to launch this kind of campaign. For the rest of us who have not had major label development, access to create a quarter million in investment, tons of willing radio contacts, and the ability to book a viable 60 date US tour, this tactic may not be fruitful in the short term.

Based on the flopping CD sales over the holiday season, CDs are set to lose major amounts of retail shelf space next year, except in major retail outlets like Wal-Mart and Target. Consider that without retail shelf space, physical distributors will rapidly become obsolete. These days, selling 100,000 copies of a CD gets you high up on the charts. Give the sorry state of CD sales, it appears that musicians will need to have some kind of sure money maker (like touring) to buffer this kind of massive promo giveaway, unless one is willing to invest tens of thousands of dollars and ‘see what happens’.

So what about the horde of mid level musicians that don’t have the clout to give away half a million (or even ten thousand) CDs? It’s a brilliant marketing ploy, but without the ability to book a viable tour with sweet guarantees and juicy crowds or the guarantee of radio play it becomes a major loss leader in an industry that is rapidly losing revenue streams.

Giving away albums to generate buzz has become the modern equivalent of the single. Let the fans hear the music, and give them the opportunity to support the band live, or by buying merch or CDs. This tactic will drastically undercut the Big Four’s ability to set prices and control music distribution over 2008.

Bottom Line: It is beginning to appear that the only way to transform the music business is to devalue music and start again with a whole new model, where art is free and the money comes from something else.

The original article was in TheWeekDaily.com

I suggest you read the whole article yourself.? Here are a few of my favorite quotes, along with a bit of snappy patter:
“Ringtones, in fact, are now the fastest-growing source of music-industry revenue. “I find myself, when I’m signing a record deal now, asking, ‘Can this sell as a ringtone?’” said Steve Rifkind, president of SRC, a label affiliated with Universal.” - I’ll know I’ve made it when I’m #1 on Nokias…

“…seven years ago—an album would have to sell about 500,000 copies to reach No. 1. But Johnny Cash’s posthumous release last June reached the top of the Billboard charts after selling only 88,000 copies.” - The business model of major labels fails under these conditions.? Great news for indie labels though.

“The industry seems to have devoted most of its energy to largely futile efforts to prevent illegal downloading…big companies hunting and suing single moms and students has been a public-relations disaster. ”? - Is there anyone who doesn’t see this?

“The record industry has to find new ways of making money that do not depend on selling CDs for $16 apiece…the companies are devoting more resources to parts of the business that just a few years ago were mere afterthoughts or that didn’t even exist… some record-industry visionaries say the future won’t have much to do with making physical “records” at all.”? -? They knew all this ten years ago.

With every passing day, we see the continuing deterioration of the old guard.? The question becomes:? How will musicians make a living in the post major label environment?

Capgemini? recently broke down album sales in Britain since 2004.? While the report is still confidential, The Register reported on a few details.? And what is the reported main source of lost revenue in the British recording industry?? Album Unbundling.? (Files sharing came in at 18% of the projection).

The iTunes music store was originally launched with the blessing and backing of the four major record labels, who thought unbundling albums would be a boon to business.? it wasn’t until the major labels unbundled their catalogs that the idea was popularized. In unbundling albums, audiences have lost the incentive to buy a whole musical work.

Considering that the major labels are upset over their falling revenue, it doesn’t seem like a shining moment when they devalued the recordings in their catalogs.

Would you buy part of a painting?? As Jim Griffin pointed out in 2004, would you unbundle books of poetry?

It is valid that many albums only have a couple of good tracks, and are mostly filler.? However, most albums are created and put together as a total piece.? Ciccone Youth released an album quite a while back titled “The Whitey Album”.? The second track is “Silence”, and consisted of a little over a minute of… silence.? Admittedly, this is not the first track of its kind (the band joked that the track was a speeded up version of John Cage’s 4:44).? This track sold for 99 cents on the iTunes store, until stories started popping up in the media.? Artistic visions are undermined through unbundling, and shorter or more experimental tracks are not always as valuable as stand alone.

What do fans lose from unbundled albums?? When I think of some of my favorite albums, I can see that I would miss some gems through album unbundling.? Polyvibe artist Zoltan Dobi has several tracks of under a minute each.? Many Pink Floyd albums are meant to be listened to as a continuous piece.? Primus‘ (Primus’s?) early albums contain many short interludes that I love, but wouldn’t buy as a single.? What about artists that put experimental ramblings or noise tracks in their albums?? Clearly these tracks are intended to be part of those musical experiences.

Does it serve artists to have their musical works picked apart?? While the single is still a viable format, it has a specific design.? A track meant to generate interest in an album, and often the best track (sometimes colloquially referred to as the “money track”).? By unbundling albums, all tracks become singles, and fans often miss the gold in favor of a single serving mentality.? Radiohead’s In Rainbows is not available on iTunes for this very reason.? The album can only be obtained the way it was created: as an album.

I’m a proponent of freedom of choice, and I believe that audiences have the right to buy the music they want, and how they want it. I’m a believer that if a song is a hit, don’t withhold the single.? When you buy your tracks in single servings, the overall cost is higher.? It costs between $2,000-$10,000 to fill a 40GB iPod, depending on whether you buy the music as albums or singles.

However, as an artist, I want my vision to be experienced.? When my albums are split apart, listeners do not get the full scope of my musical vision.? As as a lesser-known artist, the incentive for people to buy a single track over the album is apparent.? While it’s an honor to have people tune in at all, is there an incentive in creating a full album if people only buy one or two tracks?

The Bottom Line:? Album unbundling has the potential to eliminate the art of the album entirely, although it does provide an opportunity for fans to expand their musical tastes in low cost increments.

This has been all over the internet this morning. I was forwarded the link above, so TechConsumer gets the nod. Here’s the official statement from Radiohead regarding the recent sales reporting of In Rainbows, first reported by comScore Inc.

Let’s look at it from a different angle.

Consider that no one but the band’s organization has accurate sales totals, and they are not required to release those figures. While comScore may have a powerful system to approximate results, it’s still speculation. Fans don’t care how many albums the band sells, they’re buying it for the music. So why is the industry racing to release information that the ‘experiment’ is a ‘failure’, and why is the media scrambling to report sales totals for In Rainbows?

If In Rainbows proves to be a success (and I predict the band will make more money for themselves then they did on Kid A), then platinum artists don’t need major labels to promote them anymore. Major labels are scrambling to show the experiment doesn’t work to protect their interests. Their marketing machine propelled Radiohead to the spotlight, and now the band can generate media frenzy on their own. If this works for Radiohead, it can work for all artists with millions of loyal fans.

Thanks to the overwhelm of media coverage on the album, Radiohead doesn’t need to spend a penny on promotion if they choose. Once an artist reaches iconic status, they need no entity to propel their career, as long as the music is quality (and the reviews of In Rainbows are glowing). This kind of free publicity eliminates the need for huge marketing pushes. Without multi-platinum artists to buffer the bottom line, major labels are nothing more than upper-tier indie labels with massive back catalogs. Thus, the need to publicly show that the method doesn’t work. The reporting of In Rainbows isn’t about album sales or revenue, it’s about keeping mega-stars on major label rosters.

This story does not represent a shift in the music industry, it represents a shift for mega-artists. Once an artist has broken into international stardom, they no longer need the promotional muscle of major labels. The echo chamber of media almost guarantees releases from superstar artists will be plastered all over media outlets, with the hopes of generating readers, viewers, or web hits. The major label business model does not account for artists leaving the label after they are mega-stars. That’s where the major labels became major in the first place.

However, In Rainbows has little or no effect on the rest of the industry, as there are not many bands that can be compared to Radiohead in terms of success. For the 95% of artists that have not had a decade of major label development and promotion, Saul Williams‘ new release (produced by Trent Reznor) is the one to watch. Released with an option to buy or download at a lower bit rate, his sales figures are a measure of what is available for a mid level artist using this tactic. Of course, Saul Williams’ Q Score is much lower than Radiohead’s, so we haven’t heard much about this.

The story here isn’t Radiohead’s actions around In Rainbows, but rather the power they have to cause huge ripples in public conversation without the major label that broke them. Regardless of the amount of money made, In Rainbows shows that superstar acts can release an independent album and maintain their media spotlight.

The sales figures are a red herring for the real issue: Major labels have lost their ability to be the only avenue for mega-artists success, and these artists represent a huge part of their revenue.

Steve Albini speaks about DIY music promotion and bands operating in the music business.