I work in the music industry, am a musician, a CrossFitter, and generally interested in human development in all aspects. I'm also immature and love laughing at absurd things and poop jokes.
The music in the ad was obviously created by editing video of people doing various things with Craftsman products. The composer/editor in this case was Kutiman (the internet sensation from a while back who created music from various YouTube clips he put together).
Adweek’s Mark Dolliver critiques:
But the percussive sounds achieved here by using Craftsman tools in oddball fashion just don’t seem all that interesting. When a saw is used to create a rasping sound as it scrapes a cinder block, I feel like telling it not to quit its day job. No doubt some viewers will feel differently. But the self-consciously artsy approach seems like a mismatch for the audience of people who buy and use Craftsman tools.
While I agree the spot leaves something to be desired I’d offer up that the spot not captivating the viewer has less to do with trying to “artsy” but more because it’s lacking two simple components: build, and melody. It’s definitely edited well and the beat it creates is nice, but when a client asks me for music they typically ask for something that builds (or “goes somewhere”), is relatively positive, and then they’ll drill down to whatever specific sounds strike their fancy for the brand.
If you watch the spot again closely you’ll notice beats being layered throughout but the layering doesn’t really create a build, and serves to muddle sonically as more elements are added. When the spot ends you don’t wander away humming anything, just perhaps thinking “that was clever” or in Mr. Dolliver’s case something written with more @’s and &’s.
Since the spot is focused explicitly on creating music with tools, to my ears the error was made in not creating a more melodic soundtrack that “goes somewhere.”
For a final thought I’d like to throw out this old Nike commercial:
Even something as simple as the squeak of the sneaker allows you to create a melody – a very simple one no doubt, but listen carefully! There’s build, it sticks out above the beat of the rest of the commercial, and also the focus on the underlying beat was a more simple approach and doesn’t take away from the sneaker squeak. In fact when harkening back to this spot, I immediately started humming the rhythm sneaker-squeak melody.
Overall I think the Craftsman spot is still pretty cool and Kutiman definitely deserves kudos for his editing skill, but the music itself leaves a little something to be desired to really drive the commercial home.
Doing my industry reading like a good music biz employee today I came across an article by Paul Resnikoff on Digital Music News. The article – “What Coachella is Telling Us” – speculates that the economics of the current festival/live performance aspects of the music business could be highlighting a trend: Fans discovering music online as freebies causing a drive upward in concert revenue. He mentions that even in the face of the current economic situation ticket prices are still soaring – and selling.
I’ve never been a proponent of artists giving away music in hopes that exposure will grow, however now that I’ve been at my job for 5 years I can definitely see some interesting prospects for acts that are starting to gain a somewhat significant following (we’ll say 1,000+ followers).
While Paul seems to indicate that bands giving away free music could maybe might just somehow lead to increased ticket sales perhaps, I’d argue that music should still never be “free.” However fans can offer a value even if it isn’t in cold hard cash.
Bands looking to gain some sort of monetary value from their music can go about it in various ways and I feel one of those channels should definitely not be selling an album to the mass populous. Well, at least not at first. But what Paul suggests – giving music away can drive concert revenue – is actually getting close to not a bad idea. Let’s take it one step further though.
Value fans can give:
1) Free PR (Word of Mouth, Blogging, Twitter, etc)
2) Free Distribution (burning CDs, emailing files, etc)
3) Money (concert revenue, album sales, merchandise, etc)
4) Connections (Music supervisors, ad agency producers, etc)
I’m sure there are more but these are a good start. As a band on the cusp, I’d say the main goal is to generate money with music. That means doing two things: Live performances and Licensing. Fans can help do both though point 4 above is far less likely until points 1 and 2 have reached a tipping point.
After reviewing this info, a band might then post something on their website offering fans some sort of value (perhaps a few mp3′s or discount code for merchandise or concert ticket discounts) based on the following:
1) Email address entry (increase mailing list/following)
2) Material dissemination (some sort of referral program for the mailing list)
3) Money (naturally, paying for the tracks should always be an option – low cost at first of course. Also, buying them a track could earn them a discount on merchandise or concert tickets)
4) Professional introduction (I’m not sure exactly how this would work, but it could be a very lucrative opportunity for a band so the reward should be fairly high for the connected fan)
In all I think Paul definitely makes some valid points about how the industry is being more and more shaped towards live performances since that’s a great way to make money as a musician. However, giving music away for free, I think, is always foolish. Think about the value your fan-base can bring to you, and reward them for it – quid pro quo. Thousands of businesses do this already (Gilt Group, ING Direct, and more) and the sooner you start treating your music like a business, the faster you’ll start to generate income from it.
There are a lot of things needed to begin using your music to generate cash, but obviously some are more important than others. In order to elimintae barriers you can take a few steps each day to begin making immediate progress. Those steps are: Make a phone call, make a mistake, make a list of questions, and then repeat.
When making phone calls for the first time you will undoubtedly hang up the phone and want to hurl yourself into a ravine head first. That’s the beauty of this strategy – you know perfection will elude you, and you’re setup to turn these often times defeating experiences into something you can learn from.
Your mistake could be any number of things so have a legal pad and pen or some way of immediately recording any thoughts or perceptions you have about the call.
Mostly these notes will be missing an opportunity to ask a key question that gives you some insight into whom you’re approaching, their job, or the company’s current needs and goals. The more calls you make, the better you will become at asking questions and that will begin to foster strong relationships with the right people.
Keep your questions in front of you so you’re sure not to miss anything crucial in conversation with someone in the future.
So who do you call? That’s easy – call any company responsible for using music where you think your sound would be a good fit! The more you call and ask, the more you’ll know!
Tuesday evening I had the privilege of being a panelist at SPONY again. This go around I was joined by Mike Boris of McCann Erickson and Tim Joyce of Cherry Hill on the panel, and it was webcast. Before my recap, I just want to give a shout out to Joy Novie who runs SPONY. She continues to work to improve all the aspects of SPONY including format, education, and even the website. She’s done a great job so be sure to drop her a thank you note if you appreciate all her work.
There were a lot of great points to take away for me personally at the event, being that I was on a panel with someone who would be a client of mine (Mike), and someone who does something similar to my job for a different music publisher. But from my perspective, I think there were a lot of similarities in what we were all listening for and I’d like to point those out to aspiring song-writers:
Musical Points:
+ All of us were listening for songs that went somewhere. It was described as an “ah-ha” moment, as telling a story, tension and release, and so on. To get a good idea of what this means take a listen to some film trailers, TV promos, or of course ads on TV. You need not write something that’s only 30 seconds long, however your song should ALWAYS be moving somewhere.
+ There was definitely an appreciation for songs that were sonically and musically interesting. That is, those who have been writing music for a while and can speak the language of music more fluently than others really stood out.
+ Lyrical subject is irrelevant, however lyrical craft is highly desired. Often times the music was relatively strong but lyrically it was unthoughtful and seemed almost secondary. Lyrics are great, but if you’re going to write them: edit, edit, edit!
+ Energy. This was Tim’s big thing but looking back it should definitely be emphasized. It sort of ties into my first point, however, you most often won’t hear tender, slow ballads in ads or video games. Keep it moving.
+ Ad basics. Mike pointed out that mostly in advertising things need either to be relatively positive, or, if they’re negative, it is often due to humorous context.
Business Points:
+ Depending on who you contact, production value can matter more or less. However, I will say that a decent production value will go a long way in making you stand out. It just means you worked that much harder on the song.
+ Be respectful of the people you’re contacting. Mike mentioned not liking getting mp3′s via email, and we all want metadata on the CDs we get. At any rate, it’s best not to flood us with info. Just send a nice introductory email with a link or two, or send us a CD. The more professional you are, the better the chance we won’t hit delete (or toss your disc in the trash).
+ Add value. How can you make it 100% easy on the people you’re submitting to? How can you learn about the person? How much do you know about how you can best help them? As I said on the webcast, Google goes a long way!
I hope everyone who has a chance to check out SPONY takes away as much as possible about how to get better at their craft, and at selling their craft!
Following Glenn Peoples on Twitter is really a great move if you’re in the music industry, or affected by it…or even just interested in it. Yesterday he posted about UMG’s new site VEVO which launches tonight. In case you’re unfamiliar you can read the full VEVO press release here. To sum it up for you though, VEVO is a premium video content website founded by UMG and Google who are hoping to derive ad revenue and boost retail sales before splitting the profits.
Glenn makes some really interesting points about whether or not this experiment will ultimately generate the dollars UMG and the rest of the industry have been so desperately seeking to attract in the past 10 years. But while the idea of controlling the content and limiting it to one site while not wasting loads of cash on software investment is more sound than other failed industry endeavors, I remain more wary than Mr. Peoples about whether or not this enterprise will be a success.
What labels should most be worried about is their business model. Why are they still not focusing on business practices and processes, especially after the Tim Quirk fiasco? I don’t sincerely believe that an industry that cannot use the tools its provided to keep track of the little business it does do, and honestly account for that business, can ever generate money. What little ingenuity is left in the music industry should focus on some sort of comprehensive royalty/licensing database and tracking program, not how to better harness streaming video. What about a better way to aggregate amateur content for A&R review? It only starts there, I could go on all day.
This harkens back to the same argument I posted about Spotify: if streaming video is so great and ad revenue is the way to generate dollars with music content, why hasn’t it been already done?
Glenn makes a great point when he talks about labels being great at finding, nurturing, and promoting artists – what they’re not good at is exploiting those copyrights in a way that benefits both the artist and the company that worked so at development. How is streaming video and tightly controlling that streamed video going to improve their situation? Napster already proved that the industry can’t control it’s copyrights tightly enough…then limewire did it…then YouTube…why does the platform make any difference? You may think that a music video is different than an mp3, but it’s not. The content is still focused on the artist and his or her music. The video has very little to do with it.
I’m afraid if the music industry’s best idea at this time is to hope to increase CPM’s for ad revenue then my job security may very well be in jeopardy…unless of course I go to law school as I imagine we’ll see a whole slew of lawsuits after this VEVO ordeal. Too bad I have no interest in punishing people for money, I’d rather just keep exploiting copyrights – it really isn’t that hard after all.
The Future of Music Coalition continues to impress me with its thoughts on music copyright and the issues that affect it. I wanted to post the following comments that Jean Cook, Interim Executive Director gave.
Nov 20 2009
Testimony of
Jean Cook
Interim Executive Director,
Future of Music Coalition
New York City Council Committee
on Technology in Government
Hearing on Net Neutrality
November 20, 2009
Members of the Committee and fellow speakers, it’s a privilege to appear here today to talk about net neutrality, which is an issue that has enormous bearing on those in the creative community.
My name is Jean Cook. I’m a musician, and also the Interim Executive Director of Future of Music Coalition, a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization for musicians. FMC works to ensure that artists are able to develop audiences through platforms like radio and the internet. We also care deeply about developing appropriate compensation structures for artists as we continue this rocky transition to a largely digital environment for music.
When the original Napster appeared nearly a decade ago, the traditional music industry was confronted with a troublesome new reality: reproduction and distribution was no longer something exclusive to the big labels and their industry partners – it was now in the hands of the masses. Clearly, this had major implications for copyright and intellectual property, but as FMC said at the time, the only viable alternative to an illegal Napster is a legal one. Since then, we’ve advocated for a legitimate digital music marketplace that fairly compensates artists and allows for innovative ways for discovering music.
In the remainder of the decade we’ve seen remarkable examples of using the open internet to connect with audiences and advance their careers on their own terms. Musicians are collaborating, selling merchandise, booking tours and building fanbases via the web. OK Go’s homemade YouTube video became an international sensation and led to the band winning a Grammy for best short video. Erin McKeown holds “virtual concerts” around her house that her fans can watch live online from all over the world. Even though she lives in a remote island off the coast of Washington State, composer Alex Shapiro makes a living off of commissions from her myspace page. Meanwhile, there are now countless legal services such as Rhapsody, Pandora, iTunes, eMusic, MOG and Lala that make it incredibly easy for listeners to seek out music. And niche music discovery sites such as Kalabash or Arkiv Music make it possible to delve deep into catalogues of music from around the world, and classical music is now on the same playing field as the most mainstream services.
These successes are models for a new industry, and they would not have been possible without open internet structures. Net neutrality gives essentially everyone a license to innovate, and we see the results from the artists whose creativity is fueling “music 2.0” as well as the technologists who are designing amazing new ways to experience music.
In the emerging digital marketplace, there are far fewer middlemen or gatekeepers that are holding artists back or imposing conditions on them in exchange for access to listeners. As the digital music marketplace matures, we are keenly aware of the dangers facing the independent and niche music communities if new gatekeepers such as the telecommunications companies were to be given control over what you can experience on the internet.
Although artists have thus far had the benefit of open internet structures that gives them access to the same essential technology as the best-funded companies, there have been troubling instances where telecommunications companies have behaved in a manner that raises serious concerns for artists’ ability to not only reach potential audiences, but also enjoy their right to expression.
One example of the latter came in 2007, when the band Pearl Jam performed at Lollapalooza. AT&T had the exclusive right to the online broadcast of the concert, and during an improvised segment, singer Eddie Vedder made statements critical about then-president George W. Bush. AT&T censored this portion of the broadcast, leaving viewers at home wondering what he was saying. Although this isn’t necessarily a perfect example of non-net neutrality, it does illustrate what can happen when one ISP has sole control over the distribution of content and is allowed to make its own calls about what is or isn’t “acceptable” speech.
Another telling incident also occurred in 2007 when Comcast was discovered to be interfering with the delivery of internet data using the BitTorrent protocol. While there are clearly those who use torrent technology to illegally share copyrighted material, the technology itself is perfectly legal, and is in fact used by fully licensed audio-visual companies like Vuze (as well as other mainstream providers) as an efficient way to deliver content. An AP reporter attempted to send a copy of the King James Bible – which is in the public domain – via BitTorrent, but Comcast interrupted the transfer, thereby confirming the ISP’s “throttling” of BitTorrent traffic. Ultimately, the FCC ruled that Comcast had violated its net neutrality principles, but the order has been appealed by Comcast and is awaiting judgment.
With new FCC Commissioners in place it finally appears that expanded net neutrality principles will become part of the “rules of the road” for the internet. The transparent process the Commission launched with its October 22 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rightfully recognizes that there are a great number of stakeholders, including creators and the public, whose voices must be considered as the FCC goes about crafting net neutrality policies. We’re also pleased to see two new principles added to the Commissions draft rules – one that would not allow ISPs to prevent their customers from using legal devices, applications and services of their choosing, and a “non-discrimination” principle that would keep ISPs from unnecessary blocking or throttling of data, and would compel them to publicly disclose their network management techniques.
It is important to remember that these proposed rules apply only to lawful content, sites and services, which leaves room for discussion about ways to prevent the unlawful sharing of content. This is an important distinction. Ensuring compensation for rightsholders is hardly incompatible with net neutrality. There are currently conversations about possible technological solutions to the illegal transfer of copyrighted content, but such discussions need not compromise the goal of establishing clear and transparent rules for net neutrality. In fact, net neutrality is critical to continue to nurture and support innovation and legal, licensed services as an alternative to piracy. In our quest to ensure proper compensation for creators and rightsholders, we must be careful not to compromise what makes the internet such an incredible platform for innovation, expression and entrepreneurship.
On behalf of Future of Music Coalition, I am pleased that the Committee is giving this matter the attention it deserves as the FCC undertakes a thorough and open process that will hopefully ensure that the internet remains an unprecedented space for creativity, commerce and the exchange of ideas. Thank you.
After perusing FMC’s web site I recently came across an article touting the impending greatness of cloud computing’s effect on the music industry namely in the form of Spotify.
While the article notes “streaming of music from the cloud could be one of the missing puzzle pieces for which the music industry has been so desperately searching” and highlights some great positives of streaming services like Spotify, I’d like to point an obvious fact: streaming has been around for years.
If streaming were the answer to all of the music industry’s problems, quite frankly it would have already solved them. While Spotify is definitely a convenient way to listen to music on computers, phones, and media devices equipped to access content over the internet, it is still limited despite claims of having your music anywhere, anytime, on any device. What if you’re on a plane? What if you’re on the subway? What if you have AT&T and get terrible 3G reception despite having an awesome, more-than-capable device like the iphone? (SLAM!)
It’s also a fallacy to say the problem with the music business model can be solved by fixing its distribution method – this isn’t the case. Labels are still trying to grasp hold of sales to a broad consumer base and ultimately this doesn’t work. Ideally labels need to focus on licensing (publishing) and using the music as a promotional tool to drive concert and merchandise revenue. Spotify does NOT change anything about the music industry itself. It merely offers another, quite similar, not totally accessible platform for the consumer.
What should be kept in mind by everyone trying to revitalize the monetization of music is the value of the music no longer has anything to do with the format on which its presented, but in the experience and association the music provides the listener. Thus the thinking should be: Who is a more profitable consumer and how do I reach them?
Finally, who is the streaming method good for at this point in time? For the consumer its decent unless you’re traveling by plane, subway, or generally don’t get a good wireless connection. For labels it could go either way but historically labels have not taken advantage of technology and furthermore have spent large amounts of cash to either avoid it, or even exploit it, with little to no success either way.
It’s great for Spotify…
What about independent artists? As far as I know there isn’t much in place that helps out the little guy – though I could be wrong as I’m not able to use Spotify here in the US. Device manufacturers will probably see it as just another tool to use to get people to buy or use their devices – not terribly powerful, but not harmful either.
Ultimately Spotify, while a great service, is probably not the answer to the music industry’s woes. As wireless becomes faster and more prevalent, and as the music industry begins to bend and re-shape itself, the opportunity is definitely there and I could be chowing down on these very words in the near future. So perhaps something better than another paid subscription service or ad-revenue model will present itself as a result of Spotify’s efforts, but both Spotify and the music industry still have a long way to go.
Nimbit is a service that attaches to an artist’s facebook page and allows them sell their music, merchandise, and tout their tours directly to their fans. After registering for the service myself (just to check it out) it comes off as very easy to use and understand and offering a plethora of services crucial to fan-base development.
For instance, all within one web interface an artist can upload and make available their songs for download, sell t-shirts, get their music distributed digitally through major carriers (including iTunes and eMusic), and perhaps the most cool thing – monitor who is buying what.
That last bit may be well worth the investment for a savvy artist looking to target specific demographics, or perhaps even use the data to bring to a network or ad agency for use in synch for a particular product or TV show. For more info on the services offered and fees related to using the service you can click here.
This service is a fantastic way to expand and track a fan base and an excellent example of how artists viewing themselves as a brand – rather than some commodity looking to get picked up and sold by a major entity – can be put to work effectively.
Finally artists have a tool that allows them to independently market themselves and not rely on record label and music publisher budgets and schedules for exposure – even if they’re already signed!
In his article “Can Jazz Be Saved?” from the Wall Street Journal, Terry Teachout poses a question about the potential death of the art form of Jazz. A well thought out read the article highlights the decline in both age and frequency of jazz concert-goers and album buyers, and speculates that jazz may very well be in jeopardy of struggling for funding and a listening base as it is most likely being viewed as a higher art form akin to ballet and opera.
Mr. Teachout makes some great points in the article and I’d like to expand on his thoughts. Take for instance this excerpt:
Jazz has changed greatly since the ’30s, when Louis Armstrong, one of the supreme musical geniuses of the 20th century, was also a pop star, a gravel-voiced crooner who made movies with Bing Crosby and Mae West and whose records sold by the truckload to fans who knew nothing about jazz except that Satchmo played and sang it. As late as the early ’50s, jazz was still for the most part a genuinely popular music, a utilitarian, song-based idiom to which ordinary people could dance if they felt like it. But by the ’60s, it had evolved into a challenging concert music whose complexities repelled many of the same youngsters who were falling hard for rock and soul.
Reflecting back on this time period we recognize the 1930′s and Louis Armstrong marking the beginning of jazz as a new type of music. Back then, while the music may have been labeled as jazz, it was simply the popular music of it’s day. Is Louis Armstrong appearing alongside Mae West any different than J. Lo appearing alongside Ben Affleck? Granted the talent isn’t comparable but certainly the relationship is very similar. These days we see loads of popular musicians on TV, in films, and even launching their own product lines.
Let’s also consider where Mr. Teachout marks jazz beginning to repel youngsters. Was it really that young listeners hated the sounds of jazz, or was it because they were moving on to the next big thing as the jazz listeners of the 30′s had moved from classical through dixie-land and onto jazz?
Something else to consider is the very basic principle that a lot of jazz, even today, is based on standards; songs from musicals and songwriters from the time period of jazz’s highest popularity. These standard tunes are repertoire to every jazz player alive and are played with and explored regularly, but part of jazz’s issue may be that we’re not looking for new standards. Most of the standards were considered ‘old’ in the late 60′s to rock’n'roll’s youthful listeners – how are we to expect today’s youth to bond anymore closely, if at all, with those same tunes?
Perhaps jazz will see a resurgence when more artists go the path of using some rock’n'roll songs as standards. A few artists that come to mind doing this now are Norah Jones, Kurt Elling, and The Bad Plus who draw on everyone from David Bowie to The Zombies to Nirvana.
So in the end perhaps it isn’t that jazz needs a new pitch, but the same pitch with different repertoire. A retooling of the jazz standard catalog may be just what the genre needs to stay alive, and potentially even thrive like it once did.