Future Of Music

"The growing distance between the music industry and its consumer is due to a number of factors," said analyst Justin De Santis in a report, released by Mintel International Group Ltd., reporting that it
isn’t just file-sharing that’s killing music sales, but the actions of
the industry itself. "These include lawsuits against individual consumers, payola practices, and, most recently, restrictive digital rights management," he warned. The analyst group predicts that US-based music retail sales will shrink to $10.5 billion by 2010, from $12.5 billion in 2005. While legitimate digital music outlets such as the iTunes Music Store have helped to slow overall sales declines, the analysts note that a broad sector of music consumers are not being satisfied.

"While illegal downloading has hurt the industry, big labels have relied on obsolete strategies for over a decade, and have been late in exploiting emerging technologies," says the research firm. They report that in contrast to the criticism against major label approaches, at least one music industry sector is gaining momentum. "The bond between independent artists and their fans has become stronger," Mintel observes. "The current renaissance of underground media has further driven the consumer away from major labels," De Santis said.

P2P SUITS MAKE NO SENSE FOR MUSIC BUSINESS

Terry McBride, CEO of Vancouver-based record label and management company Nettwerk Music Group, offered to pay the legal bills of David Greubel, a Texas father of four who the RIAA has targeted with
a suit for illegal file sharing. McBride contends that the RIAA’s suits against music fans are "killing our future." Here, he explains why.

The passionate message of music is in the magic of the song. The more it is consumed, the more it nourishes. Music is ubiquitous; it is a utility like water. It is not a pair of pants, and as such, we need to stop treating music like a product that needs to be controlled.

My goal and my reasons for agreeing to pay the legal fees of the Greubel family are quite straightforward. The goal is to stop all litigation against music fans; the reasons are as follows:

1. The RIAA has relied on data provided by Pew
Internet & American Life research to claim that the litigation is
working to deter illegal file sharing, stating that broadband Internet
penetration is growing faster than the measurable base of peer-to-peer
file sharers. Consequently, this litigation is forcing the music fans
to use technologies that are not measurable or traceable, such as
instant messaging and BitTorrent. The latter now accounts for more than
60% of Internet traffic, according to slyck.com. So, in fact, we are
not deterring file sharing, just deterring our chances of monetizing it.

2. Millions of Americans, including the majority of
those in the music business, have shared music. This dates back to
mixing one’s own cassette tapes in the ’70s. Breaking the law has never
been about volume. Teenagers today are simply using the technology at
hand, similar to how we did when we were teens.

3. These same file sharers are great music fans and
are breaking new artists with little or no mainstream media support.
For example, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, the Arcade Fire and Sufjan
Stevens—not to mention Arctic Monkeys in the United Kingdom—all can
thank this grass-roots community for the fact that they are selling
hundreds of thousands of albums.

4. The music market is down not because of P2P
"piracy," but for four simple reasons: a) stiff competition for the
entertainment dollar from formats like videogames and movies, both of
which have much larger marketing spends; b) the replacement cycle is
over—digital music does not scratch or wear out like past formats; c)
one now has the ability to purchase and listen only to the great songs
without filler; and d) mass-merchant retailers today carry only the
current hits, with little to no catalog.

The RIAA’s litigation policy has no upside. It is
destroying our ability to monetize the P2P market by chasing music fans
even further underground. It is hypocritical because we have shared
music for decades. It distorts the focus from the real reasons for the
decline in music sales. And, most disturbingly, it undermines the
importance of these file sharers. They represent behavioral marketing
at its best and as such should be embraced, not sued.

Litigation is destructive. We are a creative community
so this approach makes no sense at all. I cannot envision any artist
who I have the privilege of representing suing a fan for sharing his or
her music.

I applaud the efforts of the French Senate to pass a
copyright bill that encompasses all forms of digital distribution,
including P2P, as reported in the Jan. 7 issue of Billboard. Finally,
we have some politicians that have the foresight to see beyond the
powerful lobbies and into the future.

From Billboard.biz

See also previous post on this subject

SFX Entertainment founder Robert Sillerman challenged the business thinking of the traditional recording industry during a recent keynote address at the Billboard Music & Money Symposium Thursday. Sillerman criticized labels and distributors for "ignoring technology and consumer preferences," eventually creating the conditions for file-sharing pioneer Napster to thrive. But years after Napster faced its legal doomsday, Sillerman wondered if the industry had implemented the changes needed to survive. "Did the music business get the message from Napster?" Sillerman wondered, while opening the possibility that labels will ultimately bite the dust. In a dark suggestion, Sillerman quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was once asked how people go bankrupt. "Gradually, then all of a sudden," he responded.

Sillerman established himself in live performance, and those stripes shined brightly during the keynote. "In all cases, there’s more money performing than recording," he said, noting that future artists may create business models that focus on free recordings and paid performances. "Can’t you imagine a millennium-born artist giving away music for free, and selling performances?" Sillerman asked, while reiterating that pre-recorded music will not be a breadwinner moving forward. "The music business does not mean selling recorded music, it means selling music," he said.

Sounds vaguely familiar…

Reported by Digital Music News

SFX Entertainment founder Robert Sillerman challenged the business thinking of the traditional recording industry during a recent keynote address at the Billboard Music & Money Symposium Thursday. Sillerman criticized labels and distributors for "ignoring technology and consumer preferences," eventually creating the conditions for file-sharing pioneer Napster to thrive. But years after Napster faced its legal doomsday, Sillerman wondered if the industry had implemented the changes needed to survive. "Did the music business get the message from Napster?" Sillerman wondered, while opening the possibility that labels will ultimately bite the dust. In a dark suggestion, Sillerman quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was once asked how people go bankrupt. "Gradually, then all of a sudden," he responded.

Sillerman established himself in live performance, and those stripes shined brightly during the keynote. "In all cases, there’s more money performing than recording," he said, noting that future artists may create business models that focus on free recordings and paid performances. "Can’t you imagine a millennium-born artist giving away music for free, and selling performances?" Sillerman asked, while reiterating that pre-recorded music will not be a breadwinner moving forward. "The music business does not mean selling recorded music, it means selling music," he said.

Sounds vaguely familiar…

Reported by Digital Music News