Michael Robertson, former founder of AnywhereCD (http://www.anywherecd.com) put up a rather open blog about the demise of his company. His blog post is here:
http://michaelrobertson.com/
I genuinely feel bad for the guy. It sounds like a harrowing experience. He tried to do something that was not popular and work with some labels that don't understand the new digital world.
My one concern is that he doesn't seem to know why AnywhereCD didn't work out. He lists a few possibilities including:
- Lack of catalog (AnywhereCD only had Warner music on their service)
- Maybe the price for the CD+MP3 bundle was too high (many were over the now common $9.99 per album price that Apple has set as the new standard)
- Maybe nobody cares about CDs anymore (the statistics definitely show this to be true on some level)
- Maybe I didn't give the leading off-line publications enough notice to compete with the bloggers? Maybe the press is Apple-fixated? Maybe I didn't do a good job explaining the system to Warner Music who could have helped to educate a confused press.
No clear answers here. It seems like there is a bigger issue here. If you can go to your local P2P network and download a track (rather easily at this point) for "free" (and people don't seem to care too much about bit rate), then the whole buy the CD and then download the tracks automatically looks a lot less compelling.
Add to this the fact that people are not really interested in purchasing physical CD's anymore. They take up space, expensive, and much less convenient than just downloading the tracks. People do like the content on the CD like the album artwork and lyrics but they aren't willing to pay for the above mentioned hassles for those few things. I hate to say it but I don't think this idea ever really had a chance of being truly mass appeal.
Monday, October 1, 2007
End of AnywhereCD
Monday, September 24, 2007
Radiohead abandons iTunes
It all boils down to one thing, Radiohead won't sell their songs on iTunes until Apple removes the "single track" requirement (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/radiohead-blows.html). The band feels strongly enough about their music being an "album" instead of just a collection of tracks that they are willing to shun the world's most popular online music retailer.
Ever since OK Computer, Radiohead has become increasingly artistic in its approach to making music. Their albums have melded into more of a sum of their parts, than an individual track. It becomes increasingly harder on each album to find a "single" for standard radio play.
And I applaud them for it. 1) Competition for iTunes is a good thing because it's one size fits all approach doesn't fit for a lot of people and greatly limits consumer choice. 2) DRM tracks (I know, some are non-DRM now) restrict what people can do with their music. 3) The fixed pricing is so constrictive that it makes consumers take less chances with their music purchases.
Most bands don't have the clout that Radiohead has to do something like this. Radiohead has such a built in fan base that it can basically go anywhere online that it likes to sell its tracks.
The album is an important concept that should not be lost. Just as you can't listen to only a part of Pink Floyd - "Dark Side of the Moon", artists should have the option to release their music the way they want it to be presented.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The irrelevance of the MTV Video Music Awards
How does this pass for entertainment on any level? This has to be one of the worst (and things can get pretty bad on the VMA's) performances in recorded history. I'd be shocked if Britney can sell records after this disaster.
We can only hope and pray that over the next few years, "artists" like Britney will be ran out on a rail from popular music.
Britney was only one part of another lackluster and frankly, boring VMA. The one idea I liked this year was "The Fantasy Suites" where bands like Foo Fighters played to small intimate crowds with live feeds coming into the show. That was a really cool idea and actually kind of matched the new music environment where things are getting more intimate and live music is much higher on the importance list.
Why doesn't MTV change their name? Music Television? THEY DON'T PLAY MUSIC! Someone needs to take this torch away from MTV. Even MTV's website title says "Music Videos, Reality TV Shows, Celebrity News, Top Stories". Not much about music there and the only videos they are playing are between 1:00am and 4:00am each night. They need to change the order but then again, it may not matter. They're just not that relevant anymore.
End of the blockbuster album
Album sales are about 14% lower than they were at this time last year. But talk around the industry is that many are pinning their hopes on a couple of high profile releases. Kayne West, 50-Cent, and Kenny Chesney are all putting albums out the same week.
Side question: (With the industry struggling so badly, why would a label decide to go up against another top rated artist on the same day? Consumers coming to buy something at the local record store are going to have to choose. Whereas, if these releases were separated by a reasonable amount of time, you may be able to get the same consumer to buy 2 or more of the releases, now you are forcing them to make a choice and probably spend less in the long run.)
But there aren't many blockbusters any more and what's left fails to achieve the sales heights of previous years. For example: The top selling album this year is the self-titled release from Daughtry (former American Idol contestant) which is around 1.9 million right now. That looks to be the clear winner in overall sales for the year (don't count out High School Musical 2 though). But just a year ago, the top release sold 3.2 million copies (High School Musical Sountrack). That is a severe decline.
These high profile releases at the end of the year are going to help a bit (it has been a slow year for big names) but the overall trend is still decidedly heading downward.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Frank Zappa on where music industry went wrong
Very interesting take from the famous Frank Zappa about where the music industry screwed up. Say what you will about Zappa but he has always been very pragmatic about things. Its fun to just watch him talk. I think he's on to something here. Take a look:
The most interesting comment here is how the new "younger and hip" generation of music executives are "more dangerous to the art form" than the old "cigar chomping rich guys" because the young guys think they know what is good.
In some ways, this isn't what you would think Zappa would say given his history of anti-establishment against music as an industry.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Rick Rubin - "subscription only way to save music industry"
Co-Chairman of Colubmia Records, Rick Rubin told the New York Times, "The subscription model is the only way to save the music business. If music is easily available at a price of five or six dollars a month, then nobody will steal it" (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/123852/ipod-will-be-obsolete-says-record-label-boss.html).
He goes on to make the claim that "the iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home."
Can't you just feel the hatred for Apple in these comments?
I hate to break it to Rubin but there are a lot of subscription music services out there right now, none of which are doing very well. Consumers aren't responding well to having to keep purchasing access to their music catalog every month. Neither high profile http://www.napster.com/ or http://www.rhapsody.com/ have made much of a dent in iTunes grip on the industry.
If there were this mystical service, where all labels joined hands with ALL of their respective libraries and extended content AND the service was really just $4.99 a month for total access 24/7, then I think that could have real legs. That is tremendous value for the price but I don't see that even getting close to the meager revenues that labels are getting right now when you calculate the average price of a CD (which contrary to popular belief is selling more than online tracks are selling).
Qtrax - ad supported music site
The 12 to 25 year old demographic is 4 times more likely to visit a P2P site than a legitimate music site online (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/297494/1/.html). We've heard about the ad supported model before with companies like http://www.spiralfrog.com (which still hasn't materialized almost a year after they were supposed to launch.) There is a high degree of doubt about the ad supported model, not so much from the consumer as from the industry. Obviously, there are serious logistics issues as a good portion of the SpiralFrog board and directors including the CEO walked out on the company last January (http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6152241.html).
Qtrax (http://www.qtrax.com) seems to be plunging down the same path. A few interesting things about Qtrax' service:
- Qtrax is a P2P network that allows user to legally download tracks as long as the user watches an advertisement.
- The exact ad placement, times, and ad counts are still being worked out (this could make or break them)
- Songs will have a "play limit".
- You will have to use the "MPQ Player" which is a custom media player created by Qtrax.
- You can get songs in MP3, WMA, and/or MPQ (a custom format created by Qtrax. So as long as you download in MP3, then you can use the tracks on your iPod.
The deal killer is the play limit. You can't limit what people listen to. That renders the rest of the service (with some interesting ideas) almost useless. I'm going to have to see this to believe it. No one has successfully been able to navigate the hostile waters of the record industry with this new ad supported model. If they can manage that channel, this could be an interesting service to watch.
