One of the interesting aspects of the Rethink Music conference back in April was hearing MOG CEO David Hyman and (separately) Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy discuss the present and future of online music subscription services.

MOG is all about access. Outside of the usual holdouts, MOG’s catalog contains just about everything, including most of the releases on our Static Motor imprint. For fans, it makes for an intelligent (Echo Nest-driven) music discovery experience that seamlessly blends the mainstream and the independent. And for Last.fm junkies, one can easily scrobble their MOG plays. For artists, getting your music onto MOG is a cinch. As long as you’re distributed via an indie aggregator (CD Baby in our case) your music will soon pop up on MOG. For fans and artists alike, MOG is an excellent platform. Easy access for all, with top-notch audio quality to boot (and no ads!).

A different business with a very different model, Pandora certainly talks a similar talk, which is why I was struck when Joe Kennedy commented (paraphrasing):

Pandora is all about connecting people to new music.

New music from who?

Back in January, one of our new releases was rejected by Pandora. After successfully getting three releases on the Pandora platform over the last few years, I received the following regarding the new album, Pyramid, by Boston solo artist Kurt von Stetten:

Thank you for your submission to Pandora’s Music Genome Project. We wish we could say otherwise, but we have decided that this submission does not fit our collection needs at this time.

Collection needs?!? It’s new, and it’s good. What else is there?

Meanwhile, around the time of the Rethink Music conference, we had another new release in the Pandora pipeline—Careers in Science by Boston post-poppers The Longwalls. I’d jumped through all the necessary hoops (the process takes months) and was waiting to learn if the Pyramid rejection was just a blip. One day I logged on to Pandora to check my submission status page…:

Thank you for your submission to Pandora’s Music Genome Project. We wish we could say otherwise, but we have decided that this submission does not fit our collection needs at this time.

Collection needs?!? It’s new, and it’s good. What else is there?

Two albums in a row. Groundhog day.

What’s with this “collection needs” stuff?

I sent Pandora a few emails to try and find out.

I asked if Pandora was in the business of “connecting people to new music”, or if it was instead more interested in curating a particular music experience. Given Joe Kennedy’s comment, the name Pandora, and the fact that server space is certainly not an issue, one can easily posit that there should be no such thing as too much new music in the Pandora catalog—no matter what the genre. This is supposed to be about discovery—a Pandora’s box of new music. Warts and all. Yes?

I received the following response from a “listener advocate”:

Hi Brandon,

We have a curated collection and what we choose from independent submissions is entirely based on what we believe the collection needs at the time.

As you may know, our policy is that we don’t discuss submissions. We cannot go into the specific reasons why we make those decisions.

We hate to ever discourage any artist, so please understand that we are only deciding what will work best in the context of Pandora radio stations. If we decided not to include your current record, we hope that you continue to follow your vision, and that you will keep us in mind as you release new material.

Again, thanks so much for your interest, and best of luck to you in all your endeavors!

I ‘d copied Joe Kennedy on the note as well. His response was very much the same:

Brandon:

I’m really sorry to hear that some of the music you submitted was not accepted by our curation team.

We truly do love new music and add ~10,000 new tracks a month to our collection, most of it indie….but we receive at least 3x that number as submissions.

There’s no way to put a positive spin on turning down a submission. We genuinely do want every artist to continue to develop their craft and submit new work to us.

Three things jumped out at me

1
Curated collection: Maybe I was being naive, but I’d never heard the word “curated” used in conjunction with Pandora’s catalog. (Again, isn’t “openness” at the heart of Pandora’s brand story? How can it not be?) Yes, you can curate your own stations—it’s the only way to add variety after all!!—but I didn’t know the collection itself was curated. The word isn’t used once on the Pandora about page nor their Music Genome Project page. There’s plenty of “curation” talk if you dig a little deeper into the site, particularly in the FAQs about the submission process. But it’s clearly not a main message. Why not? They’re sorta talking out of both sides of their mouth, no?

2
We don’t discuss submissions: The catalog is curated, and they won’t talk about submissions. New radio is beginning to feel a bit like old radio.

3
We hate to discourage any artist: They’re a bit self-conscious of this as it came up in a couple other emails we swapped back and forth. It is discouraging. After jumping through the hoops just to get into the approval pipeline.. to then be rejected with no explanation while the CEO sits on stage at Rethink Music waxing on about Pandora connecting people to new music… in a word, discouraging. And to make matters worse, according to their submission FAQ page:

…we do not reconsider submissions once an initial decision has been made.

Ugh.

Why I think this is a problem

Aside from the apparent contradictions between Pandora’s talk and its walk, the real (more subtle) problem is that the Pandora curation team quickly accepted three of our artists’ earlier releases.

And now, the new releases—on another level creatively and with more interesting production values—are deemed “not appropriate” for the collection. And they’re unlikely to ever reconsider these releases.

Why does this matter? By trying to be more exclusive, Pandora is actually undermining its collection by favoring an independent artist’s early work over their later, (presumably) more creatively mature work.

To be clear, I’m not out to clog the Pandora platform with our roster of indies, I just want our roster’s best stuff on the platform! Instead, there’s now an inaccurate picture of our work on the biggest internet radio platform around. And because Pandora doesn’t reconsider submissions, there isn’t a whole lot that can be done to remedy it.

There must be a better, more open, way to manage indie submissions. Otherwise, Pandora may very well become cluttered with early releases by independent bands so anxious to be heard, while their later work is ignored. (Though it can easily, thankfully, flow freely to listeners on Last.Fm, MOG, and the like.)

It’s a blow to the artists, the Pandora catalog, and their listeners. A real lose, lose, lose for music discovery.

I wonder what effect the IPO will have.

I also wonder if we should we have waited and never submitted the early releases? But with such a closed submission process, how were we to have known?

So what’s in a name, anyway?

[Originally posted at 'Round the Square]

I operate in two worlds. By day (and often into early evening) I craft brand-focused communication programs for a variety of mission-driven organizations. By night (and often into early morning) I write, perform and record with a band as part of Boston’s vibrant independent music scene.

There’s always been a synergy between the two, as I often draw on my marketing and branding experiences while managing promotions for my bands. The last year or so, however, I’ve noticed the tables have turned a bit.

Nowadays, however, I find myself bringing my DIY music marketing experiences to bear on my branding projects at Sametz. Music blogs focused on independent artists have become an excellent source for current thinking on building connections in our increasingly noisy, fragmented world.

With limited resources, independent bands must make the most of every opportunity. At the same time, they’re less encumbered by red-tape and drawn-out decision making processes, and more willing to take calculated risks. As a result, musicians and bands are out in front of many mainstream marketers. Consider…

One step beyond…

Bands understand from the get-go that their music effects different people in different ways, and often fulfills a variety of needs beyond the simple “entertainment” a particular genre offers.

Bands purposefully promote the social aspect of their music: the emotions it triggers; its power to inform and educate; its ability to conjure memories; and so on. Businesses should take a similar approach. While they are undoubtedly important, take a step beyond your core value proposition to see what surrounds it. Your constituents aren’t monolithic, after all, and neither are you.

People are people…

Artists have always understood that personal connections drive success. Putting on a great show is important, but it means nothing if you aren’t building personal connections in the process. And playing a show is often the easy part; it’s the time before and after the set spent hanging with the club staff, the sound person, other bands––and the audience––that really makes a difference.

Organizations should follow suit; people aren’t likely to become loyal to your brand unless they have a (positive!) sense of the people behind it.

I want my ____ TV…

Successful bands understand their role as mini-media companies. Via websites, photostreams, Twitter, blogs, video channels and other social media outposts, bands produce a mosaic of content with a particular voice––one that people find valuable and regularly worth tuning in to.

Businesses must understand that on the Web, entertainment and commerce are quickly becoming one and the same. The ability to engage is more important to brand-building and the bottom line than anything you can say about the “speeds and feeds” of your programs, products, or services.

It takes two to make a thing go right…

Bands are always collaborating: sharing audiences, leveraging resources, and cross-pollinating ideas. Whether they’re working with an engineer, a producer, a club owner, or other musicians, artists are constantly moving and existing outside their immediate orbit.

As a result, bands (independent, working bands anyway) rarely become isolated. They are in constant touch with what’s happening creatively around them. Business should look for opportunities to work outside of thier comfort zone; to experience new ideas and new ways of doing business.

Here, there, and everywhere…

Bands have always understood that it’s far better to be discovered by fans than forced upon audiences. When a listener “discovers” a band, they feel a sense of ownership which soon breeds feelings of loyalty and advocacy. By being everywhere it matters to be––from social media sites, to blogs, to internet radio, to soundtracks of all kinds, and beyond––bands strive to be visible enough to “get found.”

Marketers, of course, now call this “inbound marketing”… but bands have been doing it for years.

Looking for cues to help craft your inbound digital marketing strategy? Instead of reading xyz marketing blog, take a few minutes to study how your favorite artist (or the local band you keep hearing about) is using their website as the hub of a broader inbound strategy.

Independent artists aren’t so “starving” anymore. Many are savvy marketers who could teach us a thing or two about communicating effectively in our complex world. And chances are, someone you know or someone within your organization is a working, independent musician.

Learn from them… and then, please, buy a CD.

[Orginally posted at Dysonsound]

For the past few years new media guru Chris Brogan has practiced the “My 3 Words” exercise to guide how he conducts his many efforts in the coming year. The idea is to chose 3 resonant words around which you set goals and develop projects. Given our increasingly over-complicated world, I found this to be a fresh way to plan my year as an indie musician and marketer.

As winter turned to spring I began to realize how perfect this exercise is for the indie musician. We’re bombarded every day with new tools, new platforms, new “best” practices. new opportunities and new challenges. “My 3 Words” is a great way to make sense of it all, providing a means to organize, prioritize, and focus. So, without further adieu, my 3 words for 2010 continue to be…

Content. Network. Equity.

Content

As a musician, and the primary marketer of my band’s endeavors, content is obviously pretty important. While we did release a new EP this spring, there’s so much more that can be done. Given the “arcade” theme of the new EP, we’re busy creating 8-bit, video-game style versions of all 6 songs on the record (here’s the first), and aiming to develop simple “side-scroller”games to match. One of the artists I work with, Kurt von Stetten, is regularly blogging demos and drawings. We also shot a video this past fall. Baby steps for sure, but content is king, and grander (and more experiential) ideas are on the horizon.

Network

All artists need to focus on the different facets of their network: nurturing fans, building connections with like-minded artists, cultivating relationships with tastemakers, and growing a distribution presence are all vital. There’s an in-person and online component to each, and you must be genuine. Having “network” as one of my 3 words serves as a constant reminder that the work starts long before, and continues long after, songs are written and recorded. It also reminds me that we should to seek to give as much as a we might receive (for instance, we often promote other bands via our social media efforts).

Equity

With apologies for the manufacturing metaphor: if content is the “input,” and network is the “machine,” then equity, ideally, is the “output.” As above, equity comes in different flavors. On one hand, making a few dollars back from all the hard work is nice. And indie artists should set basic monetary goals to gauge the resonance of their content and the effectiveness of their network. On the softer side, yet perhaps even more important, are notions of general awareness or (perhaps?) “band equity.” When talking to booking agents around Boston, do I need to constantly explain who we are? Do I need to bug DJs to give our CD a try, or do they give it a spin on their own? Equity helps conversations start at square two rather than square zero. This type of equity matters, and will come long before the coins.

So there you have it, my 3 words for 2010. We’re underway creating new and different content and have a lot of network building to do. If we do it right, we’ll hopefully notice an uptick in equity by the end of year. We have a ways to go, as do many indie artists, but having 3 simple words to guide us makes it all a little less daunting.

What are your 3 words for the year?

[Originally posted at Dysonsound]

I’ve been MIA for a while. Getting a new EP recorded, CDs and vinyl pressed (one-sided white vinyl!), gigs and radio appearances booked, promo packages together– it’s a ton of work as you all know. But I think I’m coming out of the woods a bit and want to get some thoughts down on the exciting re-emergence of patronage via new, arts-focused, micro-funding platforms.

Perhaps best known as a driving force behind the European Renaissance, arts patronage has played a vital role in advancing culture for centuries. And beyond the visual arts, patronage has impacted the work of some of the greatest writers, scientists, and composers we’ve ever known. Nowadays, however, there’s a lot less in the way of direct-to-artist patronage. But since I’ve only taken one art history course, I’ll stop there and leave the history lesson to others.

That said, it’s important to recognize the critical role patronage can play in contemporary culture, and it’s great to see technology providing a means for connecting people and ideas to crowd source micro “gifts” that advance creative endeavors— particularly musical ones.

As a former grant writer (among other things) for a contemporary arts center with a storied live music program, I was routinely dismayed by the difficulty of fundraising for music projects. The simple, yet no less frustrating, rationale was always this: things you can see are more tangible, thus visual art forms are better positioned for fundraising. The ephemeral nature of music typically doesn’t appeal to patrons in the same way. One can’t quite feel ownership over a commissioned piece of music in the same way you can a commissioned painting, and one is easier to display in the foyer. That was the argument anyway.

So why the current momentum in micro-financing music? What’s happening now, I think, is that (a) people still value real, honest music and are becoming increasingly bored by mainstream pop; (b) it’s getting cheaper to produce quality music projects; (c) the 20th century music funding model (i.e. the recording industry) is becoming more irrelevant by the minute; and (d) we’re talking high-volume small gifts. You don’t necessarily need one major donor when a couple hundred small-scale donors will do just fine (and can actually be easier to secure).

Fundraisers will tell you there’s a significant difference in tactics required to secure 200 $25 gifts as opposed to 2 $2,500 gifts. The latter is about cultivating dialogue and stewarding potential (major) donors looking to advance a personal vision. The former is more “transactional,” requires little cultivation, and is more easily scaled. Sure, donors at both levels want a “return,” but the expectations of a transactional donor are much more manageable– making web-based, crowd-sourced, micro-funding a great fit for musicians looking to execute small- to medium-scale projects.

The well known success story of Jill Sobule illustrates this perfectly. Through a special website, Sobule offered “returns” to her patrons that –to varying degrees– allowed people “ways-in” to her project (in much the same way a museum membership program works). It wasn’t about “guilt” or “charity” (as some micro-funding critics have said). For higher-end patrons it was about realizing a dream (I got to sing on Jill’s album!!), while at the smaller gift level being part of something unique and special was enough.

So, my $.02 for musicians out there thinking of trying out a micro-funding platform? If you’re known like Jill Sobule and have a strong fan base (i.e., a strong brand), you can probably raise money for run-of-the-mill projects like CD/vinyl pressing by coming up with “returns” that make it exciting enough for patrons to step up. If you’re not well known, consider something new. What kind of project could you put together that people might find interesting who don’t even know your music? How might you build a compelling art project “around” your music? And how can you frame the project so that it provides ways in for friends and strangers alike?

Either way, let’s try and NOT use these new platforms for business as usual. The truly exciting opportunity they provide is the ability to garner support to try something new, as well as connecting with like-minded people who value the role of music in contemporary culture.

I have a Kickstarter invite burning a whole in my pocket, but I’m taking the time to try and plan a project that people can be a part of– something with different “ways in” for people of varying means. Who knows if it will be a success, but it’s great to have new avenues for pushing the envelope.

Some sites to check out:

http://www.kickstarter.com/
http://www.pledgemusic.com
http://www.sellaband.com/
http://www.thehectorfund.com/
http://www.society6.com/
http://microfundo.com/

[Originally posted at Dysonsound]

It’s been a hectic fall. I attended my first Musicians for Music 2.0 meet-up, found my way to Music Hack Day Boston, tapped into some super smart brains on Twitter, started writing about what I was seeing and hearing, and read seemingly a dozen articles a day on the business of music for about 4 weeks straight.

And all the while I’ve been hard at work on the new Longwalls EP; recording, mixing, and wondering… wondering what the hell we were doing! Everything I was reading and hearing was having a real-time impact on what I thought about promotion, distribution, making “records,” managing a little label, and being in a band. It got pretty overwhelming at times and a fair amount of sleep was lost. But as I get ready to finally unplug for a week, I realize all the thinking has lead to a bit of clarity. Some things I’m thinking about heading into a new decade of music making…

Continue reading at Dysonsound >>

[Originally posted at Dysonsound]

“It’s hard to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.”

I’ve been thinking about that quote all week. I forget exactly where I heard it, but it’s been stuck in my head ever since last weekend’s Music Hack Day in Boston. The event brought hackers together from every corner of the globe to develop new music applications to advance the future of music. And amidst all the hacking, music’s future and past briefly clashed, making for some compelling moments during the Sunday afternoon panel discussions.

On the panels were purveyors of the now, including representatives from Last.fm, The Echo Nest, Music Power Network, Harmonix, and Songkick––all sharing ideas on new models for music business, discovery, taste-making, and more. And In the audience, among all the hacking hackers, was a gentleman with an impressive music business background that included radio promotion on behalf of labels to get songs on the air and CDs into shopping carts (the kind with wheels).

At one point, the gentleman in the audience commented that the proliferation of music taste-making and discovery was making it nearly impossible to break an artist BIG––like Bruce Springsteen big. It’s too fragmented in his opinion and he’d prefer a more singular pipeline of music discovery and taste-making. An hour later in the Future of Music panel he once again took the mic and asked the panel, “So, what bands have you broke?” He reiterated his earlier point that the proliferation of discovery and taste-making was undermining the infrastructure needed to break big-time artists. He told the panel, “You can’t make a Radiohead!”

You know what? He might be right.
And you know what? Fine.

And that’s the part this gentleman didn’t seem to get.

I found it a little funny that he used the words “break” and “broke” when it came to labels and artists. Yes, I know what he meant, but it’s important to note that for every platinum Bruce Springsteen record there’s a multitude of records that are under-promoted and ignored because the labels are focused on their shrinking portfolio of million sellers. This leads to artists more or less dead on the vine, trapped in contracts owing money as well as music the label has little interest in promoting. So yeah, nothing breaks a band quite like the traditional “Big 6″ (5, 4, 3, 2..) record label pipeline. Steve Albini’s classic The Problem with Music rant addresses this much better than I can. If you haven’t read it, do so. Some of the details are a bit dated but the math is still enough to make one’s head spin.

Regarding the “you can’t make a Radiohead” comment: Last.fm, The Echo Nest, Harmonix––these companies aren’t really in the business of promoting platinum sales of music encoded onto shiny plastic disks. They’re about building connections among fans and artists. And if an artist blows up huge? Great!! Sure they want to support artists, but I don’t think it’s their mission to make artists (and thereby labels) rich beyond their wildest dreams. And here’s the thing: I think most artists are just fine with this. In my opinion I think the majority of artists would rather have significant control over a medium-sized pie than have zero control of a (potentially) huge pie. Sure, some will gamble and shoot for the stars, more power to them. But if there’s ever going to be a music “middle class,” its backbone will be made up of artists managing sustainable, medium-scale careers. In sum, it’s wrong to criticize these new music businesses for not doing what labels can do when more and more artists simply don’t want what labels can do.

I’d like to stress that I’m not aiming to bash this gentleman. He’s obviously incredibly passionate about music and cared enough to attend an event where he must have known many would see him as the “enemy.” And to his credit he even called out the record companies for being “really stupid” in the way they’ve handled their business.

My point is this: the future of music is now largely in the hands of the fans. And those fans who develop “cred” are the new taste-makers. I think this is a good thing. Fans and taste-makers have the power to help make an artist popular and can put money in their pocket, but they do not have the power to trap and bankrupt a career. An artist’s career, and the level of success they achieve, is ultimately up to how well they the artist build a sustainable business around music that creates fans.

Major labels and a single pipeline of discovery have little to no significance in this formula. But if your paycheck depends on the older model, maybe it’s just really hard for that to sink in.

Lots of comments on this one, head on over to Dysonsound to check ‘em out >>