This is painting innovation.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Labels, Radio Stations and Performance Rights Organizations spend money battling each other. Like every war... no one wins.
Jerry Del Colliano is someone you should know. He was brought to my attention by an advisor at RCG and we've since developed mutual respect and admiration for each other. I was immediately drawn to Jerry after reading a couple of his blog entries. The one below outlines the massive financial battle between the labels, performance rights organizations and radio stations.By Jerry Del Colliano
So what my Italian mother would have done -- and perhaps yours as well -- is to drag both parties by the ear and make them apologize to each other.
This is getting out of hand now between the record labels and the radio groups.
The labels have SoundExchange to ably lead their fight and radio has the NAB.
It's getting nasty.
This week, the labels had two major victories in their misguided attempt to get a radio station performance tax.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved its version of a performance royalty bill for terrestrial radio and, like the already approved House measure, it will require radio stations to pay performance fees to artists, musicians and rights holders in return for airplay.
The bill will lose this time around if it ever makes it to the floor for a vote.
The labels are rallying their supporters -- the ones who want to help starving musicians. Of course, cynics would say, the best way to help starving musicians is to warn them not to sign a contract with a record label.
The radio industry through its lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, swears it has enough votes in the House and Senate to kill the tax. But it's close and over the next year or two could swing to the labels' side. The NAB has counted 251 nays in the House and 26 in the Senate.
Then in the same week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Local Community Radio Act of 2009 which basically enables the creation of hundreds of low power FM stations.
The music industry hails this as a way to promote local radio -- boy, do they have a surprise coming if anyone goes for this baloney.
Shrewdly, the Future of Music Coalition has positioned this bill as an antidote for "the lamentable loss of localism due in part to consolidation in the commercial radio marketplace".
These folks are good.
LPFM stations are community-based, non-commercial radio broadcasters that operate at 100 watts or less and reach a radius of three to seven miles. The labels argue that low powered FM provides a platform for underserved musical genres, minority, religious and linguistic groups and offers a forum for debate about important local issues.
Hell, an HD station with three listeners will do more.
But that's not the big story on Action News tonight.
The present ASCAP, BMI agreement with radio stations expires at the end of this year -- the music industry wants more money for its starving "whomevers" and the radio industry wants to pay less.
In one corner, you have the so-called Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI).
In the other, the Radio Music Licensing Committee.
Both sides have been negotiating for quite some time but short of an agreement this issue could wind up in litigation over how much broadcasters should pay for using the labels' music.
Stations do not pay royalties -- yet. That's SoundExchange's bailiwick and that's why they are pushing for the performance royalty previously mentioned.
The ASCAP, BMI, SESAC fees are compensation for the composition part of the on-air broadcast.
Webcasters and satellite networks have to pay for both composition as well as the use of the sound recording and while radio owners may not be thinking about their ASCAP and BMI payments right now they may well be scrutinizing their bills in the future because the music industry is in need of cash and they are not going to get it from increased CD sales any time soon.
The radio industry five years ago negotiated ASCAP, BMI deals based on a fixed amount because some experts believed that the radio owners saw their business growing thus a set rate would be a windfall for them. But the opposite has happened as station income declined. The radio industry lost shares to new media, a recession hit, consolidators who own the most stations teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and they now find themselves unable to ante up more money.
The radio industry pays about $230 million a year to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC so these organizations are also dependent on this large amount of money as they see the music industry decline.
It gets messier.
It used to be that the ASCAP and BMI agreements covered terrestrial radio use. Now the Radio Music Licensing Committee wants to be able to cover music they use in new media endeavors (webcasting, mobile, etc). And issues like podcasting could be a concern because is a podcast a broadcast or a reproduction of a collection of songs?
If the whole mess winds up in court, a trial will occur -- that's right, a trial with a judge who will hear both sides and then rule. How scary is that? Can you say CRB (Copyright Royalty Board -- the group that just killed the webcasting industry with draconian taxes)?
It takes time, money and lots of public relations and in the end both sides are rolling the dice. It's similar to a divorce case where both sides, after spending too much money, eventually agree to hold their noses and settle rather than have a judge rule.
So short of an agreement, both the music industry and radio owners have a lot to lose.
It's not really about starving artists -- that's just a great public argument.
Nor is it about increased rates -- if you haven't noticed, radio is not exactly a booming business these days -- radio's argument being it pays composition taxes but lower rates are warranted now, not higher.
And while radio has made the music industry a lot of money giving away free exposure, they are not going to get any public traction for charging the labels for promoting their music even though that is what they have done and still do -- for free. That should be worth some consideration, but it's likely not to be.
These two industries -- radio and records -- need each other.
This fight has got to come to an end with a compromise -- and by compromise I don't mean one side gives in while the other cranks out good PR.
The labels are in an almost ten year revenue decline. Radio analysts say a zero growth year -- that's right, zero -- may be several more years away if ever -- theirwords not mine.
Radio companies, webcasters and podcasters need music and labels need some form of compensation -- both sides getting far less than what they demand.
I've spelled this out for you because some happy talkers are saying a recovery for radio is right around the corner. Not if stations have to dig deeper for these music taxes to break even.
And the music industry -- out of ideas for a decade now -- expects to milk its only few known hostages -- radio (and in a previous agreement webcasters) for all they can get.
When any one side produces a loser in a dispute, both sides eventually lose.
So, mom had the best idea of all.
Drag both parties by their ears, make them apologize and make up before they ruin a good thing for both.
This is getting out of hand now between the record labels and the radio groups.
The labels have SoundExchange to ably lead their fight and radio has the NAB.
It's getting nasty.
This week, the labels had two major victories in their misguided attempt to get a radio station performance tax.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved its version of a performance royalty bill for terrestrial radio and, like the already approved House measure, it will require radio stations to pay performance fees to artists, musicians and rights holders in return for airplay.
The bill will lose this time around if it ever makes it to the floor for a vote.
The labels are rallying their supporters -- the ones who want to help starving musicians. Of course, cynics would say, the best way to help starving musicians is to warn them not to sign a contract with a record label.
The radio industry through its lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, swears it has enough votes in the House and Senate to kill the tax. But it's close and over the next year or two could swing to the labels' side. The NAB has counted 251 nays in the House and 26 in the Senate.
Then in the same week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Local Community Radio Act of 2009 which basically enables the creation of hundreds of low power FM stations.
The music industry hails this as a way to promote local radio -- boy, do they have a surprise coming if anyone goes for this baloney.
Shrewdly, the Future of Music Coalition has positioned this bill as an antidote for "the lamentable loss of localism due in part to consolidation in the commercial radio marketplace".
These folks are good.
LPFM stations are community-based, non-commercial radio broadcasters that operate at 100 watts or less and reach a radius of three to seven miles. The labels argue that low powered FM provides a platform for underserved musical genres, minority, religious and linguistic groups and offers a forum for debate about important local issues.
Hell, an HD station with three listeners will do more.
But that's not the big story on Action News tonight.
The present ASCAP, BMI agreement with radio stations expires at the end of this year -- the music industry wants more money for its starving "whomevers" and the radio industry wants to pay less.
In one corner, you have the so-called Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI).
In the other, the Radio Music Licensing Committee.
Both sides have been negotiating for quite some time but short of an agreement this issue could wind up in litigation over how much broadcasters should pay for using the labels' music.
Stations do not pay royalties -- yet. That's SoundExchange's bailiwick and that's why they are pushing for the performance royalty previously mentioned.
The ASCAP, BMI, SESAC fees are compensation for the composition part of the on-air broadcast.
Webcasters and satellite networks have to pay for both composition as well as the use of the sound recording and while radio owners may not be thinking about their ASCAP and BMI payments right now they may well be scrutinizing their bills in the future because the music industry is in need of cash and they are not going to get it from increased CD sales any time soon.
The radio industry five years ago negotiated ASCAP, BMI deals based on a fixed amount because some experts believed that the radio owners saw their business growing thus a set rate would be a windfall for them. But the opposite has happened as station income declined. The radio industry lost shares to new media, a recession hit, consolidators who own the most stations teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and they now find themselves unable to ante up more money.
The radio industry pays about $230 million a year to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC so these organizations are also dependent on this large amount of money as they see the music industry decline.
It gets messier.
It used to be that the ASCAP and BMI agreements covered terrestrial radio use. Now the Radio Music Licensing Committee wants to be able to cover music they use in new media endeavors (webcasting, mobile, etc). And issues like podcasting could be a concern because is a podcast a broadcast or a reproduction of a collection of songs?
If the whole mess winds up in court, a trial will occur -- that's right, a trial with a judge who will hear both sides and then rule. How scary is that? Can you say CRB (Copyright Royalty Board -- the group that just killed the webcasting industry with draconian taxes)?
It takes time, money and lots of public relations and in the end both sides are rolling the dice. It's similar to a divorce case where both sides, after spending too much money, eventually agree to hold their noses and settle rather than have a judge rule.
So short of an agreement, both the music industry and radio owners have a lot to lose.
It's not really about starving artists -- that's just a great public argument.
Nor is it about increased rates -- if you haven't noticed, radio is not exactly a booming business these days -- radio's argument being it pays composition taxes but lower rates are warranted now, not higher.
And while radio has made the music industry a lot of money giving away free exposure, they are not going to get any public traction for charging the labels for promoting their music even though that is what they have done and still do -- for free. That should be worth some consideration, but it's likely not to be.
These two industries -- radio and records -- need each other.
This fight has got to come to an end with a compromise -- and by compromise I don't mean one side gives in while the other cranks out good PR.
The labels are in an almost ten year revenue decline. Radio analysts say a zero growth year -- that's right, zero -- may be several more years away if ever -- theirwords not mine.
Radio companies, webcasters and podcasters need music and labels need some form of compensation -- both sides getting far less than what they demand.
I've spelled this out for you because some happy talkers are saying a recovery for radio is right around the corner. Not if stations have to dig deeper for these music taxes to break even.
And the music industry -- out of ideas for a decade now -- expects to milk its only few known hostages -- radio (and in a previous agreement webcasters) for all they can get.
When any one side produces a loser in a dispute, both sides eventually lose.
So, mom had the best idea of all.
Drag both parties by their ears, make them apologize and make up before they ruin a good thing for both.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Mobile application sales to hit $16 billion per year by 2013
The number of smartphones sold each year will increase from around 165.2 million in 2009 to 422.96 million in 2013, with the total number of smartphone users approaching 1.6 billion, according to Wireless Expertise, an UK-based wireless market research and consulting firm. Its latest report “The future of mobile application storefronts” shows how smartphone penetration will reach approximately 28-30% of the total mobile market by 2013.
“We expect smartphone growth to have a positive impact on the number of application downloads in the short- to mid-term,” said Anuj Khanna, CEO of Wireless Expertise and author of the report. “Strong revenues are expected to come from low-end mass market smartphones and mid-to high-end feature-phones in the mid- to long-term as operators and handset manufacturers take app stores to the mass market.”
Wireless Expertise forecasts that the global mobile app market – including games – will be worth $4.66 billion in 2009, rising to $16.60 billion, in 2013. With mobile phones outnumbering PCs around the world by 4:1, mobile applications represent an even bigger opportunity for the mobile industry than the fixed-line perceived the internet a decade ago.
“With over four billion mobile users around the world compared to approximately one billion PCs, mobile will become the ideal channel for businesses to reach their consumers,” continued Khanna. “Mobile operators have to adopt a dual app store strategy, using the now widely-accepted app store model in conjunction with a browser-based widget store, to provide the greatest potential for a mass-market proposition.”
The report points out that complacency from existing handset vendors and mobile operators had virtually killed the mobile content market. But mobile applications have reignited the demand for multimedia content and applications.
Wireless Expertise credits Apple for growing and revolutionalising the applications market. “Apple has not only invigorated what was rapidly becoming a stagnant mobile content and services market, but its App Store has paved the way for professional content developers and publishers to stand side-by-side with the new breed of garage developers introducing innovative and functional apps,” said Khanna. “However, we expect Apple to face tough competition from mobile operators, independent service providers and competing vendor application portals in the next 18-24 months.”
The report suggests that Nokia will be very active in the smartphone market and Nokia’s biggest advantage over Apple is its ability to offer Ovi on a wide range of handsets, ranging from the high-end to the mainstream. And the fact that Nokia is pushing its app store to a mass market is very encouraging.
“Diverse and competing mobile operating systems from other vendors such as Symbian, Google Android, Microsoft Windows and Research in Motion will also help in growing the market,” concluded Khanna. “We predict the emergence of independent mobile application stores which specialise in niche content such as games and location-based services.”
Mobile Operators releasing a mobile internet API would address the issue of fragmentation and help create a multichannel app services and content retail environment coupled with integrated billing and payment mechanisms. However, operators must be involved in the delivery and payment of the service with their own platforms giving improved revenue shares as high as 90% if they want to compete in this market.
“The Future of Mobile Application Storefronts” market report has been published by Wireless Expertise Ltd and can be downloaded free of charge from www.wirelessexpertise.com.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
INSIGHT: Mobile Customer Relationship Management
Mobile is most certainly vital to the CRM process in today's economy. We at Real Content Group are revolutionizing our clients' legacy CRM processes by infusing mobile into the fabric of their experiential marketing, advertising, and promotional concepts, strategies, and execution.
Via our unique methodology of programming mobile lifestyle experiences that engage consumers in ways they've yet to experience, we're allowing our brand clients to ingest consumer data they've struggled to gather previously, and engaging consumers with experiences that serve as magnificent conduits to share their information, and insights.
Mobile adoption in the way of CRM, and mobile initiated consumer insights for us has been exceptional. More specifically we're seeing adoption rates of 35% to 50% in our campaigns, and our brand clients are elated with not only the plethora of data we're able to provide the brand, but the experience we're able to provide the consumer.
The key to the vitality of mobile in the CRM process is the ability to creatively program memorable, and impactful consumer experiences. One must have a succinct knowledge of the mobile ecosystem (platforms, handsets, carriers, etc), and a foresight into strategic marketing, and campaign management.
A. Troy Brown
Chief Marketing Officer
Real Content Group
Major Label Power Moves: Universal & YouTube
Thinking outside the box has become more important for major labels. Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI used to focus on partnering with artists, producers and independent label entrepreneurs... now they are adding technology entrepreneurs and that's good for your boys at Real Content Group. See email below as Universal takes a big leap forward by locking down a deal with YouTube for a new music video channel.
---------------
by Greg Sandoval
Post a comment
Universal Music Group, the nation's largest recording company, and
YouTube are closing in on a final agreement to create a new premium
music-video Web site, according to sources close to the negotiations.
Universal Music Chairman and CEO Doug Morris is behind the new venture
with YouTube tentatively called Vevo.
(Credit: Universal Music Group)
The sources said that the proposed service, which is tentatively named
Vevo, would be a destination site closely linked to YouTube. Should an
agreement be reached, Vevo would likely be the largest music-oriented
site on the Web. Talks are ongoing, but a deal could be reached as early
as the next few weeks, sources said.
A YouTube spokesman said: "We are always working with our partners to
find creative ways to connect music, musicians and fans."
Universal's YouTube channel is by far the largest on the video site. The
label's music videos have been viewed more than 3.5 billion times. Vevo
and the joint venture with YouTube were born out of a year-long campaign
by Doug Morris, Universal's Chairman and CEO to build music videos into
a standalone business.
Morris and Universal have been intent on creating a premiumdigital-music
video business. According to the sources, label executives believe Vevo
is the answer.
A standalone music site--which would feature traditional music videos,
interviews along with other artist-driven content--is designed to
attract high-end advertisers, some of whom may have been skittish in the
past about advertising alongside YouTube's user-generated videos.
Universal has acquired an ownership stake in a large number of digital
music services. The deal would give Universal some control over the
revenue generated from its music videos while also allowing the company
to benefit from YouTube's technology expertise.
Universal executives said last year that the label sees revenue in the
"tens of millions" from YouTube.
The other major labels, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and
EMI have been approached about joining the service, according to the
sources. YouTube and Universal have a vision of the site becoming a
syndication platform for all kinds of premium content beyond music
videos, such as editorial content, merchandising, Webisodes, or
artist-generated videos.
The news comes as the four largest music labels are renegotiating their
licensing deals with YouTube.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tayma Loren Photo Shoot
Today is the first Damystro recording artist photo shoot. In New York City, Tayma is shooting with celebrity photographer Jonathan Mannion. The photo's will be used for her album cover, website and promotion materials. A behind the scenes video will be available as well.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
January 2nd is the day that our two founders were born unto the earth. This is so remarkable that we have decided to launch a fabulous tradition.
On their birthday every year we will do something special for our clients and partners. This year we will become better looking... hope you like our new logo as much as we do. We will also announce two very special partnerships.
We took the time to build a real mobile marketing, content production and digital distribution business. Now we are taking the time to get our branding together. See us shine at high noon on January 2nd, 2009. Pow! Pow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)