If you’re an owner of content, you are faced with the rock-and-a-hard-place discussed below: content is plentiful and plenty of it is free, so how are you going to make money?
Yes, you can make your content the absolute best in class, and you will find a fraction of your audience that will pay because your content is just so damn good, but on a grand scale you can’t really add value to content. You need to come at the problem from the other side and add value to the consumer.
Social media, the tools we have now to learn about people, and the new way we build relationships between people and brands- these are the ways you’ll make each and every consumer more valuable. Display ads are nowhere – they’re a megaphone to an undifferentiated and indifferent world. But if you tell me you can reach Northwest dads in their 50s who rock climb and recently quit smoking (which you easily can, by mining plentifully available data) – and if you are a modern brand that’s built direct and personal relationships with those consumers- suddenly you’ve added value to those consumers, who, in turn, add value to you.

The major record label groups all operate on an assumption. That assumption is that a label is “about” its current roster and existing (mostly pop) acts and it’s an assumption that has been held for a very long time.
Is this the tail wagging the dog? Why wouldn’t a modern record label flip its priorities and become a catalog of recorded music first and a promoter of new acts second if at all?
The pay-per-download model isn’t financially satisfactory or sustainable to the majors. If the dream of a major label is a successful subscription service or monetization of radio services like Pandora – these experiences won’t be like pay-per-download. They won’t be hit-driven – not current hits, anyway. If you have all-you-can eat music streaming, a percentage of people are going to use that primarily to check out new music. Most people will listen to a lot of what they love. Which will mean catalog.
Pay-per-download isn’t and never has been good for catalog because, unlike the introduction into market of the CD, there is no “replacement” period during which consumers need to re-buy their favorites in the new format. CDs are a digital format and most people capable of buying an iPod are capable of ripping a CD.
I’d love to see a “label” take its history as or more seriously than its present and try letting the dog wag its tail.

Today’s op-ed in the New York Times slamming Microsoft for its lack of innovation got me on this train of thought. (I do think MSFT has the opportunity to innovate, but that’s another post.)

There is a clear difference in DNA between companies that innovate and companies that don’t. A big piece of that is what I call “DRM thinking”.

“DRM thinking” is when you knowingly pit yourself against what your consumer wants, throw barriers in the face of usability, ignore market realities, and continue to convince yourself it’s okay.
DRM as it was applied to digital music is an unbelievable example of refusal to look at the whole picture. While labels and technology providers developed multiple forms of DRM, created differing levels of licensing and access for the consumer, and in general spent a whole lot of time trying to “get DRM right”, it was completely useless tech and a huge waste of time.
Anyone who wanted a perfect digital copy of a record without any copy protection whatsoever could just walk into a big-box retailer and spend $9.99 for the CD. (CD copy protection was tried, but there was never any indication that it was ever going to work, and it didn’t.) This went on for years.
Barring your front door doesn’t work very well if there is no back wall on the house.

DRM thinking is what holds back companies from innovation.

I kid, really, because I was excited to see a viable tablet, and if anyone can make it happen, it would be Cupertino. I was lucky enough to watch the unveiling from Robert Scoble HQ, along with my friend Don Dodge, and to watch Robert synthesize multiple live streams of video, audio, tweets, and photos into an overview of the event.
What did we think? The take was pretty much unanimous. We’ll all buy one because it’s a fun toy and that’s what we do. We love that the 16 GB base model is $499 but we want the 64GB 3G model at $829. We aren’t blown away. Scoble says “I was expecting a 10.0 and an 8.7 showed up.” What’s the use case?

I think there’s a potential new market for AAPL here. The theory seems to be that there is a consumer base that doesn’t need a workhorse computer, does not need enterprise, but wants to surf the Web, consume media, play games, and use the applications to which iPhone users have become addicted. The larger multi-touch screen is a great use of that technology. The iPad is really fun. It’s probably not really useful (more…)

Following upon the really interesting coverage Marc Gobe did in São Paulo – where no outdoor advertising of any kind is allowed, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity for marketers- The Artvertiser is a brilliant next step in public spaces, blurring the lines between public advertising and public art. From the site:

The Artvertiser considers Puerta del Sol Madrid, Times Square New York, Shibuya Tokyo and other sites dense with advertisements as potential exhibition space. The Artvertiser is an instrument of conversion and reclamation, taking imagery seen by millions and re-purposing it as a surface for presentation of art.
The Artvertiser software is trained to recognise individual advertisements, each of which become a virtual ‘canvas’ on which an artist can exhibit images or video when viewed through the hand-held device.
After training, where ever the advertisement appears, the chosen art will appear instead when viewed live through the hand-held device. It doesn’t matter whether the advertisement is on a building, in a magazine or on the side of a vehicle.

Right now you need the Artvertiser’s own binoculars or webcams to see the substituted art, although an Android port is in the works.

Cool, yes? Everywhere a particular brand or campaign appears, it is replaced with a new image.

We live in a time when not only does advertising constantly use art to its own ends, but art subverts advertising.

image courtesy of the artvertiser

The devastation caused by the earthquake in Haiti on January 12 mobilized people and people’s humanity in a way that we may not have seen before. The growth of Web immediacy (i.e. Twitter) and sharing enabled organizations like the Red Cross to gather real funds very quickly. We do not want momentum to slip, so, here are six easy ways to give. You probably already know this first one – it has raised over $21 million:

1.Text “HAITI” to “90999″ to donate $10 to the Red Cross
2. Text “Yele” to 501501 to donate $5 to Wyclef Jean’s Yele Haiti
3. Donate to Doctors Without Borders here (Please note, you may not be able to earmark your donation for Haiti specifically)
4. Donate to Partners in Health here
5. Donate to charity: water here
6. Donate to Unicef here

(Reposted from April 16, 2009) It’s accepted wisdom by now that newsprint as it has existed for centuries is headed towards extinction. The Web is more immediate; TV seems more personal. But stepping away from the newsroom towards the cultural beat, here’s a lifestyle example of why printed matter cannot compete with the Internet. .
This article, about the vast world of Dead recordings and the band’s living legacy, is a great story and we enjoyed reading it in our Sunday NYT. A few days later, our friend Channon brought up the article to us. A great story, yes, he said – but the best part? The best part to him was the hundreds of reader photos of Dead shows over the years that had since been submitted to the Times online.
This user-generated photo collection, which amounts to a very personal history of the Dead, gives context, community, and excitement to the original story. The Times has also made available online audio excerpts and a link to a Dead roundtable moderated by the NYT.
Really, this says it all. The online piece is interactive and multimedia. It is alive, evolves and grows via user interaction. The print piece can only live in its moment, and quickly becomes irrelevant.

From Paul Carr’s TechCrunch piece on integrated advertising, especially on Twitter (the piece is wonderfully entitled NSFW: Give Me Ad-Free Conversation or Give Me Death (Please RT):

A tweet isn’t a “piece of content”. It isn’t editorial. No matter whether we’re talking about what we’re having for lunch or suggesting a new movie or sharing a piece of news, what we’re really doing is having a good old-fashioned conversation. Following people on Twitter is like organising the world’s largest cocktail party – we’ve decided who’s opinions we trust, and we’ve invited them to come into our homes and talk to us about things they are genuinely interested in. The moment people start screwing around with that principle, the whole system collapses.

Couldn’t define the current and/or idealized nature of Twitter any better. As marketers (Carr: “What I do is Good and Pure; what they do is Bad and Dirty.” So true) we are faced with a world where any traditional notion of advertising is easily avoided by all smart people and most not-so-smart. So we leverage ourselves into content and “conversations” because people like those. At which point, like an airborne contaminant, we risk ruining that content/conversation experience by rendering it no longer genuine (the word “authentic” is currently in my “social media cuss jar” via which folks in our meetings are fined for egregious buzzword use*).

One answer to this is to leave the conversations alone in order to maintain their authentic real and genuine nature, thus retaining what is currently a quite effective marketing tool.

Over/under on that happening? Thought so.

* Social media cuss jar is combined with Internet jargon cuss jar and includes such words and phrases as “100,000 foot level”, “drill down”, and the execrable “best practices”. You get the picture.

It’s remarkable to me that the conversations around digital music remain pretty much identical to the conversations we had in 2000, when Napster was supposedly taking over the world.

I showed this Atlantic monthly article by the very smart Charles Mann, which I loved, to someone very close to me who wasn’t around in the Napster days. He said, “Wait…when was this written? It could have been written today.” And he was right.

Talked about this same subject last night (Halloween night) over dinner with ex-Napster colleague Don Dodge and he agreed…when is this conversation going to change?

Is it licensing? It’s not technology.

Maybe it’s simply imagination. MUCH more on that soon.