Go to Pirate Bay and search your band’s name.

• Zero search results = Basically you don’t exist.
• Torrent(s) with 50+ seeds = You’re definitely on the right track.
• Torrent(s) with 500+ seeds = Highway to limousines and vodka.

I’m sure by now I’ve already offended someone, but I assure you it’s an oh-so-effective indicator. On Pirate Bay, SE = seeds, LE = leechers, and both are sortable columns towards the right side of the PB interface. A seed a.k.a. seeder is someone who has the entire torrent. A leecher a.k.a. downloader is someone who has part of it. The more seeders there are, the more exponentially available the torrent becomes. [see BitTorrent Vocabulary.]

The number of seeds and the overall size of the swarm are the most defining metrics. Browse Music (or specific genres) and sort by the number of seeds to see what has the most. In the screenshot below I’ve done it, and as you can see it paints a pretty good picture of what’s hot right now.

Most Popular Music Torrents 2010-12-15 – link

Less than an hour ago when I took this screenshot the #1 music torrent, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West, had 6,993 seeds. Now, minutes later, it has 7,528 seeds. With that many seeders, the downloads are like lightning—approx. <2 minutes for the entire album. For perspective, compare Kanye to the #1 movie torrent, Inception (2010) which right now has over 20,000 seeds. I can’t remember ever seeing a torrent with that many seeds. P2P is anything but dead. The surprise to me here was that Mumford and Sons are the sole rockish act as hot as the mainstream mayhem.

Photo: digital vincent/flickr.

Mr. Owl, How many clicks does it take to get to the rock n’ roll center of a retail mp3?

Let’s find out. A One… A two-HOO…too many!

Mr. Owl just BitTorrented right into your album because it was easier than buying it on iTunes. It took less clicks.

Jay Frank suggested counting “clicks to content.” iTunes and Amazon send you through more than 10 clicks if you don’t already have an account but P2P takes only four clicks on average, he said. Streaming takes one or two. Think YouTube or Google, who nailed it with OneBox—the player that appears in their search results. “Anything more than two clicks and you’re missing out on the majority”, said Frank, “Impress them fast.”

Ariel Hyatt asked NMS attendees to raise their hands if they’ve ever bought their own songs on iTunes. The crowd was split but most hadn’t. She used the analogy of cooking: you wouldn’t serve food to guests without tasting it first, would you?

“Make it easy to buy” said Tony Van Veen. Have “compelling offers” such as package deals or name-your-price, and “take away the fear of buying” with a money-back guarantee. He told the story about an 80s band (I forget the name of the band but please comment if you know it) who recently sold their entire back catalog + their entire future catalog + free entry to any of their shows forever all for $100. For a superfan that’s a compelling deal.

Ripping and Burning > P2P

Eric Garland and Tom Silverman talked about the so-called problem with illegal downloads. If it’s hosted on an upload site like RapidShare, then “there is a place we can bomb”, said Silverman, “but not with P2P.” Research showed that more music is actually ripped/burned than it is shared via P2P.

Bombing the service provider is no solution when “people and their insatiable appetite for free music are the real problem.” –Eric Garland, CEO, BigChampange.

The desire for free music isn’t going away. Don’t blame the consumer. Musicians need to find ways to work free into their strategy. e.g. Free downloads for email addresses. Use free to convert strangers into fans. Tony Van Veen said, “Free music is the way to do it. Aggressively offer free. Do swaps. Use P2P. …Don’t fear free. …Build your list. …Don’t be afraid to steal a good idea and make it your own.”

Collaborative Consumption describes the rapid explosion in traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping redefined through technology and peer communities. (collaborativeconsumption.com)

Short on time? Here’s the ultra-hip 2-min version:

Graphic: VirtualMusictv/Flickr

When it comes to music, value is in the ear of the listener.

Value is always decided by the market. It’s a fundamental economics principle that Universal Music Group and the RIAA can’t seem to grasp—at least based on their latest propaganda initiative against music piracy in the US via Facebook, called Music Rights Now.

The lawsuits may have stopped, but that doesn’t mean the music industry and its trade group the RIAA has toned down its crusade against unsanctioned peer-to-peer file-sharing. Negotiations, label and lobbying sources say, have been underway with Internet service providers for more than a year, as the U.S. music industry is pushing ISPs to follow the leads of many European countries in adopting policies that limit or curtail Web access of those who are deemed as infringing users. Today, Universal Music Group Distribution took its fight online, launching a Facebook page in conjunction with the RIAA to promote the issue. (Universal goes social with ISP campaign | LA Times)

You can’t break nature. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When it comes to music, value is in the ear of the listener—not any record company. Think about this: would you pay $400 for a Big Mac? Of course not. McDonalds knows this and they’ve based their prices to be competitive in the market.

Do we really want the music industry controlling our ISP’s? The group Music Rights Now would be more appropriately named Denying Reality Now. In time the laws will change because the market demands it. Instead of fighting piracy we should be finding ways to legalize/monetize its behavior.
[see An Infinite Freeway For Music Business?]

Human Brain Connections by ethanhein on flickr

Related Posts

• Music Consumption in a 180°—Terry McBride Interviews.
• Musicians—Money Is Not Motivation
• Social Rocks. Mobility Rolls. Music Trends 2009–2010.

With the smartphones coming, and all these apps coming, the music business gets one more kick at the can, and I hope they don’t fight this one, because there’s a huge opportune to grow the business faster than what they’ve ever considered. I think there’s a huge sense of optimism for the first time in about five years that this business can actually grow. –Terry McBride in his 2009 interview with tech reporter Matt Hartley [video above].

Music is becoming more of a service than a product and Terry believes that in these digital times, context trumps content, access trumps ownership, and customer service is as important as ever. P2P filesharing should cease to be an issue as listeners increasingly prefer instant-access streams.

The second interview details the history of the Nettwerk Music Group as a DIY all-in-one company that developed by adapting to meet the needs of musicians and their fans. Towards the end he talks about joint ventures between musicians and non-music brands as being likely in the next five years.

I really think that the paradigm is shifting. I think within the next five years you’re going to have other brands inside the market signing artists. Brands will look at this going, well, we already use music within all of our TV, and radio, and, you know, internet media. Um, why don’t we just sign the artist? –Terry McBride, in his 2008 CMU-Tube interview [video below].

On my previous post, Musicians—Money Is Not Motivation, Dave MacDonald had commented that Terry McBride recently spoke positively about the music industry at TEDxVancouver in November 2009. That video isn’t available yet, but I hope they air it soon on TEDxTalks—I’ll keep you posted.

[homepage thumbnail photo: Flickr/stephen_dyrgas]

Science

In his above TED talk, Daniel Pink makes a strong case relating the science of motivation to creativity and business. The verdict is that money is not a primary motivator for people doing creative work. Sure, it does play a factor today as people need enough money to meet their essential needs. Once those needs are met, money is out of the picture. I look forward to reading his upcoming book, Drive.

Spotify

I felt compelled to deliver the point—money is not an artist’s true motivation—in response to the exorbitant editorial negativity surrounding yesterday’s news of Lady Gaga getting paid $167 for 1+ million Spotify streams. Where I live—in the US—Spotify is not yet available so I have not been able to try the platform. Spotify is a new service and its revenue model is understandably in a shakedown period where they are still determining what works, what data they have, and how they can best leverage that data to generate revenue.

Mr. Ek [Spotify CEO and Founder] revealed how the company has been working on making its advertising as personally tailored to an individual’s tastes as possible. “We have a lot of information about people. We know our users’ age, gender, location and even mood – which figure out by through BPMs [beats per minute],” he explained. Depending on whether a person has listened to lots of fast or slow music, Spotify is trying to make its mood analysis as accurate as possible – so it can serve highly targeted adverts for users to properly engage with—which should in turn, increase the amount it can charge brands to advertise on the platform. Mr. Ek said Spotify was “beginning to figure this stuff out”. (Spotify chief, Daniel Ek, rules out 2009 US launch | Telegraph)

It sounds like Spotify is on track to me. I like the ad-based model and there are many variations to explore. I brainstormed launching an ad-based free music service back in 2007, and I think Spotify is the closest service to what I would have done, but they’ll need to continue to evolve, as do musicians.

Whether it is really relevant to measure the success of Spotify in this way remains to be seen as it is still a service in it’s infancy. Much like Twitter, it is phenomenally successful in terms of usability but is still finding its feet in terms of making money. As it continues to attract users its appeal to advertisers will grow and so too will the financial returns. How this filters down to the individual artist is then probably more of an issue with the labels than with Spotify. (A Ga Ga approach to marketing? | The Naked Pheasant)

Industry

It’s smart business to think years down the road by expanding your fan base even if it doesn’t pay off immediately. I think Lady Gaga and many other artists see that. The long-term benefit of those 1+ million streams is immense, and I think many people are blinded to that fact—such a level of exposure leads to sellout shows and non-music revenue streams. The one thing I dislike about the situation is that the major labels still have major pull and they can afford huge production and marketing investments. But the need for heavy financing is down—thank you, Internet. In today’s connected, music-abundant world why does any one artist get so popular? Is it hard work, affinity, or talent? To me, talent is relative—it’s not what you can build, but rather it’s what you can build with what you have. It’s the Internet Age—indie musicians have the power to take the industry back but they must embrace change and creativity to do it—they must creatively leverage the internet and mobile apps.

The connection from the fan to the band, financially, has been broken. The fan knows that their purchase will hardly help the band, or more precisely that the marginal benefit from their purchase to the band is near zero, so why do it? The cost to the fan is much higher than the marginal benefit to the band, so the fan just torrents the damn song. (Why Music Is Broken – The Artist To Consumer Connection)

P2P rocks—it turned the industry up-side-down letting the label-lords know they had lost control. I see P2P as a massive benefit for musicians. Do they have P2P streaming yet? They will. With all that said, I believe that many music fans are as-motivated-as-ever to pay for music when they know their money is going directly to the artist. Maybe subscription services like Spotify can find a way to work this, or endorsement deals that fans would want to support, into their business model. I think that fans—and people in general—need to feel like they are part of something and they want to feel empowered.

Artwork: jahdakinebrah/flickr.

The fan artwork you see above is a creative visualization of Pink Floyd’s Money. The image squares depict the story of the song lyrics. What motivates you? What do you think motivates music fans?

Listeners: There is music that you can download for free—legally or illegally—and there is music that you can stream for free. The trend is towards streaming. I support bands that are giving their tracks away for free. I’ll even admit it—I’m offended when bands expect me to pay for an mp3 download. Am I completely off base here, or do you agree?

Unlike these records, mp3′s can be easily duplicated and shared for free. We are in a new time and we need new rules. Welcome to the digital revolution.

Bands: Giving downloads away for free is an excellent promotional move. It puts out the message that you care about your fans, and that you want them to hear your music. It is a leader into other revenue streams. I recommend collecting fans’ email addresses in exchange for free downloads. This can be achieved nicely by Bandcamp, which, in my opinion is a super-slick service. Bandcamp enables downloads in multiple hi-res formats, and the platform encourages sharing on social networks. They even offer pay-what-you-want pricing options—the only drawback is that PayPal takes a percentage. [Demo: My Bandcamp Page]

I hope paid download services shift their business models to make the music more “free” for listeners. I think services could generate ad revenue that the artists could share in—in such a way that bands could choose the ads on their pages as to match the right advertisements with the music. I recently commented about Amie Street implementing this idea, but imagine if a mega-service like iTunes could work magic like that.