A blues or jazz band—or any ‘jam band’ for that matter—operates using many of the design principles we’d like to see from a collaborative enterprise. Unlike an orchestra, a band is much more fluid in their interpretation of the music. They are able to improvise on the spot, blend sounds, and often play to the mood of the audience. In other words, they innovate, create mash-ups, and are responsive to users.

I’m not the first person to use the band analogy. Barry Rabkin of the Market Insight Group asks whether technology analyst firms are more like a jazz band or symphony orchestra. He alludes to the fact that the jazz band style is more agile and responsive to customer demands—another important outcome of collaboration:

“Another area where jazz musicians differ from their symphonic counterparts is that jazz musicians, sensing their audience, can and do take liberties with new selections not identified during their rehearsals. They can do this because they have a broad library of music and musical explorations in their knowledge set and, as importantly, they know how to blend their sounds together to get the best outcome possible for their audience.”

What’s more, in a symphony orchestra the conductor alone is responsible for guiding the entire team, whereas with a distributed, ad-libbing crew, anyone can start pushing with a new riff or mood and the others will follow suit. In this way, the benefit of each player’s perspective and expertise is baked into the model.

One of the factors that allows a band to operate in this manner is the existence of very well defined roles (i.e. guitarist, vocalist, drummer, base, keyboards, etc.) and somewhat open tasks (i.e. what songs to play, when to riff, what chords to use, etc.). This is another important learning for the enterprise. As Lynda Gratton and Tammy Erickson note in the HBR article Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams:

“Cooperation increases when the roles of individual team members are sharply defined yet the team is given latitude on how to achieve the task. [...]Assign distinct roles so team members can do their work independently. They’ll spend less time negotiating responsibilities or protecting turf. But leave the path to achieving the team’s goal somewhat ambiguous. Lacking well-defined tasks, members are more likely to invest time and energy collaborating.”

In addition to looking at how bands are structured, we might also consider how band members collect largely unstructured customer experience ‘metrics’ in real time and use the feedback to adjust their approach. These metrics provide a useful analogy for the type of approaches leading companies should take when developing customer strategies, including:

• The applause of the crowd: What kind of noise are customers and prospects making online and in social media channels? Using sentiment analysis companies can find out if it is positive (cheers) or negative (boos) and change their tune accordingly.
• Number of people dancing: How engaged is your audience? Metrics might be based on active participation on forums, comments online, rating of content, and re-broadcasting of brand messages, or more passive (i.e. head bobbing) activities such as subscribing to feeds, friending, and following.
• Song requests: What kinds of requests are coming into your contact center and support organization? In many organizations, the contact center is an untapped wealth of customer feedback, largely ignored by groups like marketing and product development. Listening to this channel and other prosumer input can lead to dramatically improved customer experience.
• Duration of stay in the bar: How long do customers hang out in your online properties? Using Web analytics, companies can now obtain this information, as well as data about how people got there, what path they take along the way, and how influential various ‘promoters’ are at bringing in prospects.
• CD and merchandise sales: How are Web interactions translating into sales? The performance is about creating an experience, but ultimately, in order to be profitable, you need people to buy your stuff.

As companies continue to seek best practices and metrics for collaboration, I firmly believe that some of the more innovative solutions will come from non-traditional fields that have deep roots in collaboration, but that have eluded formal study and analysis. (If I’ve managed to spark an interest in enterprise lessons in collaboration from other disciplines, also see my previous post on Measuring collaboration: Lessons from Shane Battier and the NBA and the related Collaboration box score.)

Our friend Mathew Ingram pointed out this article that describes how Guitar Hero releases are a bright light in an otherwise dismal music industry. Aerosmith has made more money from the GH sequel than from any individual album release.

From the article:

[Aerosmith's success]… unscores a number of really interesting points. First off, Guitar Hero: Aerosmith is nothing more than a “greatest hits” montage for the band, with a bunch of indy band songs sprinkled in for variety. Putting out the game cost Aerosmith nothing more than their signature, agreeing to allow Activision to use their music. Secondly, it proves the consumer is still interested in paying for music. They just don’t want to buy CDs or single tracks anymore. They want interactivity, add-ons, special content and video games. According Microsoft gaming chief Robbie Bach, more than 60 million tracks were downloaded for Rockband, Guitar Hero and Lips over Xbox Live in 2008.

• T-shirt
• Go on tour with Josh for a few days.
• Have Josh write, record and release a 5 song EP about you and your life story.
• Take home any of his drumsets (only one but you can choose which one.)
• Take shrooms and cruise Hollywood in Danny from TOOL’s Lamborgini OR play quarters and then hop on the Ouija board for a while.
• Josh will join your band for a month…play shows, record, party with groupies, etc….
• If you don’t have a band he’ll be your personal assistant for a month (4 day work weeks, 10 am to 4 pm)
• Take a limo down to Tijuana and he’ll show you how it’s done (what that means exactly we can’t legally get into here)
• If you don’t live in Southern California (but are a US resident) he’ll come to you and be your personal assistant/cabana boy for 2 weeks.

Thanks to Phil Hood for the tip.

Laird has a MySpace page, a Facebook fan page, and has posted several videos on You Tube, including male-version mash-ups of some of Swift’s songs. But, his real stroke of genius came this month when Laird dropped his life savings on a giant billboard in front of Swift’s publishing house which reads: “Hey Taylor – I LOVE your music. Will you produce my album?” The sign also includes a link to his MySpace. Says Laird; “I needed a unique way to reach out to her because she’s really busy.” I think it’s a great example of how an expensive traditional media placement can be used to ignite a spark and drive traffic to free online venues (not unlike the Paris Hilton/Carl’s Junior phenomenon).

The strategy appears to have worked. In an interview with E! Canada, Swift said that she would “definitely want to meet him,” and “definitely want to hear more of his stuff.” Notably, the MySpace link was critical to the billboard’s success. Says Swift; “I went on his MySpace and listened to one of his songs and absolutely fell in love with it. […] It would be really cool to maybe work with him.” Even if Swift doesn’t elect to produce his album, the viral buzz around Ryan Laird is growing. In an interview with CMT, Laird talks about how about 16,000 of Swift’s MySpace fans have become his fans as well.

You can watch the entire story behind the billboard proposition in a video posted to Facebook.

Normally, if you are a guitar player and you want to play music with people, you put a classified ad out or you look for someone to jam with in your immediate environment.  It takes a lot of time and effort to set up schedules to play with other people and get together with all your gear, so you limit your search to only those people who are the best match for your age/taste/style/genre.

With online collaboration, finding other players is much easier, and so people are more flexible in their boundaries.  We have 16 year old metal fanatics playing with 60 year old blues guys and both are having a good time at it.  So we are not only crossing geographical boundaries, we are crossing generation gaps, genre rifts, style canyons, etc:)

Makes me want to restring my telecaster and start jamming. 

By rewarding those who are really taking a chance by purchasing cutting-edge/often unheard of music, I think popcuts is really on to something here…Each track sells for 99 cents, of which the site takes 10-20%, with the artist able to dictate how much of the remaining funds they would like to claim.   The remainder of the $0.99 is earmarked for distribution to every person who has already purchased the track.

While I wouldn’t suggest liquidating your savings account to make a quick cash-grab (unless your ideal portfolio consists of music credits), the site’s value proposition capitalizes upon important principles that I think will make this going concern, if not a solid buyout target for one of the bigger music stores out there (shudder):

1. Rewarding early adopters – Getting Paid: As a gadget geek and a reformed overzealous music experimenter, I know the pain of early adoption costs.  Site founders express their intentions to reward early buyers with cash as opposed to music credit, but for the time being, at least purchases can be seen as investments in future discoveries.

2. Rewarding early adopters – Earning Street Cred: There is little pleasure greater for early adopters than the ability to be known as such.  Top “earners” are featured on the popcuts homepage, capitalizing upon the social recognition and reverance that may come from being a trailblazer.

3. Low (entry) cost for artists: Unproven artists can upload their tracks and take advantage of the low-cost distribution model that only costs when the artist gets paid.  The ability to set the percentage of revenue demanded per track will allow for the evolution of pricing based on the artists’ stage in their popularity lifecycle.  There may even be a solid value proposition here for “known” artists whose name can sustain sales, with a lesser need for label support.

4. Harnessing (niche) fan communities:  While it’s no challenge to find someone with whom to chat with about the latest pop sensation, this same experience is not enjoyed by fans of lesser-known, often local artists, whose fan base can often be very dedicated and eager to get the word out there.

5. Power to the artists:  Artists retain full rights to their music and are able to peddle their tracks elsewhere, simultaneously.

We’ll continue to keep an eye on popcuts and the music industry as we always do here at Wikinomics and here’s to hoping the little guys pull out a victory over the giants in this one.

Not surprisingly, most industry groups supported the legislation, because it takes such a hard line against sharing music. But some artists were quick to criticize:

“[The new legislation is] all locks and lawsuits,” says Safwan Javed, a member of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (www.musiccreators.ca) and drummer for Wide Mouth Mason. “Rather than building a made-in-Canada proposal to help musicians get paid, the government has chosen to import American-style legislation that says the solution to the music industry’s problems is suing our fans. Suing fans won’t make it 1992 again. It’s a new world for the music business and this is an old approach.”

“The question is, who gains from this bill?”said Brendan Canning, a Coalition member and co-founder of the band Broken Social Scene. “It’s not musicians. Musicians don’t need lawsuits. What we do need is a government that is willing to sit down with all the stakeholders and craft a balanced copyright policy for Canada that will not repeat the mistakes made in the United States.”

To me, the concept of “owning” a music recording is outdated. The music industry needs a new paradigm. In a sensibly structured Internet-friendly music industry, consumers would no longer download songs at a fixed price per tune, but would instead pay a moderate amount each month to listen to an unlimited number of tunes streamed to them over the Internet. I’d happily pay a few dollars per month to get access anytime, on any device, anywhere, to any music ever recorded.

Big benefits would flow to musicians and music lovers. Once consumers no longer own songs, the problem of theft disappears. The record labels would stop having to view all their customers as potential crooks, and no longer haul children and grandmothers into court. Payments to musicians would be more reliable and equitably distributed. And musicians would be encouraged to use the Internet more creatively to develop stronger ties with their fans.

With high-speed wireless Internet service becoming available throughout the country, around-the-clock high-quality streaming audio is now practical. The newer cellular phones can already receive streaming television shows and videos. It would be easy to add on streaming audio as a feature. Call it Everywhere Internet Audio. It’s where we should be focussing our energies.

Technology empowers users.  Apple’s GarageBand, for instance, enabled just about anyone to make professional sounding music (provided a certain level of musicianship).  A while ago, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails released his music as GarageBand files so that fans can remix them as they please (think open-source music).  GarageBand has been popular since the source of the music is standardized, people can send it around and collaborate with friends — basically “playing tennis” with works in progress.  However, the distribution of these edited files has effectively been limited to e-mailing music attachments back and forth. Very 1.0.

RiffWorks T4 solves this problem by making the music itself wiki based.  It lets four people work on the music at once, but there’s no upper limit to the number of potential collaborators.  It also synchronizes the piece across the computers of all of the contributors, and keeps a copy on the web that is always up to date and universally accessible.  RiffWorks T4 has wikified music. Because of its centralized, collaborative nature, for the first time ever we can have crowd created music,  I wonder what it will sound like.

Radiohead chose to shun the traditional camera and lights video (that’s so 2007) in favour of the Velodyne LIDAR system, which used 64 lasers, shooting 900 times per minute in a 360 degree radius to capture the data for the video, which would later be re-assembled to create the four and a half minute sequence.  The final product perfectly captures the eerie tone of the song and in the words of the video’s director, James Frost: “In a weird way, [the video] is a direct reflection of where we are in society – everything is data…Everything around us is data-driven in some shape or form and we’re so reliant on it now. Our lives are so digital, so in that way, it felt apt.”

And the video itself is not even the coolest part.  Radiohead has made available the data used to make the video (here) and is encouraging fans to download, remake and post their own version to the YouTube group, which “the band would love to see”.

Kudos to the “video’s” production team and to Radiohead’s front man, Thom Yorke, for once again pushing the envelope and as he says himself: “using technology in a way it wasn’t meant to be used.”

Check out the making of the video here.

“First, I got a bit put off by receiving the money because to me, that kind of arbitrary hand-out of alms is a ridiculous system. Then I thought, why not see it as an opportunity and earmark the money for something creative. And since the money came from piracy, I had to use it for more piracy, right?”

So he created a new album, fully funded by the tax, by using other people’s music and putting it through some old effects boxes he acquired. In turn, the end result is what some might call a pirated mash-up album, fully funded by an anti piracy tax. I’m sure not everyone would agree with his approach, but one (or at least I) have to love the mindset he took to get there:

“To me, ‘Frauds’ is a statement. There’s so much negativity in the debate. ‘File sharing means artists can’t…’, ‘File sharing means nobody will ever…’ I think it’s the opposite, I think the beautiful aspect of the digital era is that anything recorded can be remixed, tweaked and modified.”

Such issues of timing and prediction underlie Paul Krugman’s excellent Op-Ed piece in the NY Times called “Bits, Bands, and Books”. He opens by quickly recapping the technology bubble of the late 1990s, the inevitable collapse, and then jumps to the recent oil and food shocks that have reminded us we still live in a “material world.” But it’s what he says next that is most important:

So much, then, for the digital revolution? Not so fast. The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

The particular part of the “future” he focuses on is a prediction credited to Esther Dyson – that the ease at which digital content can be copied and disseminated would result in “creative activity” been sold cheaply, or given away, in order to allow the creator to be paid via services and relationships. Krugman goes on to highlight a few recent stories and examples where creative product markets are heading further in this direction. Rolling Stone’s recent article “Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs don’t sell” is indicative of how the music industry continues to slowly march towards alternative business models, and Amazon’s new e-Book machine (Amazon Kindle) may just be pointing to the book publishing industry having to go through a similar transition soon.

Krugman wraps up the article with the following, which is worth thinking about for a few minutes:

“Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.”

While I agree wholeheartedly, I do think some of the positives here should be reemphasized. Take, for example, the music industry – without a doubt it has been facing a lot of challenges. But if you happen to know many musicians (or take a few seconds to Google the topic), it is not hard to find out that they have generally received a very, very, very small percentage of the revenue they have generated – a buck or two per CD is not uncommon. That is the legacy business model we’re talking about here, and many authors can similarly let you know that writing books is a very hard way to make an easy living. As the cost of production and distribution for digital content trends towards zero, there’s a very real chance that the business and economic models which emerge will allow the creators of content to earn as much or more than ever before, even while prices paid by customers plummet. There are a lot of winners in that scenario… though some of the people caught in the middle aren’t going to like it.

All of this makes it fitting that the band chose to not only release their latest music video on YouTube, but also to make YouTube an integral part of the video itself. There is an excellent post by Nicholas Carlson that lists and links to all of the now famous YouTubers that appear in the video. Take a minute to watch the music video which is posted below and see how many of the ‘stars’ you spot.

There are, count’em, 21 YouTube cameos in the video, for those of you scoring at home

1. One man band
2. Numa Numa Guy
3. Dramatic Gopher
4. How the Dramatic Prairie Dog was Born
5. Afro Ninga
6. GI Joe Gay, Guinness World Record for most T-Shirts worn at one time
7. Chris Crocker (aka LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!)
8. All Your Base Are Belong To Us
9. Miss Teen USA 2007 – South Carolina answers a question
10. Star Wars Kid
11. Crank That Soldier Boy
12. Evolution of Dance
13. “Chocolate Rain” Original Song by Tay Zonday
14. K-Fed Popozao
15. Daft Hands – Technologic
16. Daft Bodies – Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger
17. Shoes the Full Version
18. Charlie the Unicorn
19. It’s Peanut Butter Jelly Time!!!

And in the product placement category …

1. Will it blend
2. Diet Coke & Mentos Experiments

The thing is for most of the people/videos I have listed above, this wasn’t the first time they have been pulled into so called ‘mainstream’ media. In fact for most of the YouTube stars you will find a number of talk show, sitcom and news appearances. You only need to check out Tay Zonday aka ‘Chocolate Rain’ to find other links to appearance on South Park, Jimmy Kimmel Live, or even a promotional spot for Dr. Peppers new Cherry Chocolate beverage.

The question now becomes what defines a celebrity or ‘media personality’? A line that I would say is increasingly dwindling away. I hate to use this example and will not link to him, but Perez Hilton has gone from the blogosphere, to YouTube, to mainstream media. I would even argue that it is more that mainstream media is being redefined than internet stars are infiltrating it. The shift to digital content means that channels are becoming homogeneous, only differentiated by medium (print, audio and video) and the end-users device. Video content is available has been traditionally thought of as Movies and Television, but in this digital age how are they any different from YouTube? It will be interesting to see how this plays out as Television, Movies and online media continue to converge. Will video be able to make the transition smoother than the music industry? Perhaps the fact the both have add based business models will make it easier?

 NEW YORK – Comcast Corp., which is under federal investigation for blocking some file-sharing traffic, is investing in a startup that delivers high-definition video using file-sharing techniques.

Seattle-based GridNetworks on Monday said that Comcast would make an unspecified investment in the company and collaborate on developing so-called peer-to-peer file-sharing techniques that are “friendly” to Internet service providers.

The article also states that Comcast plans to stop all bandwidth shaping (usually in the form of slowing down peer to peer traffic) by the end of the year, certainly a good step if they want any of their customers to use the GridNetworks service.

This move is yet another following an all to familiar pattern: companies resist the way technology is being used, then throw their hat in the ring completely ignoring the solutions that already exist, instead suggesting (what for many people is) a superfluous alternative (Napster vs. iTunes, YouTube vs. ComedyCentral Streaming, ThePirateBay vs. NetFlix).

The internet has already developed an extremely efficient way (pdf) for content to make its way into every nook and cranny using existing infrastructure. Rather than imposing new structures that require investment of time and energy by companies, why not play it hands off and instead add on a flat rate media fee to all broadband subscribers?

I recognize that this flat rate fee for content is not a new idea, but there are plenty of consumers that invest great amounts of their time and energy into disseminating content all over the internet, they organize and categorize it, and ensure its quality, and they do it all for free! Isn’t this pretty near the ideal situation? The only thing that’s missing is fair compensation.

Instead of applying band-aid solutions to healthy skin, a more practical approach would seem to be ensuring that content creators are fairly compensated. Why not put energy into systems that measure and track the content flowing through existing file sharing ecosystems, so that when a flat rate fee for content is added to everyones’  broadband, we know how best to divvy up the pie?

In his book Out of Control, Kevin Kelly puts forth one idea (among many!) that has stayed with me: when you’re dealing with complex networks, if you want them to thrive, sometimes you have to give up some control.

It would be great to see big content companies and ISPs embrace this idea, and just let their consumers take over, and do, and watch, what they love.

In the latest coup in the industry, Reznor’s newest album, “The Slip”, is being distributed on the band’s website for free and without any method for payment. (Also under Creative Commons License) The simple message on the website says “thank you for your continued and loyal support over the years – this one’s on me.”

Although this might seem like an exercise in altruism, Reznor is also a shrewd businessman. While the band may take a hit on record sales, its upcoming 26 concert tour will give them an opportunity to make up the revenue. This may be the ultimate test of the “free” model for music, especially for big bands. If Reznor comes out on top, many others will surely follow as soon as their recording contracts expire.

I resisted playing the game for a couple of days as I knew I would get pulled in, but once I cracked, boy did I have fun.  While I’ve only played for a cumulative three or 4 hours, I have had a blast doing so.  Being the ”hero” I knew I would be (sarcasm noted), after defeating Lou, the boss on Easy, I was ready to move on to the next bigger and better challenge, which I my case was Rock Band. 

I had played the popular Harmonix game at a friend’s house on PS3 and was blown away when mid-way through a song, a friend suggested they wanted to hear an Oasis song, and lo and behold, to my astonishment, the owner of the game grabbed the PS controller, went online and purchased “The Oasis Pack” and within minutes, we were butchering the popular cover Wonderwall.

I was blown away by the level of interaction and immediate customization that Harmonix had built into the game (which has lead to six-times platinum sales from songs sold through the game since its release in November) and I couldn’t wait to go through the same madness of waiting weeks to finally get my hands on a Wii version of Rock Band, which had yet to be released.

That was until today – when Harmonix revealed that they would be releasing Rock Band for Wii on June 22nd, without it’s greatest feature – the ability to download your own tracks to deepen and customize your gaming experience.

I echo the statements of many on the blogosphere today in saying that as geeky as it sounds, my excitement to wait in line for Rock Band has been crushed by the breaking news.  Forums on the press release on the game’s site have been closed for comment, but the deluge of feedback ensues on numerous other sites. . .and much of it seems to point to the feeling that Harmonix has just taken a huge step in the wrong direction, back to static-content video games 1.0.

Any aspiring “heroes” out there with an opinion?

This story also carries two important side notes:

1. I am very impressed by the ability for games like GH to bridge the generational gap and make games a family experience, as I witnessed both parents (who would definitely otherwise never play video games) and their children, my mom and I included, playing GH together this weekend and having a blast.

2. I find it harder and harder to sympathize with an industry that is “in decline” while now selling millions of songs through previously unheard of and impossible revenue streams.  Bravo to the innovators of these games who have unlocked an entirely new market!

Alright, so the title is an obvious exaggeration, but it raises an interesting question – How much would you pay for an iPod or iPhone with unlimited access to the entire iTunes catalogue? That seems to be one of the questions being kicked around by our Cupertino, CA friends these days. In an effort to beat (or at least match) Nokia’s launch of their “comes with music” line of mobile devices, Apple appears to be in negotiations to deliver a line of premium iPod and/or iPhones that would be bundled with unlimited access to all available iTunes music.

This would be in contrast to the traditional subscription model that sees users pay $7-$8/month for similar type access. (With the privilege of keeping 40 – 50 songs in perpetuity, even after your subscription agreement has expired.) I, for one, am very excited about the premium offering, be it from Nokia or Apple, and I find it encouraging to see this kind of all-you-can-hear (legal) buffet-style approach to music purchase.

While I have recently reverted to purchasing certain albums that I want to experience, not just own the tracks, on vinyl, the all-you-can-hear approach would be exactly what I am looking for to supplement my regular music consumption, which would continue to include discs and vinyl as far as I can predict. Just looking at my iTunes purchased music right now, I see that I have spent nearly half of the proposed $100 premium on what I would classify as impulse purchases, and I have still managed to keep up with my hard media music purchasing.

This brings up an interesting question of whether unlimited iTunes or Nokia-delivered access would supplement or fully replace users’ typical music purchases.

Platforms such as ourtunes and the newly-emerging mojo have managed to capitalize on the iTunes sharing feature, with relative popularity, to allow for multiple users to share (read: steal) music using a direct network or Internet connection.

Should distributors of digital music recognize the behaviour and attempt to at least “control” the behaviour and make some money from ubiquitous access in the meantime?

SeeqPod is a fantastic music flash-based site that works as a search engine. Users can search to find mp3 files that are hosted on other people’s sites. It links to content as Google would, although it does allow users to play the content from their site, but ultimately they never host any of the content. Although I’m not always the biggest proponent of Flash due to its proprietary nature, it is instances such as this that demonstrate the situational applicability of the software. But I digress.

The nature of this site, however, hasn’t stopped Warner Music from suing the “playable search” company. You can view a PDF of Warner’s complaint against SeeqPod here. SeeqPod claims its music search technology is legal because it doesn’t actually host any files. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has a provision that protects search engines from charges of infringement when they return potentially infringing results.

Once again, the music companies have it all wrong. Why is it wrong for people to sample music before buying it? If anything, sites like this can help the music industry by allowing people to check out new bands or DJ’s. Besides, if people really want to steal music, they’re going to. It must be of one’s own volition. Due to the software used to create the site, SeeqPod doesn’t actually enable people to steal music.

Just yesterday at SXSW, SeeqPod announced the introduction of its HollaWalla music wall widget. The new widget allows fans, bloggers, events producers, bands, and labels anywhere to search for audio results, build a playlist and share it with friends or fans via email, a social network profile, any blog or website. Developed in-house, the widget enables people to make comments on each “Holla” (search result) on the “Walla” (playlist), adding a dimension of personalization throught interactive, real-time conversation within the HollaWalla application. Another great move by SeeqPod.

You can even check out their API here.

Reznor’s most recent industry-leading coup came just over a week ago and should serve as a lesson for the rest of his troubled and not-so-forward-looking colleagues. Amid little fanfare and, and even coming as an utter surprise to many fans, Nine Inch Nails released a brand new collection of tracks last Sunday, setting the blogosphere ablaze. The collection, which was available exclusively online, featured five tiered versions of content that were priced according to the level of content the buyer wished to receive. Prices ranged from $0 all the way up to $300 and for those who say music spending is a thing of the past – listen up.

The fastest-selling part of this collection was the $300 ultimate collection, whose 2,500 copies sold out almost immediately and left many fans (myself included) kicking themselves for missing the boat.For those mathematicians out there, you’ll already know that sales of the ultimate collection brought in a whopping ¾ of a million dollars in record time.

The most impressive part, though, is that Reznor, notorious for his dislike (read: disdain) of record labels, released the collection independently and under a creative commons license. Without a label’s hand in his pocket, Reznor will pocket much of these funds and he will be handsomely rewarded for his efforts. Stay tuned for more Reznor-logic.

What surprises me, is that it needs to be said at all. Is there anyone anywhere who doesn’t understand what kind of trouble the old music industry model is experiencing. There’s more print and and bandwith devoted to the topic of its slow death every day than Gutenberg could have imagined in his wildest dreams  and yes, I can see the irony in writing that in a piece on the same topic.

Here’s just one example of the what I’m getting at. Last year 48% of U.S. teenagers did not buy a single cd – a ten per cent increase over 2006.  One estimate puts the ratio of illegal to legal downloading at 20 to 1. Clearly, it’s time to re-think things.

Cohen suggests a solution. He says that instead of wallowing in their desperation, the industry needs to be to be “wildly creative” and look a new models of doing business. I have a wildly creative suggestion. Instead of trying to swim up stream, all the time, the music industry could try getting with the program. Do I have a concrete solution? No. But there are success stories that the industry can look to for starters.

The success of Radiohead’s pay-what-you-want album is just one example of the music industry trying to drag itself into the 21st century. The digital market is only going to grow as legal downloads occupy an increasingly important and sizable component of revenue. It’s time the music industry took these fringe ideas and ran with them instead of trying to prop up a failing business model.

The music industry has got energy to spare. One needs only to look as far as the RIAA’s “energetic” pursuit of filesharers to see that. Maybe it’s time that the industry took a little bit of that energy and put it to use doing a better job of how to figure out how to do a better job.

Piracy is so rampant in China, that it doesn’t make sense to waste energy, time and money fighting the inevitable. Nowadays, entire artist discographies can be downloaded on different technologies, such as torrents (let’s face it, record companies are fighting a losing battle). As described in a recent article on the BBC website, new revenue models are emerging that are less reliant on revenues generated by record sales and in many cases these models can be more lucrative than old models, with less work. Chinese artists are increasingly relying on commercial gigs to make most of their income, resulting in a mutually beneficial relationship for sponsoring companies as well as artists. Where one Chinese artist used to make $2000 a month from music royalties and live shows in the UK, she made almost double that amount by singing one song at a commercial show. The company benefits by being associated with ‘cool, hip’ artists, while the artist benefits from the increased exposure and opportunities to perform for fans; especially given the difficulty scoring TV and radio time.

When did it become a good idea to force-feed an unfit business model down consumers’ throats? Especially since today’s customers are the most sophisticated customers in the history of consumerism; for all the different measures companies develop to stop the sharing and so-called ‘undesirable’ behaviour, there are armies of ‘hackers’ out there looking to crack these codes. Stop fighting it, accept your fate, and start looking for new ways to make money. Change is scary, but it isn’t always a bad thing. I think it’s time for a change.

GCBC is a insightful documentary about copyright and culture in the context of Internet, and is directed by independent Danish directors Andreas Johnsen, Ralf Christensen, and Henrik Moltke. The film goes around the world, showing the changing attitudes toward art and culture in Nigeria, Sweden, Brazil, the UK, and in the US. It features interviews with many people with various perspectives on copyright, including copyright lawyers such as Lawrence Lessig from Creative Commons, Tiamo and Anakata from The Pirate Bay, music producers, and controversial music artists such as Girl Talk and Danger Mouse who, as we all know, created the Grey Album by mixing The Beatles’ White Album with Jay-Z’s Black Album.

Even MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) CEO Dan Glickman makes an appearance. He briefly comments on the MPAA’s involvement with the raid on The Pirate Bay. Glickman states that although he knows piracy will never be stopped, they will try to make it as difficult and tedious as possible.

Amongst the most interesting segments include a trip to Russia to look at the rampant bootlegging that occurs there, the perspectives of the Nigerian film industry and the Techno Brega musical movement in Brazil, which has been using a business model for years that was originally considered to be pioneered by The Pixies, Metallica, and Phish back in 2004.

What becomes obvious progressively throughout the film is the death of the current business models used by the record industry and the lack of control which is becoming more prevalent in the current consumerist climate. The old vanguards are fighting to retain their revenue while people are endlessly re-using and recycling copyrighted material in order to create new art-forms.

I would highly recommend this light-hearted and neutral account of the current state of copyright to anyone. The link to download GCBC can be found here. Feel free to donate something to the makers of the documentary if you enjoy watching it.

A couple of items piqued my interest this week. This article describes how, for the first time, weekly album sales have fallen below 7 million and the #1 album by Alicia Keys has the second lowest sales for a top album in history. If I moved next week to Pitcairn Island, I might well be the best hockey player in town. Doesn’t mean that I have a decent wrist shot.

A more distressing article appeared in the Economist (and received wide play on the blogosphere) that discussed how free CDs do not appear to be a good enought deal. From the article:

… EMI, the world’s fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. “That was the moment we realised the game was completely up,” says a person who was there.

Technology and old business models have collided and by most accounts the media giants have responded poorly. In many cases still refusing to accept that the world is changing and business models needs to change and adapt along with it. Does this mean we should ignore copyright and condone piracy, no, but it doesn’t mean that we should continue down the path we have been on either.

Unfortunately over the past decade the same companies that want you to purchase their products have been treating their customers like the enemy. It is to the point that you can’t escape it, I mean before you watch a movie at the theater you are reminded that downloading movies is illegal. The message to the ‘valued customer’ “Thanks for coming to and paying 14 dollars to watch our new film, but we know that you might steal it in the future and that your a thief, now sit back and get ready for our feature presentation”. It is this type of behavior and confrontational attitude that has shaped the opinion of the largest consumer generation in history.

Last month the founders of the Pirate Bay, a large torrent search site based out of Sweden, were interviewed by the BBC. You can read the entire article here, and I have pulled out a few quotes that outline the logic and justification that some people use to justify piracy.

As a generation we notice that the business model for media is changing, at least when it come to corporate sponsorship and product placement. “Take the latest Bond movie. What car was it? Oh, it’s a BMW. His phone is a Sony Ericsson. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I think they got a load of money for having those products in the movie”.

Peter Sunde also points out that for this generation there is a justification for piracy, they feel like while the do pirate some things the also contribute their share to these companies. “I still go to the movies, I still spend money on the movies. Everybody does it so everybody wants to download movies. The public opinion is it should be legal. He has a similar logic when it comes to music, “I do pay for it by listening to music, by bringing the music to my friends, they bring it to their friends and they go to concerts, I go to concerts,” he says. “The actual product doesn’t have to cost anything in order to make money.”

As member of the Net Generation I can attest to the fact that there seems to be an informal hierarchy of piracy that has developed and some actions are deemed ‘worse’ than others. The generation seems to rationalize piracy in terms of the time, effort and perceived ‘illegal nature’ of the activity. Below I have listed some of the most commonly pirated media in order of what is considered socially ‘acceptable’ copyright infringement to what N-Geners see as outright piracy. (For fun I also tried to come up with what would be the ‘perceived’ criminal equivalent Net Generation members would associate with each of the activities)

TV Shows-
Perceived Criminal Equivalent – A Little White Lie
Rationale – I have already paid for it
- Time shifting and TiVo lead this generation to find little wrong with downloading their favorite TV show. Personally I love watching The Office, but the problem is that I am very rarely home at 9pm on Thursday night. I already pay for cable and have access to the show, I just prefer to watch the show at a time that is more convenient to me (U.S. viewers can watch it free online).

Computer Software
Perceived Criminal Equivalent – An ill intentioned IOU
Rationale – It’s to expensive and I will pay for it later (when I actually have an income)
- Outside of the OEM software that comes installed on their laptops the reality is that students tend to pirate a lot of computer software, mainly because they can’t afford to spend $500 on MS Office or Adobe Photoshop. When they enter into the workplace they continue to use the programs they have become accustom to, but the idea is that now they are paying customers. Sort of like borrowing money from a friend that you know you can’t pay back right away, but some day you plan to set it right.

Music
Perceived Criminal Equivalent – Under age smoking or drinking
Rationale – I support my favorite artists by going to concerts, I only download what I would have never bought before and the music industry really just doesn’t get it
- This is something that most young people know is illegal and they will eventually grow out of, but there is still a lot of bitterness and resentment against the system. Exhibit A – Sony has just launched a new DRM free downloading service. To download the 37 DRM free albums users have to first go to a Sony store and buy a scratch card with a code on it, then go home and use that code to access the site and then finally you can download the music you wanted in the first place. I mean what could be simpler. Wait, why not just pay online and download directly over a high-speed connection?

Movies
Perceived Criminal Equivalent – Vandalism of an abandon warehouse
Rationale – I still go to the movies or I only download movies I would never pay to see
- Movies rank higher in the piracy hierarchy for two reasons. First it takes a concerted effort and time to download a movie (the files are huge). Second, unlike music which N-Geners support through going to concerts, after you download a movie you are not likley to rent it or watch it in a theatre.

Video Games
Perceived Criminal Equivalent – Shoplifting
Rationale – I don’t want to pay for it and I know how to get away with stealing it
- Pirating games for video game systems (Nintendo, XBox or Playstation) is at the top of the list. It not only involves a blatant disregard for digital copyright laws, but users have to physically alter their machines in order for the games to work. While they do by the system from the company, they don’t spend another dime on the game revenue and there is very little incentive to spend 60 dollars to buy a game that you already own.

This post is not meant to condone piracy or peg Net Generation members as hooligans who have no respect for intellectual property, but rather to shed light on some of the less discussed issues around piracy in a light hearted manor.

I look forward to the discussion the will hopefully follow.

Ok, I admit that it is arguable whether or not his song actually deserves the amount of popularity that it has (it isn’t exactly a masterpiece) but he has managed to shoot into relative superstardom among his target audience and has kids/teens/young adults singing and dancing to his song around the world.

Now – I mention dancing, but Soulja Boy fans know that you don’t just ‘shake your booty’ so to speak to this song, because EVERYONE knows that there’s a dance to it. Yes, you read that right, there’s a choreographed dance to this song – developed by the Soulja Boy team themselves. The best part – there’s an instructional video of it, on YouTube (posted by Soulja Boy), where you see Soulja Boy and his crew speaking directly to you, and teaching you how to do their dance. Why don’t more artists do this? It’s fun (depending on who you talk to), it definitely is engaging, and pretty cool when the song comes on in a club and everyone starts doing the dance. This video happens to be one of the most viewed videos on YouTube of all time with 24,087,136 views (24th most viewed to be exact).
The actual music video for ‘Crank that’, also posted by Soulja Boy himself, has done even better with an impressive 28,467,055 views – the 16th most viewed video of all time on YouTube – I’d say that’s pretty impressive.

So how have they managed to become so successful? Soulja Boy has his own YouTube Channel where they not only post the latest clips from their concerts or their newest music video – they also provide a healthy list of different mashups created by regular N-Geners or other artists. Soulja Boy gets it. They understand that the youth today like to customize, make things their own and remix – and they have experienced great success in allowing their fans to do so. Some of these mashups that have also done incredibly well include: a Travis Barker remix (drummer from Blink 182) with 8,753,679 views, a SpongeBob square pants remix with 22,337,817 views, and even a group of young ballet students doing the dance with 1,084,783 views.

* note: the screen shot I took of these mashups were from a bit less than a month ago, so the view count as you can see has gone up a couple million in that time*

So for your viewing pleasure, here is our – New Paradigm created (credit: Derek Pokora) – mashup of mashups… enjoy.

It’s no surprise that the industry is slowly changing. One of the most promising developments is the move towards selling DRM-free music. The last major label, Sony BMG, made the announcement today. Although Sony’s motives are far from enlightened, mostly fear of Apple and the need to match the other three major labels, this means good news for JT fans who will be able to get his songs on Amazon. This more open approach is definitely not the cure for all the industry’s woes, however, it’s a first step in admitting that the customer is and should be in control.

The music labels have a chance to turn things around in a positive way as Apple continues to control the vital iTunes – iPod link. It is conceivable that some company, say Microsoft, comes out with a cooler player than the iPod, and consumers will demand an alternative to iTunes. Assuming that Apple holds on to its DRM (there were hints that it may not) an alternative will have to emerge. Many labels, with the notable exception of EMI, have thrown their weight behind Amazon. With online sales expected to continue growing – they increased by 45% in 2007 – it will be interesting to see if the music industry is able to create a truly open distribution model for digital music in 2008. As for CDs, it seems that their era is quickly drawing to a close.