Andy Lykens

Innovating and operating through growth

Search Results for: music industry

Cancer And Rejection

by

Lately I read an article about our attitudes about cancer on Wired. It had come across my newsfeed and since my dad has had run-ins with cancer the last couple of years, and because I always love the idea of evolving anything, it caught my attention and stuck.

Cancer

The point of the article is to understand that we need to simply expect cancer.

We eat things not so good for us, we stay up late, we do things our bodies weren’t necessarily ever meant to do. If we start expecting cancer it can help put us in the right mindset to make better choices. We can be more prepared when it rears its ugly head.

Just as we expect to get older, we must also expect to confront cancer.

Rejection

I was chatting with a friend recently about some opportunities. Progress has been slow, stagnant even.

Rejection Stamp

Then, just as I felt myself filling with doubt, I immediately started imagining a more positive picture (something I’ve taught myself over the years): It’s summer, people are out of town and on long vacations, things are bound to be at a bit of a stand-still.

Suddenly an idea struck: just like cancer, we need to expect rejection.

In the music business we deal with rejection daily. Going after a goal that doesn’t materialize can feel like complete and utter failure. Rejection takes over our mental state just like cancer can debilitate our physical state.

In fact, I remember a period of my career when coming into work meant dreading every second of the day. I could not get anyone to call me back, send me an email, listen to ANYTHING. I actively looked for anything to do that wasn’t work because I couldn’t take the rejection.

Thoughts went through my head – what did I say wrong? what can I do better? where do I turn next? I began to over-analyze and give up because I was not prepared to deal with the rejection.

Then I took control.

I learned to play a game with myself to help get me in the right mindset. My new goal? Get turned down as often as possible by clients I didn’t have a longstanding relationship with.

That means that if I talked to someone on the phone, it didn’t count. I could only reach my goal by leaving voicemails.

This was an insane turn of events because all of a sudden, I’m not expecting, or even HOPING that anyone answers their phone or responds to an email. It completely changed my mindset.

I’ve learned that rejection and failure are simply a part of the process. In fact, they are the BULK of the process.

Every time you pursue, push through a barrier, or start all over again it’s merely a continuation of the rejection process.

The good news

I know it sounds bad, but there IS good news.

Upward Spiral

It’s an upward spiral as long as we keep moving forward.

The next time you’re feeling like nothing is happening for you, that you’ve lost forward momentum, or you just feel like nothing will ever come your way remember – that feeling of rejection is to be expected.

Go try again.

If you need help refining your strategy for landing a music placement, why not subscribe to my newsletter for some new ideas?

Too big of a ship or too big of a head?

by

This week HP announced that they will no longer be competing in the PC industry, instead they will be focusing on cloud computing. Hold on. What? You mean the largest PC manufacturer in the world is going to just stop. And they’re going to stop making tablets and smart phones too? Yes, it’s true. In fact, if you’d like to read a great article about what this means to their industry, check out this one.

So why am I writing about this in a blog typically geared towards the music industry? Well, as usual it’s to point out the failings of the music industry. Let’s think: when the music industry was faced with a competitor that absolutely, 100% got something right, what did it do? What was the RIAA’s reaction to Napster? And what’s more, what does the industry continue to do?

The solution probably wouldn’t have been to resign the administration of all copyrights to Napster, but in the late 90’s and early 00’s, the industry was in pretty good fiscal shape and it’s my contention that they could have bought Napster, or at least made some sort of deal. But no. What did they do? Lawsuit.

And now the industry sits atop their recent “accomplishment” of having earned money instead of lost it for the first time in years. Wow. Way to set the bar high for yourselves. I’m not sure if you knew this music industry, but you’re actually supposed to make money in ever-increasing amounts EVERY year. Not fail miserably for 10 years and then trumpet your prestige when you finally earn a few pennies. Anyway, I digress.

What is really interesting and even quite cool about this HP thing is that they’re turning an awful big ship. Everyone uses the excuse in the music industry “well it’s just too big of a ship to turn quickly!” Really? Bigger than HP? Nope. Now what’s the excuse? Oops.

Now the only thing left to blame is the ‘vision’ (or blindness) of the leadership of the major music companies.

The tipping point.

by

Check this out. It’s an article about the beginning of the end of an obnoxious, intractable and downright foolish “business” mentality.

This is the first evidence that the labels are no longer going to be able to sue their way to generating income. They have been a huge pain to deal with, they have refused to adapt, and now they’re “Hoping Apple Can Force Amazon and Google Into Cloud Licensing.” Nope.

Apple doesn’t care about licensing or playing fair with the music industry they just have a better relationship with the labels and more clout in negotiations. Apple deals with the majors because it’s easy for them, not because they think they need licenses and to appease them. Why would Apple’s deal force anyone to do anything?

Now we’ll see the majors start to scramble for income. They’ll start sacrificing rights, prices will drop. I mean REALLY scramble.

Mark my words folks, this is the beginning of the end. It took a long time but the labels are officially no longer in control. They’re down to a 49% say in digital licensing. The tipping point has been reached. Big change is coming in music licensing. Big change is coming in copyright valuation. It won’t be too much longer – maybe a few years max.

The snowball is rolling down the hill.

SXSW 2011

by

While it’s definitely been a great summer with a lot of big changes for me I haven’t been able to write as much as I would have liked about current issues in copyright and the music industry.

However, some big news! I’ve got a panel proposed for the 2011 iteration of South by Southwest! I’m very excited to have the opportunity to share with artists some really great details about getting music used in advertising, TV, and film. However, I need people to vote for it first! The following is a link to my panel and it’s description so give it a read and then give it a thumbs up!

Click here to check out my panel for SXSW 2011!

Note: You do have to be registered on the SXSW 2011 Panel Picker, however it’s completely free, and very fast. To find my panel, you can also copy/paste the title into the search box after you’ve registered.

Thanks for your support!

Can VEVO be a thorough solution?

by

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.

Great thoughts on Net Neutrality

by

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.